Economy lost 400,000 jobs or gained 100,000

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mike oxbig, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. The only thing this fictional number does is reinforce the economy is great to those who don't have any type of grasp of the economy like gov't employees.

    What the left fails to grasp is that no matter what the number is, there are 22,000,000 people unemployed and underemployed that vote.

    The unemployment rate could be 0 but that doesn't' change the underlying fundamentals of the reality of the employment situation.

    Everyone who has a brain knows the BLS number is garbage. The real rate is 11-14% and those people will vote, that is what counts.


     
    #41     Oct 6, 2012
  2. Ricter

    Ricter

    "Constant-demography Employment"
    Paul Krugman
    October 6, 2012, 1:29 am

    "These days everyone knows that the unemployment rate is a problematic measure, because it can fall not because more people are working but simply because fewer people are looking for work. (This isn’t what happened in September, but it has been an issue in the recent past). An alternative is therefore to count employment rather than unemployment; one simple measure is the employment-population ratio, which suggests no improvement for years:

    <img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/06/opinion/100612krugman1/100612krugman1-blog480.jpg">

    "But this measure too has problems; it’s the fraction of people 16 and over at work, which means that the denominator includes a rapidly growing number of seniors, who presumably don’t want to keep working. How can we correct for this demographic bias?

    "One answer, which I’ve used before, is to focus on prime-age adults, between 25 and 54; Calculated Risk did this yesterday, and pointed out that there has been some real improvement over the past year. This is a good quick-and-dirty approach. But it can lead to (false) accusations of cherry-picking, and it also throws out information.

    "So here’s an arguably better measure: constant-demography employment, which shows what would have happened to the employment-population ratio if the age structure of the population had stayed constant.

    "For my calculation, I’ve divided the population into three age groups, 16-24, 25-54, and 55 plus, for which employment-population ratios are available in the BLS databases. (Scroll down and use the one-screen data search). I’ve then taken a weighted average of these ratios, where the weights are the 2007 shares of each group in the civilian noninstitutional population. And here’s what you get:

    <img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/06/opinion/100612krugman2/100612krugman2-blog480.jpg">

    "Aha. So there is real if modest improvement over the past year. Also, the September numbers looks not like an aberration but like a return to trend from what looks like noise in the data over the previous couple of months.

    "This story is, by the way, broadly consistent with the payroll data, from a different survey, which also suggest employment growing somewhat faster than population.

    "So contra Romney, this is a real recovery. Modest, but real. Unless, of course, you believe that there’s a conspiracy of socialist statisticians …"

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/constant-demography-employment-wonkish-but-relevant/
     
    #42     Oct 6, 2012
  3. Max E.

    Max E.

    Jack Welch summed up these numbers in a debate with Chris Matthews perfectly.

    In order for a person to be dopey enough to buy into these numbers you have to believe that September was the hottest month for hiring since 1983, yet at the same time, all of the companies out there right now are revising earnings downwards, and GDP growth for 2013 just got revised downwards, of all the estimates for the jobs numbers that were out there from economists, no one predicted unemployment below 8.1% and the consensus was between 100k and 130k all of them.

    So supposedly these companies just got up one day and decided to go gangbusters on hiring people, even with terrible economic numbers, uncertainty from the election, and the fiscal cliff coming starting in January 2013.

    You need 150k jobs just to break even, yet 114k jobs created just dropped unemployment by 6% . If anyone actually buys into these numbers they are an idiot.
     
    #43     Oct 6, 2012
  4. Ricter

    Ricter

    Why wouldn't they? You righties keep arguing for supply-side solutions, and companies have more cash now than ever, therefore they're going to start hiring more than ever, correct?

    Go ahead and point to the other factors involved, that will only serve to diminish the relevance of the supply-side argument more.
     
    #44     Oct 6, 2012
  5. Max E.

    Max E.

    Apparently you didnt read my quote, One earnings revision downward after another, compiled with the GDP revision downward for 2013, combined with the fiscal cliff, and supposedly companies started hiring like we were in an overheated economy like 1983?

    Give me a break.

    Ill tell you what if companies keep hiring at record numbers for the next 2-3 months, I will concede the fact that i was wrong.
     
    #45     Oct 6, 2012
  6. Max E.

    Max E.

    If these companies are infact hiring like its 1983, with no reason to do so other thahn the fact that they have cash, wouldnt that prove supply side is accurate?

    Either you have to admit supply side has been proven 100% or you have to believe that the numbers are cooked.
     
    #46     Oct 6, 2012
  7. Ricter

    Ricter

    It would, but they've had cash for years now.

    Nope, I could believe deleveraging is progressing and demand is rising.
     
    #47     Oct 6, 2012
  8. Companies aren't hiring or investing because nobody knows what obama will do next.

    If he's elected again maybe he mandates all machinery and equipment be EPA approved and all company cars be electric.

    They cannot invest when they don't know what idiotic ideas are going to come from this nitwits head.

    If he's elected he will push for a full blown gov't takeover of the healthcare system no doubt.



     
    #48     Oct 6, 2012
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    Wtf are you talking about, I'm hiring.
     
    #49     Oct 6, 2012
  10. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    You've been saying that for years now.
     
    #50     Oct 6, 2012