"The decline in the jobless rate was not a matter of discouraged workers droppin

[Chris_]

Aha! This explains everything.

Clio the Leo   (1000+ posts)             Fri Feb-04-11 06:55 PM
Original message
"The decline in the jobless rate was not a matter of discouraged workers dropping out."
   

 
Au contraire mon frer!

January employment reports are typically tricky to interpret because the Labor Department makes adjustments to its population counts, which means comparisons to December are not always apples-to-apples when looking at the data from the department's household survey. However, the agency said the labor force count did not change this time.

Smoothed to take into account the change in the population count, the household survey showed the number of people reporting they were employed jumped by 589,000, and the number unemployed fell by 590,000.

That means the decline in the jobless rate was not a matter of discouraged workers dropping out, something that had been a significant factor in previous months, but rather fully a sign of labor-market strength.(snip)

So the GOP takeover of the House is working already? What else could it mean?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x606080

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Boehner, you magnificent bastard!

[JohnnyReb]

No DUmmies were hired in the creation of these factious numbers.
This was done by professionals and please remember not to try this at home.

[AllosaursRus]

It's nothin' but bull shit from the White House admin tryin' like hell to make it look like the Obumbler's policies are somehow makin' a difference. From what I have heard, there was only a 36,000 decrease in those filing new unemployment claims and they dropped the mark .4%! In the last 2 months, they have dropped it from 9.8, to 9.0.

A year ago, they told us that in order to drop it 1% we would need to create 3 million new jobs. Their figures are as usual with Obiewan's numbers all smoke and mirrors!

Also they are saying 2.2 million have given up looking for work! I'm sure that's no where in this bull shit they're tryin' to shovel!

[Happy Fun Ball]

Ever since November, these idiots were whining and moaning, "Where's the jobs? Where's the jobs?" Never mind that they weren't in power at that time. Now, when the new Congress is in power and unemployment is "seemingly" heading downward, are they crediting the republicans? You have three guesses, and the first two are free.

[AllosaursRus]

Ever since November, these idiots were whining and moaning, "Where's the jobs? Where's the jobs?" Never mind that they weren't in power at that time. Now, when the new Congress is in power and unemployment is "seemingly" heading downward, are they crediting the republicans? You have three guesses, and the first two are free.

No president has been elected to a second term when unemployment was over 8%, with the exception of FDR, and that was only because he was the founder of freebees to those in the soup lines.

They'll do their damnedest to cook the books for Obiewan before the election cycle!

[GOBUCKS]

Boehner, you magnificent bastard!

The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Boehner is a fine man, but we have only one truly magnificent bastard.

[Doc]

Here is some not 1+1=POTATO math.

39,000 jobs were allegedly added and the unemployment rate went down .4% (9.4-9.0).

1. (9.4-9.0)/9.4 = .043 the percentage change

2. 39,000 positive job change

3. TOTAL UNEMPLOYED 39,000/.043=916,500.

YES that EQUALS a mere 916,500 people unemployed

OR if you really looked at the report and saw that 600,000 people simply were not counted in the TOTAL BULLSHIT NUMBER

1. (9.4-9.0)/9.4 = .043 the percentage change

2. 600,000 negative job change

3. TOTAL UNEMPLOYED 600,000/.043=13,953,488.

Of those two cases, which one do you think is the closer to the actual unemployed?

If you are not an Obama communist democrat fluffer you can follow how this report is PURE PROPAGANDA.

[AllosaursRus]

Here is some not 1+1=POTATO math.

39,000 jobs were allegedly added and the unemployment rate went down .4% (9.4-9.0).

1. (9.4-9.0)/9.4 = .043 the percentage change

2. 39,000 positive job change

3. TOTAL UNEMPLOYED 39,000/.043=916,500.

YES that EQUALS a mere 916,500 people unemployed

OR if you really looked at the report and saw that 600,000 people simply were not counted in the TOTAL BULLSHIT NUMBER

1. (9.4-9.0)/9.4 = .043 the percentage change

2. 600,000 negative job change

3. TOTAL UNEMPLOYED 600,000/.043=13,953,488.

Of those two cases, which one do you think is the closer to the actual unemployed?

If you are not an Obama communist democrat fluffer you can follow how this report is PURE PROPAGANDA.

^5 Juk! That puts it in Black and White!

Oooops, is that racist?

[BlueStateSaint]

Here is some not 1+1=POTATO math.

39,000 jobs were allegedly added and the unemployment rate went down .4% (9.4-9.0).

1. (9.4-9.0)/9.4 = .043 the percentage change

2. 39,000 positive job change

3. TOTAL UNEMPLOYED 39,000/.043=916,500.

YES that EQUALS a mere 916,500 people unemployed

OR if you really looked at the report and saw that 600,000 people simply were not counted in the TOTAL BULLSHIT NUMBER

1. (9.4-9.0)/9.4 = .043 the percentage change

2. 600,000 negative job change

3. TOTAL UNEMPLOYED 600,000/.043=13,953,488.

Of those two cases, which one do you think is the closer to the actual unemployed?

If you are not an Obama communist democrat fluffer you can follow how this report is PURE PROPAGANDA.

Definite H5.