America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by ZRX1200. 34 replies replies.
Obama's miraculous drop in unemployment- sing HALLELUJAH!!
bloody spaniard Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Jack Welch predicted this would happen... especially after Obama's poor debate performance. NOt saying the books have been cooked or anythin' but... HEY! Mebbe all the new shovel- ready jobs helped afterall!!
jester

Yesterday's jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is being met with skepticism. The report found that, from August to September, the unemployment rate dropped from just above 8 percent to 7.8 percent.

In fact, when Labor Secretary Hilda Solis appeared on CNBC, the first two questions for her were whether the books have been cooked. Solis called the charges "insulting and ludicrous."

The economy added 114,000 nonfarm payrolls in the month according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with gains in healthcare, transportation and warehousing.

Truly shocking in the report was that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 to 12.1 million.

Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983.

As such, total employment now stands at the highest level it's been since December 2008 before Obama was inaugurated.

But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.

The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September - resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate - while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.


Think Think Think


But the REAL good news kidees is that Unemployment Plummeted to 4.3% from 5.1--For Government Workers according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics!!! YAY!!!Dancing


Both the federal and state governments increased their employees in July, August and September. Double YAY!!Dancing Dancing

The Obama administration has added 10,000 civilian workers to the federal government's payroll since July, according to BLS. In that month, the federal government employed 2,804,000 civilian workers. In August, that increased to 2,810,000. And, in September, the number of civilian federal employees increased again to 2,814,000.

The BLS's count of civilian federal employees does not include members of the military or individuals who work for certain intelligence gathering agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the NSA.

The Obama administration has been able to accomplish a net increase in federal employees over the past three months even while the U.S. Postal Service--whose employees are considered part of the federal workforce--eliminated jobs and decreased its payroll.

State governments have added a net of 17,000 new workers to their taxpayer-funded payrolls over the past three months. In July, state government around the nation employed 5,052,000 people. In August, that climbed to 5,056,000, and in September it climbed again to 5,069,000.


That's all we need- a good employment record for UNEXPENDABLE bureaucrats. Who else is going to justify cranking out those pretty, green "Chinese borrowed money" checks every 2 weeks??
dpnewell Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
I was watching a report on this on one of the MSM networks last night, and from what was reported, the Labor Department comes up with their numbers by surveying 65,000 folks. Maybe I misunderstood, but from the report, they call/contract 65,000 people and ask them if they are working or not. How in God's Green Earth can this number possibly be accurate? Shouldn't they be using payroll reports from employers? Seems to me that would be the only way to get an accurate number. Or is this number just a guess until they get the real numbers from employers? Maybe this is why we see employment numbers "adjusted" several months down the road. Curious if this number will hold, or be revised upward after the election.
HockeyDad Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,213
Trickle down government outrage!
ZRX1200 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Amazing to me that the experts were almost dead on with job gains, yet those same experts unemployment expectations were off by .4%?????

Yeah......o.k.
dubleuhb Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
He'll get by with a little help from his freinds.......

Sad when they just stop counting you when your unemployment has run out and you give up looking for a job.

I expect more good news in the coming weeks about the economy. But with fuel prices about to explode who knows, maybe two weeks before the election would it be to obvious to let a little out of the strategic reserves ?
bloody spaniard Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
I know.
Soooo many things just don't add up & yet they make sense in a bizarro world sort of way.Brick wall
rfenst Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
bloody spaniard wrote:
I know.
Soooo many things just don't add up & yet they make sense in a bizarro world sort of way.Brick wall


I beleive the newest figures to be accurate. I just don't beleive they amount to enough of an improvement to mean anything. 2-4 months of small improvement like those just released would deinitely mean something, but we won't know until then.
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
dpnewell wrote:
I was watching a report on this on one of the MSM networks last night, and from what was reported, the Labor Department comes up with their numbers by surveying 65,000 folks. Maybe I misunderstood, but from the report, they call/contract 65,000 people and ask them if they are working or not. How in God's Green Earth can this number possibly be accurate? Shouldn't they be using payroll reports from employers? Seems to me that would be the only way to get an accurate number. Or is this number just a guess until they get the real numbers from employers? Maybe this is why we see employment numbers "adjusted" several months down the road. Curious if this number will hold, or be revised upward after the election.


It is definitely accurate as to those 65k people!

Your concern, however, is whether the polled group is reflective of the rest of the nation. Depending on the issue involved and the particular questions asked, an accurate survey can require as few as 800-1,200 people.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
blood

Bureau of Labor Statistics is one of the few govrnment agencies
that has never been accused of anything evenly remotely dishonest.

the republicans and you used to be one of them are self engrossed in
their own personal interests, without the interest of those that through
misfortune, place of birth, family background, skills, or mental capacity
wouldn't give a thirsty man a drink. they are for the most part pogrammed
to follow people like fox news, and rush.

they have no capacity to think for themselves, which is why they vote as a block.
ZRX1200 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
That last part is REALLY HILARIOUS!

RICK THE WAY THE NUMBERS ARE FIGURED IS CRAP I DON'T GIVE A FLYING MICHELLE WHO IS IN OFFICE.

RFenster the smaller the sample has no bearing? So why don't we have 3 person juries?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,633
Anyone remember the political hay the democrats made over part time jobs NOT being meaningful employment?


Look at them now?


Cheering for those part time jobs. They'll take what they can git...and LIKE IT!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpu5_3qk4KM
snowwolf777 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
RICKAMAVEN wrote:

they have no capacity to think for themselves, which is why they vote as a block.



You have your wrinkled, coffee stained talking points papers mixed up again. You started reading from the Democrat traits sheet.

snowwolf777 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
And speaking of voting as a block, who are you voting for? Wilford Brimley on the AARP slate?

rfenst Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
ZRX1200 wrote:
RFenster the smaller the sample has no bearing? So why don't we have 3 person juries?


You have mangled my point and added in an unrelated issue. The issue I raised is statistical survey accuracy and sample size. Small sample sizes can still yield very accurate results if the survey is properly constructed and administered.














(As to why we don't have three person juries- I don't know. Probably centuries and centuries of tradition. However, in reality wed DO have three person "juries": Appeals heard by three justices rather than [i]en banc[/1]. We also have one person juries: Bench Trials.)
BuckyB93 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,247
ZRX1200 wrote:
So why don't we have 3 person juries?


It’s a little known fact that the reason why there are 12 people on a jury is because there were 12 tribes of Israel. We all know that the all lawyers are Jewish so that’s the way they wanted to make it.
rfenst Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
BuckyB93 wrote:
It’s a little known fact that the reason why there are 12 people on a jury is because there were 12 tribes of Israel. We all know that the all lawyers are Jewish so that’s the way they wanted to make it.


OK. LOL!
So how do you explain that U.S jury and trial procedure come from English common law?
And, FWIW, here in Florida a jury is only six unless the death penalty is in play...
ZRX1200 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Sarcasm
rfenst Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
ZRX1200 wrote:
Sarcasm


Duh!
frankj1 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,290
BuckyB93 wrote:
It’s a little known fact that the reason why there are 12 people on a jury is because there were 12 tribes of Israel. We all know that the all lawyers are Jewish so that’s the way they wanted to make it.

if only twas true! instead all the dentists are Jewish.
pdxstogieman Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
frankj1 wrote:
if only twas true! instead all the dentists are Jewish.


I'm a raging anti-dentite! - Cosmo Kramer
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
frankj1 wrote:
if only twas true! instead all the dentists are Jewish.


I thought it was all the doctors
ZRX1200 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Those guys are Hindu now brother.....
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
ZRX1200 wrote:
Those guys are Hindu now brother.....


You mean Dr. Patel, right?
rfenst Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
ZRX1200 wrote:
Those guys are Hindu now brother.....


You mean Dr. Patel, right?
ZRX1200 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Yup.

I went to school with a Patel (sweet girl) she tried a hamburger once and threw up!
rfenst Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,473
ZRX1200 wrote:
Yup.

I went to school with a Patel (sweet girl) she tried a hamburger once and threw up!


Patel, Patel or Patel? Which one was it?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,633
rfenst wrote:
Patel, Patel or Patel? Which one was it?



The one that performed oral sex and threw up after eating a hamburger!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,633
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/10/10/why-didnt-obama-disclose-his-muslim-devotees-ring/


Oh it's sing...my bad!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,633
http://news.yahoo.com/video/yorks-boom-homelessness-075348826.html

WINNING!!!
bloody spaniard Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Jobless claims RISE just as seasonal hiring begins??? Something stinks after Obama's rosy employment numbers right before the debate.

Jobless claims increased by 46,000 to 388,000 in the week ended Oct. 13 from a revised 342,000 the prior period that was the lowest since February 2008, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 49 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a rise in claims to 365,000.
HockeyDad Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,213
Hidden in plain sight!
bloody spaniard Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
HockeyDad wrote:
Hidden in plain sight!



Is that like eyes wide shut???Brick wall
Bas tards are cooking the numbers.
DrafterX Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,601
had a friend that worked doing the census thing a few years ago... they re-hired her about 6 times over a few months and called it a newly created job each time.... according to her it was discussed that it was purposly done to boost the job numbers..... Not talking
ZRX1200 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Yeah I meant to come back to this thread.


When those "lower" numbers were released........California conviently didn't file their report in a timely manner. So their numbers were not included.

So Rick. Anything smell there?

(It's called rhetorical)
Users browsing this topic
Guest