Unemployment at 7.8%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm really offended by the suggestions of numbers rigging. There is just no way the career govt employees would let that happen. The fact that R's think that cheating is going on says more about them than anything else.

Check today's sound bites. It isn't just the Republicans questioning the numbers.

I think there's a huge difference between questioning what the numbers say and accusing bureaucrats of rigging the numbers. Please cite one person who's made that allegation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Check today's sound bites. It isn't just the Republicans questioning the numbers.

The President's birth certificate is fake. Global warming is a scam. The polls are skewed. The job numbers are cooked. Republicans and reality just don't have a lot in common these days.

As for Holtz-Eakin, quoted above, here is what he says:

"Douglas Holtz-Eakin served in the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush. He says there’s no possibility this report was manipulated or changed for political ends. But he says the household survey is volatile and unreliable month-to-month."

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/could-jobs-statistics-be-rigged

There is plenty to focus on in this report to put Obama's economic recovery efforts in a poor light. Lucky for him, a handfull of right-wing wack jobs have managed to take the focus off of those legitimate criticisms, on highlight an easily-debunked conspiracy theory. Good job guys, after his debate performance, I'm sure Obama appreciates all the help you are giving him.

[Anonymous]

I am neither a government employee nor a CPA, but I do recognize slander when I hear it. To impugn the integrity of a bunch of people because you don't like the results of their work is sleazy. To say you think there are anomalies in the result is reasonable -- statistics always have a possibilities of error -- but to claim manipulation is, to repeat myself, slander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know Republicans are worried when they start yelling about math.

Actually, "pay no attention to the math" is kind of their mantra now. How else do you promise tax cuts for everyone, more benefits and a lower deficit, all at the same time?

[Anonymous]

Kind of suspect when there were less jobs created in sept than aug but yet the rate went down to 7.8. They stopped counting ppl who left the job market..this rate of job growth doesnt even keep up with thepopulation increase in the job market. This type of rate would be in conjunction with an economy at a 5 to 6 % growth rate. Ours is growing at1.3%... Im not accusing obama admin of lying ( at least on this issue) but Iam very skeptical of these stats especially coming out a month before the election and after a disasterous and embarassingly unpresidential performance at the debate this week

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of suspect when there were less jobs created in sept than aug but yet the rate went down to 7.8. They stopped counting ppl who left the job market..this rate of job growth doesnt even keep up with thepopulation increase in the job market. This type of rate would be in conjunction with an economy at a 5 to 6 % growth rate. Ours is growing at1.3%... Im not accusing obama admin of lying ( at least on this issue) but Iam very skeptical of these stats especially coming out a month before the election and after a disasterous and embarassingly unpresidential performance at the debate this week

First, they never count people who leave the job market. But, what you are missing is that the unemployment rate didn't drop simply because of jobs added in September and people leaving the job market in September. In addition to releasing September numbers, the number of jobs created in July and August was revised upward to the tune of 86,000. That sort of revision is common and data from employers comes in late. That means that the unemployment rate was likely less than 8% already in August (someone who is better at math then me can confirm or deny that).

Also, think back a month ago. The day after the Democratic convention the monthly job numbers came out and were very disappointing to the administration. There were posters in this forum who were predicting that the numbers would wipe out any convention bounce Obama received. Nobody was suggesting that the numbers were cooked then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because Americans still don't believe the economy is doing better and/or because it's not clear that these numbers will hold. I do think it makes it easier for Obama to make the case that we are on the right path and it makes it harder for the Reps to argue for the types of radical economic policy changes they would like to see. But, at this point, the bottom line is still uncertainty.

I disagree with this. I'm not sure there's a significant majority of Americans who think this way, or even a plurality. The survey results of the question "are you better off than you were 4 years ago" tend to be evenly split three ways: Those who feel they are worse, those about the same, and those who feel better. More importantly, at least a plurality and likely a majority believe they're better off compared to what would have happened under a McCain-Palin administration. So, this bolded statement doesn't reflect reality, at least as far as statistically valid polling shows. If it were true, Obama's numbers would be a lot worse.

I'm going to bet that you're either a federal employee or a high-earning attorney, CPA, etc. You've been hanging out with too many others who share your viewpoints and general income level. If you get away from the DC area, you'll find that many, many Americans don't believe the economy is doing better.

Stereotype much? I'm the pp who posted the original comment saying that Americans don't believe the economy is doing better, with which you and I appear to agree wholeheartedly. I would like to point out that I am a (proud) Fed and I live and work in DC.

Where I would disagree with the second poster is that s/he is treating the "are you better off" question without regard to the implicit second part of that question. Yes, many people are better off than they were four years ago. Maybe their houses aren't quite as deep in the red as they were. Maybe they've knocked out a few bills. But there is a big difference between feeling like you've made some individual progress through personal sacrifice (e.g., paying down cards instead of going on vacation) and feeling like the economy is doing better. I think most people won't feel we doing are better until their personal accounts are in the black again and all the friends they've had who have been looking for work for three or more years (I still have three friends in this category) are back to jobs that pay a decent wage.

[Anonymous]

you can pretty much throw out any idea these days and find someone to find your argument "plausible" regardless of if there is any evidence to support your theory.

we allow these nutso ideas more life than they deserve. considering that there was no problem with the data at 8% and above, how are we now going to "question" them when they hit a mark unfavorable to some narrative you want to hold on to against your opponent? if the numbers are fudged,they are fudged all the time. enron didnt cook the books one month and present "real" data the next. the books were cooked from jump.

plus, how stupid is obama and the white house to not want to "manipulate" the numbers more favorably? what makes them think 7.8% is a "good" unemployment number? if i was president, i would have had the number falling steadily for months leading up to my re-election. this means obama either "allowed" unemployment to go up as high as 9% for god knows what reason, and then decide to start applying his "grand scheme" to knock the number down to do "oh so great" 7.8%. do people realize how stupid that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because Americans still don't believe the economy is doing better and/or because it's not clear that these numbers will hold. I do think it makes it easier for Obama to make the case that we are on the right path and it makes it harder for the Reps to argue for the types of radical economic policy changes they would like to see. But, at this point, the bottom line is still uncertainty.

I disagree with this. I'm not sure there's a significant majority of Americans who think this way, or even a plurality. The survey results of the question "are you better off than you were 4 years ago" tend to be evenly split three ways: Those who feel they are worse, those about the same, and those who feel better. More importantly, at least a plurality and likely a majority believe they're better off compared to what would have happened under a McCain-Palin administration. So, this bolded statement doesn't reflect reality, at least as far as statistically valid polling shows. If it were true, Obama's numbers would be a lot worse.

I'm going to bet that you're either a federal employee or a high-earning attorney, CPA, etc. You've been hanging out with too many others who share your viewpoints and general income level. If you get away from the DC area, you'll find that many, many Americans don't believe the economy is doing better.

Stereotype much? I'm the pp who posted the original comment saying that Americans don't believe the economy is doing better, with which you and I appear to agree wholeheartedly. I would like to point out that I am a (proud) Fed and I live and work in DC.

Where I would disagree with the second poster is that s/he is treating the "are you better off" question without regard to the implicit second part of that question. Yes, many people are better off than they were four years ago. Maybe their houses aren't quite as deep in the red as they were. Maybe they've knocked out a few bills. But there is a big difference between feeling like you've made some individual progress through personal sacrifice (e.g., paying down cards instead of going on vacation) and feeling like the economy is doing better. I think most people won't feel we doing are better until their personal accounts are in the black again and all the friends they've had who have been looking for work for three or more years (I still have three friends in this category) are back to jobs that pay a decent wage.

I'm the PP and don't think it's sterotyping to be pretty confident that those who own a small to medium-sized business or have a job without the benefits of working for some governmental (state or federal agency) think the economy is not doing well at all.