Unemployment Rate Falls to 7.8%

  • 85 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by wellbigd (240 posts) -
#2 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

Grasping at straws here.

#3 Posted by Dogswithguns (10693 posts) -

Ok.. so what's the real percentage number then.. 13?!

#4 Posted by danjammer69 (4105 posts) -

Exactly. Something smells here.

Not saying there is a conspiracy or the numbers are fudged, but something doesn't add up.

If you look at the entire set of numbers, the actual amount of people that are out of work went up from last month, it is just that more people have given up looking for work, a group which is NOT counted in the unemployment numbers. Another issue with this, is the reason the rate dropped is because most of the jobs produced are PART-TIME jobs, not full-time work.

I just love how Obama tanked the debates and now we get this. The only sector to produce jobs was government jobs. (I am sure the Obama faithful will hammer me for this)

I would love to see the real unemployment numbers, not the numbers that do not count those that have given up looking for employment.

Another thing I am sure will happem, Obama will take full credit for this. The real credit should go to the governers of the states that actually produced results...if any credit should really be given at all.

#5 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

I know that the GOP will try to bring up the "real" unemployment number, but considering that this 7.8% is compared to the unemplyment numbers of the same type for previous Presidents, using the "real" number probably won't stick with people.

The general public won't want to dive into the meaning behind this number anyway. They'll only see this signle percentage and make a judgement.

It's sad that now the GOP leaders and Fox News are saying these numbers are fudged. That's grasping at straws.

The fact is that we've had slow, but steady job growth for quite a long time. It isn't idea, but it's far better than the hemorhagging that happened in 2008 and early 2009.

None of the policies put by Mitt Romney suggest that he or GOP could have done any better.

#6 Posted by danjammer69 (4105 posts) -

Another thing I forgot to add, let us not forget that seasonal hiring, or hiring for the Christmas holiday has already started. This is a rather large portion of new-hires this time of year and is figured into regular employment numbers.

I am not saying that an improvement in unemployment has not taken place. I am just saying that 7.8% should be taken with a grain of salt and also looked at a bit more deeply. There are reasons this time of year for the rate to go down. Retail businesses hire part-time employees like mad this time of year, with most of the workers not kept on come the January after the holidays.

#7 Posted by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

well that's surprisingly good news. Politics aside we have had an 8% barrier for far too long, and this could boost people's general moral.

#8 Posted by lowkey254 (5904 posts) -

Some may say that this is bad but what's bad about people being employed?

#9 Posted by comp_atkins (31213 posts) -
it's obviously false... i mean. it it rose by 0.3% then it would have made sense.. but dropping by 0.3%.. clearly manipulation.
#10 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150066 posts) -

well that's surprisingly good news. Politics aside we have had an 8% barrier for far too long, and this could boost people's general moral.

Serraph105
It just means some people were dropped from the unemployment rolls....not that they found jobs. You can only stay on unemployment for a specific number of weeks.
#11 Posted by DevilMightCry (3475 posts) -
Yet there were fewer jobs created last month than the prior month.
#12 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

I think the rate is 8.5% in Connecticut.

#13 Posted by DevilMightCry (3475 posts) -

I think the rate is 8.5% in Connecticut.

whipassmt
9.1 in Georgia.
#14 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

I think the rate is 8.5% in Connecticut.

DevilMightCry

9.1 in Georgia.

Dayum. Economic stimulus my ass.

Edit: Actually the latest numbers from the CT Dept. of Labor show that the Connecticut unemployment rate has risen to 9%, though some state officials are skeptical of the these numbers.

New Jersey and New York's unemployment rates also rose (NJ is 9.8% and NY is 9.1%).

#15 Posted by wellbigd (240 posts) -
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

I think the rate is 8.5% in Connecticut.

DevilMightCry
9.1 in Georgia.

6.8 in Delware
#16 Posted by dave123321 (33628 posts) -
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]

I think the rate is 8.5% in Connecticut.

wellbigd
9.1 in Georgia.

6.8 in Delware

8.133 average of the three
#17 Posted by wellbigd (240 posts) -
[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="wellbigd"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] 9.1 in Georgia.

6.8 in Delware

8.133 average of the three

Yea well I think nj is at 10
#18 Posted by dave123321 (33628 posts) -
8.6 of the 4.
#19 Posted by muller39 (14944 posts) -

Something smells fishy.

#20 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

So the unemployment rate was 8% and now it's 7.8%, which rounds to 8%, so it's still pretty much the same.

Of course when the HHS mandate goes into effect for religiously-affiliated employers in August 2013 and the government starts fining them $100 per employee per day guess what's gonna happen - these employers will probably start laying workers off (I bet they are already not hiring) to reduce the fines.

#21 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -
#22 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="wellbigd"] 6.8 in Delwarewellbigd
8.133 average of the three

Yea well I think nj is at 10

Yep. Pretty much (it's 9.8) .

#23 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
It's a conspuracy
#24 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

The previous two months were also rounded up, which can partly account for the change in percent.

#25 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

The previous two months were also rounded up, which can partly account for the change in percent.

jimkabrhel

What do you mean. Do you mean they rounded up for the last months and then rounded down this month.

#26 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

The previous two months were also rounded up, which can partly account for the change in percent.

whipassmt

What do you mean. Do you mean they rounded up for the last months and then rounded down this month.

They revised the previous months' jobs reports upward.
#27 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

The previous two months were also rounded up, which can partly account for the change in percent.

whipassmt

What do you mean. Do you mean they rounded up for the last months and then rounded down this month.

It's means that the numbers listed currently are often preliminary and the numbers for the previous months are reexamined and adjusted. This happens all the time.

I would also say that if the incumbent was a Republican, the spin on the number would be the exact opposite.

#28 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

The previous two months were also rounded up, which can partly account for the change in percent.

Abbeten

What do you mean. Do you mean they rounded up for the last months and then rounded down this month.

They revised the previous months' jobs reports upward.

oh, so this month they said that more people got employed last month than last month's report said.

#29 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

The previous two months were also rounded up, which can partly account for the change in percent.

jimkabrhel

What do you mean. Do you mean they rounded up for the last months and then rounded down this month.

It's means that the numbers listed currently are often preliminary and the numbers for the previous months are reexamined and adjusted. This happens all the time.

I would also say that if the incumbent was a Republican, the spin on the number would be the exact opposite.

I agree, if this was under Bush, liberals would be crying about how high the jobless rate was and how puny the decrease was. That's a double-standard and double-standards aren't right.

#30 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] What do you mean. Do you mean they rounded up for the last months and then rounded down this month.

whipassmt

It's means that the numbers listed currently are often preliminary and the numbers for the previous months are reexamined and adjusted. This happens all the time.

I would also say that if the incumbent was a Republican, the spin on the number would be the exact opposite.

I agree, if this was under Bush, liberals would be crying about how high the jobless rate was and how puny the decrease was. That's a double-standard and double-standards aren't right.

So it comes down to which side you are on, and how you spin the data. If you don't like it, you'll find a way to undermine it. I'ts hilarious that the GOP has resorted to the "the data's been fudge" tack. It's pathetic.

#31 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It's means that the numbers listed currently are often preliminary and the numbers for the previous months are reexamined and adjusted. This happens all the time.

I would also say that if the incumbent was a Republican, the spin on the number would be the exact opposite.

jimkabrhel

I agree, if this was under Bush, liberals would be crying about how high the jobless rate was and how puny the decrease was. That's a double-standard and double-standards aren't right.

So it comes down to which side you are on, and how you spin the data. If you don't like it, you'll find a way to undermine it. I'ts hilarious that the GOP has resorted to the "the data's been fudge" tack. It's pathetic.

Don't double-standards suck.

#32 Posted by danjammer69 (4105 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] What do you mean. Do you mean they rounded up for the last months and then rounded down this month.

whipassmt

It's means that the numbers listed currently are often preliminary and the numbers for the previous months are reexamined and adjusted. This happens all the time.

I would also say that if the incumbent was a Republican, the spin on the number would be the exact opposite.

I agree, if this was under Bush, liberals would be crying about how high the jobless rate was and how puny the decrease was. That's a double-standard and double-standards aren't right.

Politics are politics. I can't deny a bias as I have voted Convervative since 1996. But if I truly believed that the unemployment numbers are truly coming down I would admit it. My political affiliations do not get in the way of the fact that I do not want our country to suffer and for people to remain unemployed.
#33 Posted by Barbariser (6717 posts) -

This isn't decisive. All the Republicvnts have to do is come in with U6 figures and call it the "REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE" and the sad part is that they'll actually believe that bullsh!t because their economic knowledge is beyond terrible.

#34 Posted by Barbariser (6717 posts) -

By the way the Unemployment rate was 5.5% at this point (i.e. Oct. 2004) in the Bush Administration.

whipassmt

What's your point? That Obama can't get unemployment to be the same in a recessed economy as a boom economy? As a matter of fact, that figure actually shows how utterly incompetent Bush was - full employment is 4% U3, and he couldn't get full employment when there was a fvcking economic boom!

#35 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29079 posts) -

I don't necessarily agree with the criticisms of the current metric of unemployment rate (which generally revolves around the idea that people who stop looking for work are not counted in the labor force, which "artificially" increases or decreases the unemployment rate), and here's why.

The clasical economic discussion is the labor-leisure tradeoff, where an individual makes a decision to work or not to work. However, you could see a different choice framework, which is the decision to look for a job or not to look for a job. Under an assumption of complete information, you could argue that an individual who has stopped looking for a job has weighed the expected benefits from the job search (a function of the probability of getting the job and the expected payment from that job) versus the expected costs (lost leisure time from a fruitless job search). Under this type of model, an individual could exit the labor force in a rational manner. This type of individual most certainly should not be counted in the unemployment rate, because he has rationally made the choice not to look for the job.

Of course, the main criticism of this model is from an information perspective, in that a person might not correctly assess the expected benefits (or expected costs) of the job search. This criticism likely has merit from the standpoint of individuals who spend time searching for a job and then drop out of the labor force (although this is confounded by things like unemployment benefits), suggesting that they had incomplete information when they began their search, and updated that information as the job search continued (another possible explanation, of course, is that for some reason their expected benefits vs expected costs actually changed during the course of the job search).

So this simple model is far from perfect, although it does suggest a reason not to include those who stopped looking for work in the unemployment figures.

#36 Posted by DevilMightCry (3475 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

By the way the Unemployment rate was 5.5% at this point (i.e. Oct. 2004) in the Bush Administration.

Barbariser

What's your point? That Obama can't get unemployment to be the same in a recessed economy as a boom economy? As a matter of fact, that figure actually shows how utterly incompetent Bush was - full employment is 4% U3, and he couldn't get full employment when there was a fvcking economic boom!

Your last statement about full employment says a lot about your knowledge of economics. It is virtually impossible to have a zero unemployment rate. Unless you're living in 1980 USSR where everyone is employed...by the government.
#37 Posted by Barbariser (6717 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

By the way the Unemployment rate was 5.5% at this point (i.e. Oct. 2004) in the Bush Administration.

DevilMightCry

What's your point? That Obama can't get unemployment to be the same in a recessed economy as a boom economy? As a matter of fact, that figure actually shows how utterly incompetent Bush was - full employment is 4% U3, and he couldn't get full employment when there was a fvcking economic boom!

Your last statement about full employment says a lot about your knowledge of economics. It is virtually impossible to have a zero unemployment rate. Unless you're living in 1980 USSR where everyone is employed...by the government.

Your entire comment says a lot about your ability to read.

#38 Posted by DevilMightCry (3475 posts) -

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

What's your point? That Obama can't get unemployment to be the same in a recessed economy as a boom economy? As a matter of fact, that figure actually shows how utterly incompetent Bush was - full employment is 4% U3, and he couldn't get full employment when there was a fvcking economic boom!

Barbariser

Your last statement about full employment says a lot about your knowledge of economics. It is virtually impossible to have a zero unemployment rate. Unless you're living in 1980 USSR where everyone is employed...by the government.

Your entire comment says a lot about your ability to read.

Bush inherited a recession. He did't enter a booming economy. So are you saying that we DID have an economic boom under Bush policies?

#39 Posted by Barbariser (6717 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"] [QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="Barbariser"] What's your point? That Obama can't get unemployment to be the same in a recessed economy as a boom economy? As a matter of fact, that figure actually shows how utterly incompetent Bush was - full employment is 4% U3, and he couldn't get full employment when there was a fvcking economic boom! DevilMightCry
Your last statement about full employment says a lot about your knowledge of economics. It is virtually impossible to have a zero unemployment rate. Unless you're living in 1980 USSR where everyone is employed...by the government.

Your entire comment says a lot about your ability to read.

Bush inherited a recession. He did't enter a booming economy. So are you saying that we DID have an economic boom under Bush policlies?

Firstly, I like how you're going off on a completely different line of argument here. In any case, Bush's recession was tiny and insignificant, as evidenced by how utterly negligible its effect was on the U.S. economy (a contraction of less than one third of a % of GDP over an 8 month period), and is hardly comparable to what happened in 2008. The fact that the economy boomed under Bush is probably not much due to his policies, which were basically just tax cuts, but because of the fact that there was a ginormous housing bubble that led to our 2008 recession. Economically, what Bush did right was sign free trade agreements and launch stimulus programs when the recession began. However, overall he was not good for the U.S.; a man who pushes for tax cuts and launches trillion dollar wars is a man who doesn't know basic math let alone economics.

#40 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

The GOP sure loves their conspiracy theories

#41 Posted by danjammer69 (4105 posts) -

This isn't decisive. All the Republicvnts have to do is come in with U6 figures and call it the "REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE" and the sad part is that they'll actually believe that bullsh!t because their economic knowledge is beyond terrible.

Barbariser
Yes, you are so right. Every Republican's knowledge of the economy is terrible. Brilliant. I openly admit my own bias, but I will rarely spout off complete nonsense about democrats like that. It just sounds outright stupid. You do know that not every conservative/republican is a gun toting, jesus preaching, close-minded evolution denying idiot right? The only reason I call myself a republican is because of the way I have voted the last 20 years. I am certainly not close minded and I will NEVER vote right down party lines., and there are many people just like me. I believe that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances, a certain amount (although minimal) role of government is important, some social programs are vital (but I think any form of welfare should be short-term), poor people should not be neglected, that gun-control should not be non-existant, Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be funded heavily, Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide should be a DYING person's choice, I support gay marriage, and also keeping the church out of government and schools, ... I can go on and on. But there are also many other views I have that I truly believe in. What I find most important beyond just about anything is a strong military and national defense program. I believe in free market, LEGAL immigration, I despise Affirmative Action, believe in the death penalty, I also think that the School Voucher Program is a good idea as parents should have the right to choose good schools for their children. I think we should be drilling for oil on a much larger scale in order to create energy independence for our country, and I am completely against nationalization of vital industries (gas, electric). I would also like the government to stay the hell away from my private property and that of others, especially when it concerns Eminent Domain. Also, the Social Security System in the US needs some bigtime overhaul. What I am getting at by telling you all of this is that we are not all the same (Republicans) and do not all have the same identical views. So you can continue to lump us all in together like you do, since we are all stupid when it comes to the economy and pretty much everything else that does not correspond with your views.
#42 Posted by cslayer211 (833 posts) -
I figured that it would drop. Even though only 114,000 jobs were created, there were a ton of part time jobs also created. It definitely makes the president look better than he did, but I think his horrible debate performance ruined his week.
#43 Posted by GreySeal9 (24010 posts) -

By the way the Unemployment rate was 5.5% at this point (i.e. Oct. 2004) in the Bush Administration.

whipassmt

What's your point? Different time, different circumstances. You do realize that 2004 was before the economic crash, right?

#44 Posted by GreySeal9 (24010 posts) -

I figured that it would drop. Even though only 114,000 jobs were created, there were a ton of part time jobs also created. It definitely makes the president look better than he did, but I think his horrible debate performance ruined his week.cslayer211

Of course the debarte ruined his week, but the fact that the unemployment rate is below 8 will have way longer legs than a mediocre debate performance, which can be rectified next debate.

#45 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

By the way the Unemployment rate was 5.5% at this point (i.e. Oct. 2004) in the Bush Administration.

whipassmt

Unless there was a recession in the year 2000, then it doesn't really compare.

#46 Posted by GreySeal9 (24010 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

This isn't decisive. All the Republicvnts have to do is come in with U6 figures and call it the "REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE" and the sad part is that they'll actually believe that bullsh!t because their economic knowledge is beyond terrible.

danjammer69

Yes, you are so right. Every Republican's knowledge of the economy is terrible. Brilliant. I openly admit my own bias, but I will rarely spout off complete nonsense about democrats like that. It just sounds outright stupid. You do know that not every conservative/republican is a gun toting, jesus preaching, close-minded evolution denying idiot right? The only reason I call myself a republican is because of the way I have voted the last 20 years. I am certainly not close minded and I will NEVER vote right down party lines., and there are many people just like me. I believe that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances, a certain amount (although minimal) role of government is important, some social programs are vital (but I think any form of welfare should be short-term), poor people should not be neglected, that gun-control should not be non-existant, Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be funded heavily, Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide should be a DYING person's choice, I support gay marriage, and also keeping the church out of government and schools, ... I can go on and on. But there are also many other views I have that I truly believe in. What I find most important beyond just about anything is a strong military and national defense program. I believe in free market, LEGAL immigration, I despise Affirmative Action, believe in the death penalty, I also think that the School Voucher Program is a good idea as parents should have the right to choose good schools for their children. I think we should be drilling for oil on a much larger scale in order to create energy independence for our country, and I am completely against nationalization of vital industries (gas, electric). I would also like the government to stay the hell away from my private property and that of others, especially when it concerns Eminent Domain. Also, the Social Security System in the US needs some bigtime overhaul. What I am getting at by telling you all of this is that we are not all the same (Republicans) and do not all have the same identical views. So you can continue to lump us all in together like you do, since we are all stupid when it comes to the economy and pretty much everything else that does not correspond with your views.

You're quite defensive.

#47 Posted by Barbariser (6717 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

This isn't decisive. All the Republicvnts have to do is come in with U6 figures and call it the "REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE" and the sad part is that they'll actually believe that bullsh!t because their economic knowledge is beyond terrible.

danjammer69

Yes, you are so right. Every Republican's knowledge of the economy is terrible. Brilliant. I openly admit my own bias, but I will rarely spout off complete nonsense about democrats like that. It just sounds outright stupid. You do know that not every conservative/republican is a gun toting, jesus preaching, close-minded evolution denying idiot right? The only reason I call myself a republican is because of the way I have voted the last 20 years. I am certainly not close minded and I will NEVER vote right down party lines., and there are many people just like me. I believe that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances, a certain amount (although minimal) role of government is important, some social programs are vital (but I think any form of welfare should be short-term), poor people should not be neglected, that gun-control should not be non-existant, Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be funded heavily, Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide should be a DYING person's choice, I support gay marriage, and also keeping the church out of government and schools, ... I can go on and on. But there are also many other views I have that I truly believe in. What I find most important beyond just about anything is a strong military and national defense program. I believe in free market, LEGAL immigration, I despise Affirmative Action, believe in the death penalty, I also think that the School Voucher Program is a good idea as parents should have the right to choose good schools for their children. I think we should be drilling for oil on a much larger scale in order to create energy independence for our country, and I am completely against nationalization of vital industries (gas, electric). I would also like the government to stay the hell away from my private property and that of others, especially when it concerns Eminent Domain. Also, the Social Security System in the US needs some bigtime overhaul. What I am getting at by telling you all of this is that we are not all the same (Republicans) and do not all have the same identical views. So you can continue to lump us all in together like you do, since we are all stupid when it comes to the economy and pretty much everything else that does not correspond with your views.

I'm sorry you wasted so much time talking about something irrelevant to what I said due to miscommunication. A Republicvnt is a specific subset of Republicans, and in no way encompasses the entire party of the G.O.P., just an extraordinarily and frighteningly large portion of it.

#48 Posted by cslayer211 (833 posts) -

[QUOTE="cslayer211"]I figured that it would drop. Even though only 114,000 jobs were created, there were a ton of part time jobs also created. It definitely makes the president look better than he did, but I think his horrible debate performance ruined his week.GreySeal9

Of course the debarte ruined his week, but the fact that the unemployment rate is below 8 will have way longer legs than a mediocre debate performance, which can be rectified next debate.

Yeah, but Romney will just counter with real unemployment/say Obama promised it wouldn't go above 8% if his stimulus was passed. It really doesn't feel like it's getting any better either with 1.3% GDP growth.
#49 Posted by GreySeal9 (24010 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="cslayer211"]I figured that it would drop. Even though only 114,000 jobs were created, there were a ton of part time jobs also created. It definitely makes the president look better than he did, but I think his horrible debate performance ruined his week.cslayer211

Of course the debarte ruined his week, but the fact that the unemployment rate is below 8 will have way longer legs than a mediocre debate performance, which can be rectified next debate.

Yeah, but Romney will just counter with real unemployment/say Obama promised it wouldn't go above 8% if his stimulus was passed. It really doesn't feel like it's getting any better either with 1.3% GDP growth.

Regardless of Romney's counter statements, he lost a reliable attack line and this news undoubtedly helps Obama make the case that we are moving in the right direction. From now on, Romney's unemployment-based attacks are going to seem somewhat flatter.

Here's a good article on the subject.

#50 Posted by Vatusus (4355 posts) -

Good for the US. My country unemployment rate is at 16,7%...

:(