Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 19:06     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
Anonymous wrote:Chicago style number rigging doesn't change the fact that Chicago sucks and the economy is butt horrible.


Please cite three indicators that prove your case.

Just three. Current account deficit? Dow performance? Corporate profits? No, those are all good.

You could look to poverty or income inequality. Yes, that's a problem. "Butt horrible," even. But that's not the "economy." That's a result of policy. And not Obama's policy.

So, please. Pick three economic indicators and explain what you mean.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 18:30     Subject: Re:Unemployment at 7.8%
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.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 18:12     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
When the obamas government grades itself of course they will get an a or B+
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 18:02     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
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.


Oh, NO WAY!
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 18:01     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
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.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 17:58     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
You know Republicans are worried when they start yelling about math.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 16:57     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
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.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 16:36     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
Chicago style number rigging doesn't change the fact that Chicago sucks and the economy is butt horrible.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 16:25     Subject: Re:Unemployment at 7.8%
Personally, I don't think it particularly helps either side, but it weakens the Romney attacks. Romney is spending a lot of energy assaulting Obama's failed policies that have left a weakened economy. This counters his message of how horrible the current economic status is and how much we desperately need change. Today, many of Romney's sound bites have had to be "the numbers are not as promising as they sound" which takes away from the offensive and puts Romney ever so briefly on the defensive, basically defending his previous comments about how bad our situation is. Now he's spending time talking about those who have fallen off the rolls or retired and how if everyone was accounted for, the current unemployment rate would be around 11%. This dilutes Romney's time and coverage and diverts him away from his message. Unfortunately, one of Romney's problems is that there are *MANY* things that have crept up on him that have this effect of diverting and diluting his message including poorly vetted comments (like the 47%).
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 16:05     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
These numbers are being met with considerable skepticism. For example:

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former head the Congressional Budget Office, calls the numbers "implausible."

"Sept. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent due to an extraordinary – but implausible – estimate of 873,000 #jobs in household survey,” said Holtz-Eakin on Twitter.

“The report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number,” said CNBC's Jeff Cox.

The Washington Post's Neil Irwin adds, "Weird that payrolls are exactly on forecast but household survey is far better."

And the Wall Street Journal warns that these numbers should be taken "with a grain of salt."


Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 11:25     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
The numbers are always subject to many factors, and either side can pick the factors that favor their arguments. And as most everyone has said, it's an incremental change, and might even disappear when final adjustment is made. Nevertheless, it means Romney cannot keep saying "xx months of over 8% unemployment," so it helps Obama a bit.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 10:07     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
Anonymous wrote:Once again 300 k gave up looking for work...it's miserable out there.


Subtract retirees and recalculate.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 09:50     Subject: Unemployment at 7.8%
I thought Presidents don't "create jobs".

Guess they do today.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 09:43     Subject: Re:Unemployment at 7.8%
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP again. I just wonder if there's something symbolic about it being below 8. In reality it's marginal but may seem like more?


You mean, for the same reasons that retailers price things at $9.98 instead of $10.00? Yeah, that makes sense. It does seem cheerier, even though I agree with Jeff that the scale of the increase is still much lower than you'd hope.


Exactly what I mean. We'd like better--the change isn't actually much, but it seems like "yay we're below 8% for the first time in almost 4 years!" I'm just thinking purely psychologically--the numbers have started with 8 and 9 for nearly 4 years. Now we're in the 7s. That sort of perception.


Well, I think it makes for a great soundbite for Obama's re-election. But, for the individual American I don't think perspectives about the economy overall will change much until paychecks start getting bigger. I think a lot of the feeling about the economy is actually generalized anxiety about the very real problem that wages have been stagnant for decades, people have debt financed the American dream, that option is now gone, and lots of people live paycheck to paycheck. Most Americans are palpably aware that they are one family crisis away from the streets. The only way out is to raise wages, get household debt under control, and incentivize savings over consumption. That will get people feeling secure again and perceptions about the economy will go up. Unfortunately, it's problematic for the economy overall in the short term.


COrporations have to be willing to reduce profits (and executive pay) a little then.


Yes. (PP here.) Quite a pickle, isn't it?


Sorry, PP, meant to put that comment here: We're doomed.
Anonymous
Post 10/05/2012 09:42     Subject: Re:Unemployment at 7.8%
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP again. I just wonder if there's something symbolic about it being below 8. In reality it's marginal but may seem like more?


You mean, for the same reasons that retailers price things at $9.98 instead of $10.00? Yeah, that makes sense. It does seem cheerier, even though I agree with Jeff that the scale of the increase is still much lower than you'd hope.


Exactly what I mean. We'd like better--the change isn't actually much, but it seems like "yay we're below 8% for the first time in almost 4 years!" I'm just thinking purely psychologically--the numbers have started with 8 and 9 for nearly 4 years. Now we're in the 7s. That sort of perception.


Well, I think it makes for a great soundbite for Obama's re-election. But, for the individual American I don't think perspectives about the economy overall will change much until paychecks start getting bigger. I think a lot of the feeling about the economy is actually generalized anxiety about the very real problem that wages have been stagnant for decades, people have debt financed the American dream, that option is now gone, and lots of people live paycheck to paycheck. Most Americans are palpably aware that they are one family crisis away from the streets. The only way out is to raise wages, get household debt under control, and incentivize savings over consumption. That will get people feeling secure again and perceptions about the economy will go up. Unfortunately, it's problematic for the economy overall in the short term.


COrporations have to be willing to reduce profits (and executive pay) a little then.


We're doomed.

Yes. (PP here.) Quite a pickle, isn't it?