Comments on: Fantastic news on jobs A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: youniquelikeme Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:01:01 +0000 PS: I forgot to add, for those who are focusing on the word ‘fantastic, that besides possibly meaning superb or excellent (as most Americans might use it) it also means bizarre, fanciful, strange and unreal…

By: youniquelikeme Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:49:43 +0000 Cute eatabanker, but those who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are the unemployed and it has been that way since 1940.

Those who are pregnant and wishing to stay home for 2 years do not wish to be employed and should not be counted. A man who decides his wife makes a better salary and decides to stay home should not be counted.

Someone who is unemployed but states to the employment census taker he is no longer looking for at least a month is also not considered unemployed, since 1940… not since Obama came into office.

The samplings are just that and are not accurate, but give a fairly good indication of the states unemployment and employment levels.

Sadly Reuters has a lot of GOP faithfuls who who search for anything positive in the jobs market and comment. They wish you to forget that Bush was in office long enough to blow up the economy and thus make Obama responsible for not recovering from Bush’s blowout sale on the middle class whilst coddling the rich.

Cheer-leading is premature as it will take a decade or more to recover.

By: colburn Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:25:30 +0000 Another crummy report. Your cheerleading is premature.

By: VoltairesGripe Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:52:51 +0000 Well done, eatabanker.

By: eatabanker Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:45:37 +0000 Abbott and Costello Discuss UNEMPLOYMENT Figures…

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 9%…

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.


ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work, can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.


ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work… Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how you get to 9%. Otherwise, it would be 16%. You don’t want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they’re two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

By: FBreughel1 Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:07:09 +0000 It’s just amazing how far one can come with cooked numbers. I’m not only not buying the top, but even now selling it. US credibility has just jumped off the cliff like a lemming would.

Felix, take a good look at the participation rate and the BLS adjustment towards 16-24 and above 55 age groups. Don’t clap because everybody else.

By: Foppe Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:40:55 +0000 Karl Denninger on this report here ( 201459 )

Karl: “Indeed, the total number of employed persons fell. A lot. To put a number on it, the total number of employed persons fell by 737,000 by actual count.

Now the cheerleaders will state that this is a common thing in January, and indeed it is. But the correct adjustment is to look at the population increase and subtract that back off as well. In other words, we take the loss of employment and add the population growth. When we do this we get a whopping 2.422 million in the wrong direction which was bested only by the -2.618 million in January of 2009 through the process of this downturn!

In fact other than January 2009 there has never been a single month in my table, which dates back to 1999, that put up a worse combined number. This “performance” rates a literal “second from utter despair and disaster”, and the employment rate shows it:”

By: VoltairesGripe Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:14:53 +0000 I’ll take any good news on the economy right now!

By: upstater Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:45:52 +0000 Cooked numbers.

Felix, why don’t you report how long at the current rate of job creation it will take to get back to pre-recession levels? 8 years? 10 years?

Workforce participation is still very low. Many people that are 50+ or under 25 just don’t bother looking and are uncounted. I have neighbors in this bucket.

The report is hardly “fantastic”. Use that word after a few months at 300-400K new jobs and increased participation.

By: EagleDriver Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:26:05 +0000 The economy works in cycles just like most everything else.We are in the up turning cycle and Obama being in full campaign mode will take all the vistory laps he can, taking credit where no credit is due. The title should read, Jobless Rate Drops Inspite of Obama.

Lack of leadership and experience should be apparent to all the non-coolaid drinking public.