Support NeoGAF

[Schattenjäger]

Yep, they thrive on bad news for the US. Kind of sad one party wants the worst for everyone so they can "win".

Both parties don't want the other to succeed
<sigh>

 

[BertramCooper]

Yep, they thrive on bad news for the US. Kind of sad one party wants the worst for everyone so they can "win".

Both parties do this.

It always starts off as "We'll work together for America!" but nobody in politics ever wants the opposing party to succeed. That undermines their own party's power.

It's a game.

 

[AgentP]

Both parties don't want the other to succeed
<sigh>

Really? So the dems vowed to make GW Bush a failure and one term president by voting against everything he supported?

Let me see, nope. They crossed the aisle for No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Act, etc. The dems don't play hardball so much. The is no one like The Hammer on the left who would make sure you lost your re-election if you crossed party lines.

 

[Downhome]

This sure was unexpected. I woke up this morning, looked over the news updates on my phone and on my TV, and they were all saying that the numbers were just about to be released and all of them were expecting the numbers to go up a bit. I went to take a shower, and while in there I got an alert on my phone that they went down.

I wonder how many more people dropped out of the workforce this month.

 

[ReBurn]

The unemployment rate is such a loaded metric. Screw politics. I hope the rate is dropping because people are going back to work instead of giving up.

 

[R-User!]

Both parties do this.

It always starts off as "We'll work together for America!" but nobody in politics ever wants the opposing party to succeed. That undermines their own party's power.

It's a game.

Do you ever see that game changing?

 

[Link]

The unemployment rate is such a loaded metric. Screw politics. I hope the rate is dropping because people are going back to work instead of giving up.

It says that's why right in the OP.

 

[sikkinixx]

But TV tells me the REAL jobless rate in the US is 19% and that Obama has created more debt than the first 41 presidents combined.

 

[Schattenjäger]

Really? So the dems vowed to make GW Bush a failure and one term president by voting against everything he supported?

Let me see, nope. They crossed the aisle for No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Act, etc. The dems don't play hardball so much. The is no one like The Hammer on the left who would make sure you lost your re-election if you crossed party lines.

keep drinking that Kool-Aid
Like someone just said, politics is a game that each side tries to win
Whoever wins, we lose!

 

[Kusagari]

keep drinking that Kool-Aid
Like someone just said, politics is a game that each side tries to win
Whoever wins, we lose!

Obviously, but you'll be hard pressed to find an opposing side as obsessed with opposing every single thing the president supports as the Republicans in congress now.

 

[nib95]

This is huge news, but you'd barely notice it was even on Fox News's home page lol. The differences between it and other outlets is pretty amusing, including the language of the article itself lol. Trying real hard not to give credit where it's due. They also seem to think Obama needs this "life-line" after such a disappointing debate lol.

 

[BertramCooper]

Quite interesting statement considering that quite a few European countries are actually doing significantly better in terms of the unemployment rate than the USA. Namely of the Eurozone members these are Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland (just a tad though).

Too bad they're all tied together by one shitty currency.

Do you ever see that game changing?

Not unless we get one or two additional viable political parties.

 

[Kwhit10]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...about-good-jobs-report-kevin-hassett#comments

Think Again about That ‘Good’ Jobs Report
By Kevin A. Hassett
October 5, 2012 9:07 A.M. Comments10
Today’s jobs report is a classic. The report, of course, reveals the results of two surveys, one of households, one of establishments. The professional economists and the press usually emphasize the establishment survey because it is viewed as less volatile. The establishment survey was terrible. The 114,000 number of jobs created on net in September is well below the average for this year (146,000) and the average for last year (153,000). This is wholly consistent with the story that the economy is decelerating sharply as we head into the fall.

The household survey, on the other hand, portrays a September that was booming, far more so than could possibly be true given the other indicators. According to it, the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8 percent, with total employment jumping by a whopping 873,000. I wish it were true, but it will likely be a blip when we have a few more months of data.

Back when President Bush presided over a jobless recovery, the household survey tended to show better news. At the time, every media organization carefully emphasized the establishment numbers, and warned that the household numbers are suspect. That, of course, is what happens when a Republican is in office. For President Obama, you can expect a household survey lovefest. The AP story that went up at 8:33, of course, emphasized the household survey, even adding, “The decline could help Obama, who is coming off a disappointing debate against Mitt Romney.” Get ready for more of the same.

How are these surveys so different?

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Oh, come the fuck on!!!! I should have gotten used to Fox news by now, but they always seem to outdo themselves. That´s one helluva feature.

 

[ReBurn]

It says that's why right in the OP.

I read that, but I'm skeptical that it is just more politicized BS. I'll admit that I'm jaded.

 

[Link]

Fox News anchors stammering all over themselves. I love it.

 

[KHarvey16]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...about-good-jobs-report-kevin-hassett#comments



How are these surveys so different?

It's right in the report:

Why are there two monthly measures of employment?

The household survey and establishment survey both produce sample-based estimates of employment and both have strengths and limitations. The establishment survey employment series has a smaller margin of error on the measurement of month-to-month change than the household survey because of its much larger sample size. An over-the-month employment change of about 100,000 is statistically significant in the establishment survey, while the threshold for a statistically significant change in the household survey is about 400,000. However, the household survey has a more expansive scope than the establishment survey because it includes the self-employed, unpaid family workers, agricultural workers, and private household workers, who are excluded by the establishment survey. The household survey also provides estimates of employment for demographic groups.

 

[Carlisle]

Can't Fox news just be happy that one of the things they've been complaining about for 4 years is starting to show some relief? Some poor Americans are finally getting back to work. Isn't that what it's all about? Oh right...

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

Fox News anchors stammering all over themselves. I love it.

I'm watching. It's pretty funny .

And sad. Saying the people without jobs don't feel it. No shit, lol. The newly hired ones do. So dense.

 

[Hop]

It's right in the report:

And a little bit more specifics, which empty vessel posted earlier:

The numerous conceptual and methodological differences between the household and establishment surveys result in important distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the surveys. Among these are:

--The household survey includes agricultural workers, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household workers among the employed. These groups are excluded from the establishment survey.

--The household survey includes people on unpaid leave among the employed. The establishment survey does not.

--The household survey is limited to workers 16 years of age and older. The establishment survey is not limited by age.

--The household survey has no duplication of individuals, because individuals are counted only once, even if they hold more than one job. In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one job and thus appearing on more than one payroll are counted separately for each appearance.

Source

 

[Wuthering_Heights]

Wow, maybe by 2016 it can be 7.6

Recovery!

 

[Bowdz]

Wow, maybe by 2016 it can be 7.6

Recovery!

 

[Forgotten_Taco]

Wow, maybe by 2016 it can be 7.6

Recovery!

If only the president had put forth some sort on stimulus package for jobs...

 

[Pre]

Wow, maybe by 2016 it can be 7.6

Recovery!

Yeah, pretty much. Also, the way the US calculates unemployment is fucking dumb.

 

[VariantX]

Can't Fox news just be happy that one of the things they've been complaining about for 4 years is starting to show some relief? Some poor Americans are finally getting back to work. Isn't that what it's all about? Oh right...

Not if it makes Democrats look good in any way.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Wow the meltdowns on the gop side after a good jobs report are almost as bad as the dems after the debates. Wonder what that says about our politics :/

 

[Doc Holliday]

Wow, maybe by 2016 it can be 7.6

Recovery!

How is that austerity thing doing in Europe.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I'm still not sure how you guys let Bush in two terms in a row....

There was no election in 2004. We were all on vacation.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...about-good-jobs-report-kevin-hassett#comments



How are these surveys so different?

Beyond the differences between the two surveys, which others have already explained, the household survey is apparently counting 576,000 people who are now working part time. I don't think that's counted in the other survey.

Furthermore, Hassett's point about a slowing recovery doesn't make much sense. This is one jobs report, and it could easily be revised upward, just as the last few months have been. These things also tend to go in cycles. This time last year, only a 100,000 jobs were reported to be added.

 

[Kusagari]

Bush won because the American people will almost always favor the incumbent unless the opposing party has a really good candidate.

John Kerry was not a really good candidate and neither is Mitt Romney.

 

[mernst23]

Not fast enough growth
7.8 is still bad
Obama didn't do anything to fix it
With Romney we'll be at 5% in a year
Numbers are wrong
Numbers are made up
U6 is what's really important
Underemployment
Mcdonald's jobs

Did I miss any?

Edit:
Seasonal work

 

[Zhengi]

And that one ended up being incorrect. Way way more jobs than predicted were added in August.

And the jobless rate is incorrectly represented with the way government gathers their data.

Seems like most of the jobs are temporary jobs due to the increase in hiring for seasonal work before the holidays. Many people are getting whatever they can right now since employers are hiring. It's good that people are finding work, but we really need more jobs that are permanent and give people full time employment.

 

[mavs]

There was no election in 2004. We were all on vacation.

Beyond the differences between the two surveys, which others have already explained, the household survey is apparently counting 576,000 people who are now working part time. I don't think that's counted in the other survey.

Furthermore, Hassett's point about a slowing recovery doesn't make much sense. This is one jobs report, and it could easily be revived upward, just as the last few months have been. These things tend to go in cycles. This time last year, only a 100,000 jobs were reported to be added.

Part time and temporary employment is counted in the payroll survey. They also collect data on the average number of hours worked, which is where the nature of part-time or full-time work would show up.

According to the Economist:

The Bureau of Labour Statistics measures jobs two ways: the well-known payroll survey of employers, and the lesser-known survey of households, which yields the unemployment rate. According to that latter survey, the number of people with jobs skyrocketed by 873,000 in September from August. That is the largest gain since January, 2003. January figures are often distorted by annual revisions to assumptions about the size of the population. You have to go back to 1983 to find a monthly gain this big outside January.

Let's take this with a grain of salt. The household survey numbers are extremely volatile, and September's gain in part merely makes up for two large drops in prior months; reality is somewhere in between.

I think the two large drops they mention are the huge negative numbers in August and July for people leaving the labor force.

And the jobless rate is incorrectly represented with the way government gathers their data.

Seems like most of the jobs are temporary jobs due to the increase in hiring for seasonal work before the holidays. Many people are getting whatever they can right now since employers are hiring. It's good that people are finding work, but we really need more jobs that are permanent and give people full time employment.

These surveys are seasonally adjusted. You can find unadjusted numbers at bls.gov, they don't announce them in the official release for obvious reasons.

 

[Hellsing321]

Not fast enough growth
7.8 is still bad
Obama didn't do anything to fix it
With Romney we'll be at 5% in a year
Numbers are wrong
Numbers are made up
U6 is what's really important
Underemployment
Mcdonald's jobs

Did I miss any?

Edit:
Seasonal work

Numbers are from Obama hiring more Thugocrats to bully pollsters.

 

[equap]

How is that austerity thing doing in Europe.

WAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Punkster_NY]

"U-3 is down, U-5 is down, and U-6 is unchanged. This is a positive report. Which is why Republicans are already claiming the Obama campaign cooked the books."
"these number do not include seasonal hiring, which makes this even better news!"
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

 

[Link]

Not fast enough growth
7.8 is still bad
Obama didn't do anything to fix it
With Romney we'll be at 5% in a year
Numbers are wrong
Numbers are made up
U6 is what's really important
Underemployment
Mcdonald's jobs

Did I miss any?

Edit:
Seasonal work

Fox News just threw out another: Unemployment rate among minorities is higher than four years ago, and they should reevaluate their backing of Obama.

Love you, Fox News.

 

[Cheebo]

And the jobless rate is incorrectly represented with the way government gathers their data.

Seems like most of the jobs are temporary jobs due to the increase in hiring for seasonal work before the holidays. Many people are getting whatever they can right now since employers are hiring. It's good that people are finding work, but we really need more jobs that are permanent and give people full time employment.

Except seasonal hires such as those for holiday seasons are factored out of these numbers.

 

[polyh3dron]

Debates, I lose that.

Elections, I WIN DAT

 

[Forever]

Fox News just threw out another: Unemployment rate among minorities is higher than four years ago, and they should reevaluate their backing of Obama.

Love you, Fox News.

But I thought the numbers were cooked?

God Republican dissonance just slays me.

 

[Extra Sauce]

"Sorry I was sleepy during the debate, I was tired from getting the unemployment rate so low"

 

[Bowdz]

Debates, I lose that.

Elections, I WIN DAT

The news, FOX NEWS SPINS THAT

 

[Volimar]

Negative Nancys in this thread...

 

[Zhengi]

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August
to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because
their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)

Increase in 600,000 people working part time.

 

[polyh3dron]

Numbers are from Obama hiring more Thugocrats to bully pollsters.

Like this Thugocrat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1jv87l1Hw&sns=em

 

[Angry Fork]

USA bouncing back while Europe flounders. Glad someone is doing better.

This is going to keep happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

The unemployment rate is such a loaded metric. Screw politics. I hope the rate is dropping because people are going back to work instead of giving up.

This seems to be the first month in which that actually is the case. Labor force increased, unemployment dropped.

 

[gatti-man]

Underemployment. It's the big elephant in the room. Also, I'd love to see some numbers on how college graduates are doing in this economy. I'm willing to bet the numbers are woeful. I work in an ER and a lot of people in registration that are full time employees are picking up waitressing jobs and other side jobs. I don't think people having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet is a positive thing.

I had to work 2 jobs in 2004 when I graduated from UT of Austin. Which is a higher end school. The idea that a college education guarantees you easy living is a myth. Roll up your sleeves and climb that ladder.

 

[pigeon]

Increase in 600,000 people working part time.

Doesn't make them temporary. That was just a false assertion on your part.

Wow the meltdowns on the gop side after a good jobs report are almost as bad as the dems after the debates. Wonder what that says about our politics :/

Almost as bad? You're going to have to link me to the Dem pundits and talking heads saying that Romney sent thugs to intimidate Jim Lehrer into letting him win the debate.

 

[Zhengi]

Doesn't make them temporary. That was just a false assertion on your part.

I would say that people working there are only there temporarily and want to move up from where they are back to full time. So in a sense, yes, they are temporary.

 

[pigeon]

Here's Noam Scheiber on the numbers:

Finally, the reason that more informed skeptics (i.e., not Jack Welch) are probably surprised by today&#8217;s big drop in the unemployment rate is that, as the economy improves, the rate tends to rise a bit, or at least move sideways for a while, before eventually easing down. That&#8217;s because rising economic optimism encourages people who had dropped out of the labor force, and therefore aren&#8217;t counted in the standard unemployment measure, to get back into the labor force, where they boost the unemployment rate until they find a job. And, indeed, more people did join the labor force last month&#8212;a whopping 418,000, according to the household survey.

So how on earth did the unemployment rate still drop from 8.1 to 7.8 percent? That&#8217;s where the good news comes in. Even though those 418,000 people joined the labor force, which would normally increase the number of unemployed people and therefore the unemployment rate, the economy actually added a jaw-dropping 873,000 jobs, according to the same survey, for a net drop of 456,000 unemployed people. (There are some rounding issues here so the overall math is off by a 1,000 or so.)

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/108209/why-todays-jobs-numbers-are-truly-good-news

I would say that people working there are only there temporarily and want to move up from where they are back to full time. So in a sense, yes, they are temporary.

This is disappointing, because I thought you were a genuine poster who was just wrong, but it turns out you'd rather change the definition of the words you were using than admit that your understanding was incorrect.