the oblate spheroid "yups" again

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021294828

Yup, yawn.

nadinbrzezinski (108,655 posts)

Yup, there will be a bounce... job numbers were really good for the job numbers. And to my shock and surprise (no, really) delusional mitt promises what can't happen... energy independent in eight years... yup, we call that desperation Mitt.

In case you wonder, unemployment dropped to 8.1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-96k-jobs-in-august-unemployment-rate-drops-to-81-percent/2012/09/07/30374bfa-f8e9-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html

B2G (1,062 posts)

1. Job numbers were GOOD?

What was good about them? Did we see two different reports??

loli phabay (1,112 posts)

3. my tthought as well i thought they came in under expectations

deutsey (15,685 posts)

7. I heard left economist Doug Henwood say there was nothing good about the numbers

bigwillq (58,749 posts)

5. Would you rather have lost 90K+ jobs?

B2G (1,062 posts)

8. Of course not

That doesn't make these numbers anything to celebrate.

bigwillq (58,749 posts)

12. I feel this is the new normal

I am sure those 90K+ are celebrating, or at least grateful they found a job.

.
.
.
.
.
.

zappaman (5,890 posts)

6. You must be living in a different world

The one I live in showed that job numbers were much less than expected.

Certainly not "good", yup.

Agnosticsherbet (202 posts)

9. NPR, while interviewing a right wing pundit, quoted Ryan calling the job numbers "tepid"

I think if it ironic that NPR is, more often than not, an avid supporter of Republicans. The irony comes form the fact that Republicans have consistently tried to cancel NPR. It is like raising the person that poisons you.

Vox Moi (54 posts)

10. Since when is a small positive a negative?

Not as much as we'd like to see but certainly not negative numbers.

If we'd lost 100k jobs, that would be negative.

While we're at it ... I'd like to know more about the notion that people have 'given up looking' and thus are not in the accounting.

Did they all move to the Cayman Islands?

nadinbrzezinski (108,655 posts)

16. That be people like my BIL, actual example.

who gave up a while ago, well before Obama actually. His field, was outsourced in major ways, go ahead, go get a job in technical writing. The pay also has crashed due to that competition with foreign workers. And it is a good example of what has happened across many technical fields.

And that is a structural problem. These are very long term unemployed who have lost skills and also contacts. No, they did not move to the Caymans, they went back to college, if they were near retirement, well they have retired, things like that.

Of course that is the place where wonks live. Most folks just look at the surface number, which was good.

B2G (1,062 posts)

11. The unemployment number dropped because 400K people quit looking for jobs. Adjusted for this, the rate would have risen to 8.4%.

Yippee!!

cynatnite (25,977 posts)

13. Not good, but not bad.

nadinbrzezinski (108,655 posts)

18. Think about Joe Six Pack

There will be a bounce.

It truly hinged on that.

^^filed into file named "the oblate spheroid's predictions"

cynatnite (25,977 posts)

20. I do think we will have a bounce from the convention...

I'm just doubt it will be because of these numbers.

MineralMan (46,386 posts)

14. No, they weren't "really good."

The unemployment number went down, but the new jobs number was way below estimates.

I'm not sure what numbers you were looking at. They're not "really good" at all, but the lower unemployment rate balances the other number a bit.

Fortunately, the stock market has other things to be glad about, but these numbers will have no impact on poll results. Any bounce will be due solely to a great convention and great speakers at that convention. These job numbers wouldn't generate any bounce at all.

Shrek (1,890 posts)

17. Actually they weren't

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html

The economy added 96,000 jobs in August, down from 141,000 jobs in July, the Department of Labor said Friday.

At least 150,000 jobs need to be created each month to simply keep pace with the growing population.

nadinbrzezinski (108,655 posts)

19. Actually they were or would you rather have 96,000 jobs lost.

There are days.

Shrek (1,890 posts)

22. That isn't really relevant

Obviously any gain is better than a loss. But it still doesn't make today's report "really good" given that it's not even enough to keep up with population growth, let alone put the long-term unemployed back to work.

Matt Yglesias:

Pretty bad new jobs report today says the economy added 96,000 new jobs in August and also featured downward revisions to the June and July payroll numbers. In particular, July's solid if non-spectacular 163,000 is down to a middling 141,000 and June's bad 64,000 is down to a terrible 45,000.

I always like to emphasize the revisions. Collecting this data is pretty hard, so the revisions are pretty large. The ultimate August number could end up quite different from this one. All the data this month is pointing in the same direction—not good.

Now on a political level I think Obama's fortunes might be bolstered by the fact that the household survey showed a smallish decline in the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is I think a better-known indicator to the average person, and a decline is better than a non-decline. The reality, however, is that this was basically driven by people dropping out of the labor force. Not all of that is a bad thing per se—it's fine for people to retire early or whatever—but it's hard to see it as "good news" for the economy on any level.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/07/_96_000_new_jobs_in_august_and_unemployment_falls.html

nadinbrzezinski (108,655 posts)

23. It is the best August in six years

I guess you will still claim it's really bad.

There are definitely days. Free clue, corporate media will down play any report from here to november...

Yup, yep, yip, yap.

 

[Skul]

Yupper, stoking the boilers for a run on a back-to-back, DOTY.

[Chris_]

Unemployment "dropped" to 8.1

Hallelujah.  Good times are here again.

[ChuckJ]

Bless her heart. I would say that she's about as intelligent as a box of rocks, but if I did the next time I encountered a box of rocks they'd probably try to beat the hell out of me for underestimating their intelligence.

[ChuckJ]

Unemployment "dropped" to 8.1

Hallelujah.  Good times are here again.

And remember that during the Bush administration, as far as Atman and the rest of the DUmp were concerned, a 5.0 was considered terrible.

[franksolich]

Bless her heart. I would say that she's about as intelligent as a box of rocks, but if I did the next time I encountered a box of rocks they'd probably try to beat the hell out of me for underestimating their intelligence.

This is what cracked me up, but I forgot to point it out:

.....job numbers were really good for the job numbers.

Here, I thought I was the master of saying something without saying anything at all.

The oblate spheroid's got franksolich beat.....by a mile.

[jukin]

These were just FANTASTIC numbers!!!!!!11111!!1!elevinty

For every person that found a job, four gave up looking. Net effect is as if 500,000 jobs were created!!!!!!!11111!!!!!elevinty.

When 0bama said, "I'm not done."  It scares the bejeeebers out of me. His regurgitated plan of passing a $450 billion son of porkulus creating 1,000,000 jobs works out $450,000 per job.

Wile B. Obama
Economic Super Genius
Have AF1 and Brain Will Travel.

[Kyle Ricky]

What is the job loss number for the month? Every since obama became president, we have heard nothing but jobs created and not lost. When Bush was President, all you heard was jobs lost. When Romney becomes president, you will hear jobs lost and not created. I'm sick of the liberal hypocrites fudging things to make themselves look good.

[JohnnyReb]

What is the job loss number for the month? Every since obama became president, we have heard nothing but jobs created and not lost. When Bush was President, all you heard was jobs lost. When Romney becomes president, you will hear jobs lost and not created. I'm sick of the liberal hypocrites fudging things to make themselves look good.

I can see the MSM Romney job reports now......

"Unemployment took a giant leap this month when three sanitation workers at the sewage disposal plant lost their jobs this past month. President Romney's tight federal budget caused their shit to be outsourced to the much cheaper, nonunion treatment plant in the next county."

[GOBUCKS]

nadinbrzezinski (108,655 posts)

18. Think about Joe Six Pack

I doubt Joe Six Pack watched even one minute of those bug-eyed, vein-popping screechers.

[Airwolf]

So now that idiot bald dwarf is a jobs expert and economist as well?

[Carl]

I honestly don`t know if anyone could be that stupid by nature or accident,you really would have to work at it.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

How insane must you be to believe that NPR shills for republicans?

[miskie]

What is the job loss number for the month? Every since obama became president, we have heard nothing but jobs created and not lost. When Bush was President, all you heard was jobs lost. When Romney becomes president, you will hear jobs lost and not created. I'm sick of the liberal hypocrites fudging things to make themselves look good.

I read somewhere today (but I forget where) that someone took the time to figure out what the percentage of unemployed would be today if the percent of people who stop looking for jobs was the same today as it was during the 'Boosh' administration.

That number is somewhere in between 11 and 12 percent.

[RobJohnson]

Nevada is still at over 12%.

[Kyle Ricky]

I read somewhere today (but I forget where) that someone took the time to figure out what the percentage of unemployed would be today if the percent of people who stop looking for jobs was the same today as it was during the 'Boosh' administration.

That number is somewhere in between 11 and 12 percent.

That percentage sounds about right. Although it wouldn't surprise me if it was higher.

[BigTex]

That percentage sounds about right. Although it wouldn't surprise me if it was higher.

They said it on Fox today, Krauthammer or Dick Morris I think, 9.1%

[Chris_]

A top White House economics spokesman cautions against reading too much into a single month of employment data — and we concur: One month isn't enough. So how about 44 months instead?

The only reason the jobless rate fell in August was 368,000 people left the labor force, pushing labor force participation down to a 31-year low of 63.5%. Some 23 million people either don't have jobs, are looking for full-time work or are underemployed.

As IBD points out on its front page today, if the labor force participation rate had remained constant during Obama's years in office, unemployment today would be about 11.1%.

Investors Business Daily

[BattleHymn]