CSNbbs

And more people started looking for work. August and July jobs numbers were revised upward.

HUGE upward revision, and UE underneath 8% takes away Romney talking point.

Some 873,000 people in the household survey said they found jobs. Employment gains for August and July, meanwhile, were revised higher by a combined 86,000. The number of new jobs created in August was revised up to 142,000 from an original estimate of 96,000. July's figure was revised up to 181,000 from 141,000.

(10-05-2012 07:40 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]And more people started looking for work. August and July jobs numbers were revised upward.

This is good news. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see how the math works out when we only added 114K jobs last month. That doesn't equal a .3% drop in the unemployment rate. Am I missing something? It seems like we would need to add more jobs to get there. Oh, and I see the August and July numbers were revised upward but unless they were by several hundred thousand I still don't see it.

(10-05-2012 07:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 07:40 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]And more people started looking for work. August and July jobs numbers were revised upward.

This is good news. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see how the math works out when we only added 114K jobs last month. That doesn't equal a .3% drop in the unemployment rate. Am I missing something? It seems like we would need to add more jobs to get there. Oh, and I see the August and July numbers were revised upward but unless they were by several hundred thousand I still don't see it.

I don't think that we have all the data. In another month or 2 they will revise the data again. Every number has been wrong this year during first Friday of the month. It looks like we are starting the cycle of fall/winter growth then a spring/summer stall again.

If the number is truly below 8% this close to the election, then we can officially call the election in favor of Obama.

(10-05-2012 07:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 07:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 07:40 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]And more people started looking for work. August and July jobs numbers were revised upward.

This is good news. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see how the math works out when we only added 114K jobs last month. That doesn't equal a .3% drop in the unemployment rate. Am I missing something? It seems like we would need to add more jobs to get there. Oh, and I see the August and July numbers were revised upward but unless they were by several hundred thousand I still don't see it.

I don't think that we have all the data. In another month or 2 they will revise the data again. Every number has been wrong this year during first Friday of the month. It looks like we are starting the cycle of fall/winter growth then a spring/summer stall again.

That is what I was getting at. I don't think this will hold. Seasonal hiring has begun and that will affect the numbers significantly. Regardless of who is president I would like to see the unemployment drop.

Caveat: I think we'll be above 9% by summer of next year and who ever is office will take the fall. The economy isn't recovering and I see dramatic downturns over the next 4 years. If BO is president it will destroy the democrat party and likewise for the republicans if Mitt wins.

(10-05-2012 07:55 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 07:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 07:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 07:40 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]And more people started looking for work. August and July jobs numbers were revised upward.

This is good news. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see how the math works out when we only added 114K jobs last month. That doesn't equal a .3% drop in the unemployment rate. Am I missing something? It seems like we would need to add more jobs to get there. Oh, and I see the August and July numbers were revised upward but unless they were by several hundred thousand I still don't see it.

I don't think that we have all the data. In another month or 2 they will revise the data again. Every number has been wrong this year during first Friday of the month. It looks like we are starting the cycle of fall/winter growth then a spring/summer stall again.

That is what I was getting at. I don't think this will hold. Seasonal hiring has begun and that will affect the numbers significantly. Regardless of who is president I would like to see the unemployment drop.

Caveat: I think we'll be above 9% by summer of next year and who ever is office will take the fall. The economy isn't recovering and I see dramatic downturns over the next 4 years. If BO is president it will destroy the democrat party and likewise for the republicans if Mitt wins.

well... i hope the big O wins then....

I have said all along that the Big O will have a rough 2nd term. The press will turn on him a little bit. Economy is not going to improve for years. There are scandals on the horizon. Libya and donor scandlas...Eric Holder as well.

I also think that honest deocrats know in there heart of hearts..that The Big O..just isn't a good president.

Re-elect the bum.

(10-05-2012 07:42 AM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]HUGE upward revision, and UE underneath 8% takes away Romney talking point.

Some 873,000 people in the household survey said they found jobs. Employment gains for August and July, meanwhile, were revised higher by a combined 86,000. The number of new jobs created in August was revised up to 142,000 from an original estimate of 96,000. July's figure was revised up to 181,000 from 141,000.

That's some fabulous timing for the big O. Probably what was on his mind during the debate.

I'm with IMATY. I don't see how the math works out on this, even with the revisions. It's great news that the rate dropped but I just don't understand the math behind it.

800k entered the workforce but only 114k of them found jobs? We saw no appreciable drop in new claims throughout September. How does that translate into a drop of .3%?

(10-05-2012 07:54 AM)TOGC Wrote: [ -> ]If the number is truly below 8% this close to the election, then we can officially call the election in favor of Obama.

Things don't suck as much as they did.

Hell of a rallying cry.

(10-05-2012 08:11 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 07:54 AM)TOGC Wrote: [ -> ]If the number is truly below 8% this close to the election, then we can officially call the election in favor of Obama.

Things don't suck as much as they did.

Hell of a rallying cry.

It takes away Mitt's argument that things aren't getting better. The unemployment rate hasn't been this low since January 2009, when Obama took office.

Obama math is what they're teaching in the public screwls now... 6 + 6 = 7.8

If you say so.

(10-05-2012 08:13 AM)TOGC Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 08:11 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-05-2012 07:54 AM)TOGC Wrote: [ -> ]If the number is truly below 8% this close to the election, then we can officially call the election in favor of Obama.

Things don't suck as much as they did.

Hell of a rallying cry.

It takes away Mitt's argument that things aren't getting better.

Actually it doesn't appear to.

Bloomberg says that 582k of that household survey took part time jobs. Part time work doesn't count toward the non-farm payroll apparently, which explains the 114k. The other piece is the number of multiple job holders increased by 183k. So if I'm understanding that group is counted twice because they hold 2 jobs. The household survey is what brought the rate down, not the non-farm, which is the key if you're looking at real growth.

So what you have is people who need full time work taking part time cause they have to. And an additional 183k taking two part time jobs, so they get counted twice.

Another interesting thing is the the unemployed/under employed number went from 25.8 million in August to 26.2 million in September.

Largest monthly increase in PT jobs since early 2009. Our transformation to a low wage, part time working society marches on.

I think that there is a hidden economy of people doing under the table work. This doesn't show up in the numbers and reduces the revenue that the government receives.

(10-05-2012 08:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I think that there is a hidden economy of people doing under the table work. This doesn't show up in the numbers and reduces the revenue that the government receives.

Yeah, they're called illegal aliens.

For a little perspective this time last year we were adding over 200k jobs, we added 114k, 10k of which were government jobs. We also lost 16k more manufacturing jobs.

(10-05-2012 08:30 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]Largest monthly increase in PT jobs since early 2009. Our transformation to a low wage, part time working society marches on.

yep

What a shock. The RW talking heads go all conspiracy theory...again. Despicable!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05...42200.html

(10-05-2012 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]What a shock. The RW talking heads go all conspiracy theory...again. Despicable!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05...42200.html

so sick of RW conspiracies... (RedWing)