[DwightShrute]

Found this interesting.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...gus-jobs-data/


EDITORIAL: Obama’s bogus jobs data

Congress should investigate cooked employment books



The White House hyped the news Friday that January payrolls had risen by 243,000. The hitch is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce. Somehow this net loss of a million workers in a single month was transformed into an improvement in the unemployment rate. As the old saying goes, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
“Job growth was widespread,” the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isn’t quite right with the numbers. The most important change was the deep decline in the workforce. While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration or for other reasons have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool. They are worse than simply unemployed; they are both jobless and hopeless.
The good news for Obama administration statisticians is that these unfortunates don’t factor into the official unemployment rate, which only counts those thought to be looking for work. So while five people drop out of the system in despair for every new job created, the official unemployment rate declines and the White House enjoys a good news day.
“The recovery is speeding up,” President Obama declared. However, the broader measures tell a different story. The employment-to-population ratio, the most comprehensive jobs number, remained flatlined at 58.5 percent, around where is has been for at least a year. The number lacking jobs has likewise remained steady at 41.5 percent. The overall participation rate, the percentage making up the workforce in the population, accelerated an already steep decline to a 30-year low of 63.7 percent. In short, the recovery is not speeding up - people are simply giving up.
The participation rate is a subjective measure and highly subject to manipulation. The lower it goes and the more people are dropped from the unemployment equation, the better the numbers will look for the White House. This figure has been dropping sharply since Mr. Obama took office. Last month, an analysis at the Zero Hedge financial website noted that by extending the logic of reporting progressively fewer labor-force participants, “America will officially have no unemployed when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5 percent, which should be just before the presidential election.” Maybe that’s the plan.
A year ago, there were 99 million people either officially unemployed or otherwise not working, and the official unemployment rate was 9.1 percent. Now, unemployment reported by the government is down to 8.3 percent, but the number without jobs has topped 100 million. The disconnect between increasing joblessness in America and the rosy White House official statistics should be the subject of a congressional investigation. Something does not add up.
The Washington Times

[rkelly110]

Exactly, Only people who are receiving unemployment are the only ones who can be
counted. Once you use up the benefit or find a job, you're off the list. I'm guessing
the benefits ran out, because I'm still hearing of massive layoffs.

That article can't be right. 99 million? There's 300 million here. That would be 33%
on unemployment. 9 million would be accurate. Even so, that's waaayyy too many.

[Shafted69]

You whiny repubes can thank your hero Raygun for changing the way unemployment is tallied by not counting those who are not looking for work as unemployed. WAH !! WAAAAAAAAAH !!

[DwightShrute]

one of your better posts Shaftey

[Andy117]

Found this interesting.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...gus-jobs-data/


EDITORIAL: Obama’s bogus jobs data

Congress should investigate cooked employment books



The White House hyped the news Friday that January payrolls had risen by 243,000. The hitch is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce. Somehow this net loss of a million workers in a single month was transformed into an improvement in the unemployment rate. As the old saying goes, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
“Job growth was widespread,” the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isn’t quite right with the numbers. The most important change was the deep decline in the workforce. While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration or for other reasons have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool. They are worse than simply unemployed; they are both jobless and hopeless.
The good news for Obama administration statisticians is that these unfortunates don’t factor into the official unemployment rate, which only counts those thought to be looking for work. So while five people drop out of the system in despair for every new job created, the official unemployment rate declines and the White House enjoys a good news day.
“The recovery is speeding up,” President Obama declared. However, the broader measures tell a different story. The employment-to-population ratio, the most comprehensive jobs number, remained flatlined at 58.5 percent, around where is has been for at least a year. The number lacking jobs has likewise remained steady at 41.5 percent. The overall participation rate, the percentage making up the workforce in the population, accelerated an already steep decline to a 30-year low of 63.7 percent. In short, the recovery is not speeding up - people are simply giving up.
The participation rate is a subjective measure and highly subject to manipulation. The lower it goes and the more people are dropped from the unemployment equation, the better the numbers will look for the White House. This figure has been dropping sharply since Mr. Obama took office. Last month, an analysis at the Zero Hedge financial website noted that by extending the logic of reporting progressively fewer labor-force participants, “America will officially have no unemployed when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5 percent, which should be just before the presidential election.” Maybe that’s the plan.
A year ago, there were 99 million people either officially unemployed or otherwise not working, and the official unemployment rate was 9.1 percent. Now, unemployment reported by the government is down to 8.3 percent, but the number without jobs has topped 100 million. The disconnect between increasing joblessness in America and the rosy White House official statistics should be the subject of a congressional investigation. Something does not add up.
The Washington Times

If they didn't change the way it was recorded in the last few years, I don't see that it's all that relevant.

[jw]

Here are a few more straws for you to clutch at Dwighty.

[Hotdiggity11]

The data was counted the same way during the Bush Administration but I didn't hear no cries of this shit then.

[dante1]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Nothing is ever good enough, R's will always find fault. If we had near full employment, inflation under control, wagers and salaries rising, stock market up, business flourishing and the best economic indicators in the last 100 years the R's would be bitchin about the rain we had on Friday.

Jesus Christ himself could descend and proclaim B Obama the greatest human being ever and the R would do their best to negate it. You simply cannot beat them ever, you might tie them but you need a ton of rope for that.

[guitarjosh]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Nothing is ever good enough, R's will always find fault. If we had near full employment, inflation under control, wagers and salaries rising, stock market up, business flourishing and the best economic indicators in the last 100 years the R's would be bitchin about the rain we had on Friday.

Jesus Christ himself could descend and proclaim B Obama the greatest human being ever and the R would do their best to negate it. You simply cannot beat them ever, you might tie them but you need a ton of rope for that.

Yep, that's politics for you. I remember in 2005 when things were going pretty well and Hurricane Katrina hit. There were people on the left saying that if Gore had been elected, it wouldn't have ever formed.

[dante1]

Yep, that's politics for you. I remember in 2005 when things were going pretty well and Hurricane Katrina hit. There were people on the left saying that if Gore had been elected, it wouldn't have ever formed.

You know D's will support a good man a good president even if they don't agree with everything he preaches. Case in point was RR he carried a ton of D's. The same cannot be said of a majority of the R's Mr. Josh. Your point is clever but not as true as my point and I think you know it. Many R will never, ever in their life vote for a D nor will they even begrudgingly admit a D was either a good president or a good man. D's will do that in a heart beat, that is the difference sir.

[guitarjosh]

You know D's will support a good man a good president even if they don't agree with everything he preaches. Case in point was RR he carried a ton of D's. The same cannot be said of a majority of the R's Mr. Josh. Your point is clever but not as true as my point and I think you know it. Many R will never, ever in their life vote for a D nor will they even begrudgingly admit a D was either a good president or a good man. D's will do that in a heart beat, that is the difference sir.

First of all, good is just a point of view. RR got a lot of D's because they realized Carter was horrible and Mondale promised to raise their taxes. RR never carry a majority of D's. BTW, many D's hated RR more then any R in history until W became president...or is it pResident? And my point is more correct then yours. You know that many D's will never, ever vote for anyone with anything but a D by their name.

[andywend]

You know D's will support a good man a good president even if they don't agree with everything he preaches. Case in point was RR he carried a ton of D's. The same cannot be said of a majority of the R's Mr. Josh. Your point is clever but not as true as my point and I think you know it. Many R will never, ever in their life vote for a D nor will they even begrudgingly admit a D was either a good president or a good man. D's will do that in a heart beat, that is the difference sir.

You're confusing the 1980's democrat, to the lazy, good for nothing democratic leeches that exist today.

Are you going to sit there and say that the democrats of today would support an ultra-conservative like Ronald Reagan?

The demographics of American voters have completely changed over the past 30 years and its all for the worse.

The plain, simple truth is that all of this recovery only started after the republicans took back the house in late 2009 and the 2 years where democrats had complete control was an ABSOLUTE DISASTER.

This is another example of pure liberal democratic HYPOCRISY. When anything good happens, liberal democrats proudly give President Obama all the credit (i.e. Osama bin Laden is captured and killed and its all because of Obama as opposed to the Navy Seals that actually were responsible). However, when anything bad happens, liberal democrats blame it on the republicans not working well enough with Obama.

When Bush was spending like a drunken democrat on shore leave, fiscal conservatives across the nation joined with the democrats in condemning Bush. Now that Obama is creating debt at a rate of 3X President Bush, fiscal conservatives are complaining louder than ever but liberal democrats are deafeningly silent.

From the time our founding forefathers wrote the constitution to the present day, there have been many amendments passed greatly increasing the size of the voting pool. All of the people that are able to vote today who our founding forefathers saw fit to exclude from the voting process, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!!!

Unless we reduce the size of the voting pool to what our founding forefathers originally thought was best, there is nothing that can be done to save our nation.

[rkelly110]

Dante, it's time to bring out your Am History article on Moore again.
Might want to highlight and make large the good parts. You know how some people
don't like to read.

[dante1]

First of all, good is just a point of view. RR got a lot of D's because they realized Carter was horrible and Mondale promised to raise their taxes. RR never carry a majority of D's. BTW, many D's hated RR more then any R in history until W became president...or is it pResident? And my point is more correct then yours. You know that many D's will never, ever vote for anyone with anything but a D by their name.

You win, like I said can't reason with you guys.

[DwightShrute]

You're confusing the 1980's democrat, to the lazy, good for nothing democratic leeches that exist today.

Are you going to sit there and say that the democrats of today would support an ultra-conservative like Ronald Reagan?

The demographics of American voters have completely changed over the past 30 years and its all for the worse.

The plain, simple truth is that all of this recovery only started after the republicans took back the house in late 2009 and the 2 years where democrats had complete control was an ABSOLUTE DISASTER.

This is another example of pure liberal democratic HYPOCRISY. When anything good happens, liberal democrats proudly give President Obama all the credit (i.e. Osama bin Laden is captured and killed and its all because of Obama as opposed to the Navy Seals that actually were responsible). However, when anything bad happens, liberal democrats blame it on the republicans not working well enough with Obama.

When Bush was spending like a drunken democrat on shore leave, fiscal conservatives across the nation joined with the democrats in condemning Bush. Now that Obama is creating debt at a rate of 3X President Bush, fiscal conservatives are complaining louder than ever but liberal democrats are deafeningly silent.

From the time our founding forefathers wrote the constitution to the present day, there have been many amendments passed greatly increasing the size of the voting pool. All of the people that are able to vote today who our founding forefathers saw fit to exclude from the voting process, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!!!

Unless we reduce the size of the voting pool to what our founding forefathers originally thought was best, there is nothing that can be done to save our nation.

once again you tell it like it is. No spin. Most objective people will agree.

[DwightShrute]

Here are a few more straws for you to clutch at Dwighty.

Thnaks JW

One can never have too many

[dante1]

once again you tell it like it is. No spin. Most objective people will agree.

What? Dwight, did you read what he said. He wants to return to the days when women and blacks don't vote. Are you just as crazy as he is? WTF, do you even read what he writes.

[lyon804]

You're confusing the 1980's democrat, to the lazy, good for nothing democratic leeches that exist today.

Are you going to sit there and say that the democrats of today would support an ultra-conservative like Ronald Reagan?

The demographics of American voters have completely changed over the past 30 years and its all for the worse.

The plain, simple truth is that all of this recovery only started after the republicans took back the house in late 2009 and the 2 years where democrats had complete control was an ABSOLUTE DISASTER.

This is another example of pure liberal democratic HYPOCRISY. When anything good happens, liberal democrats proudly give President Obama all the credit (i.e. Osama bin Laden is captured and killed and its all because of Obama as opposed to the Navy Seals that actually were responsible). However, when anything bad happens, liberal democrats blame it on the republicans not working well enough with Obama.

When Bush was spending like a drunken democrat on shore leave, fiscal conservatives across the nation joined with the democrats in condemning Bush. Now that Obama is creating debt at a rate of 3X President Bush, fiscal conservatives are complaining louder than ever but liberal democrats are deafeningly silent.

From the time our founding forefathers wrote the constitution to the present day, there have been many amendments passed greatly increasing the size of the voting pool. All of the people that are able to vote today who our founding forefathers saw fit to exclude from the voting process, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!!!

Unless we reduce the size of the voting pool to what our founding forefathers originally thought was best, there is nothing that can be done to save our nation.

POLL TAX!! I do not believe people who pay zero income taxes should be able to vote. I am also in favor of a modified welfare system in this country where the participants are actually penalized for making more children rather than rewarded. Ignorant welfare receipients should not be rewarded for making more babies they can afford. America is going to hell in a hand basket because the vast majority of ignorant/poor are producing way more children than the intelligent/affluent. It is a viscious cycle. Most children of welfare receipients will grow up to be no different than their parents.

[guitarjosh]

You win, like I said can't reason with you guys.

You should try reasoning next time. Sharing your opinion or posting an article written by a liberal isn't reason. Try interjecting more facts.

[dante1]

You're confusing the 1980's democrat, to the lazy, good for nothing democratic leeches that exist today. Are you going to sit there and say that the democrats of today would support an ultra-conservative like Ronald Reagan? The demographics of American voters have completely changed over the past 30 years and its all for the worse. The plain, simple truth is that all of this recovery only started after the republicans took back the house in late 2009 and the 2 years where democrats had complete control was an ABSOLUTE DISASTER. This is another example of pure liberal democratic HYPOCRISY. When anything good happens, liberal democrats proudly give President Obama all the credit (i.e. Osama bin Laden is captured and killed and its all because of Obama as opposed to the Navy Seals that actually were responsible). However, when anything bad happens, liberal democrats blame it on the republicans not working well enough with Obama. When Bush was spending like a drunken democrat on shore leave, fiscal conservatives across the nation joined with the democrats in condemning Bush. Now that Obama is creating debt at a rate of 3X President Bush, fiscal conservatives are complaining louder than ever but liberal democrats are deafeningly silent. From the time our founding forefathers wrote the constitution to the present day, there have been many amendments passed greatly increasing the size of the voting pool. All of the people that are able to vote today who our founding forefathers saw fit to exclude from the voting process, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!!! Unless we reduce the size of the voting pool to what our founding forefathers originally thought was best, there is nothing that can be done to save our nation.

Here is a fact for you Joshie boy, a crazy R the type I am talking about one of your buddies. Read the last two paragraphs and tell me my argument isn't valid.

Paragraphs didn't show, well read the last few sentences.

[dante1]

We can only save the nation if we eliminate the vote for the blacks and women. And yet people attempt to tell me and convince me that these guys are sane and reasonable.

[Emily_Haines]

Stupid clowns that support the GOP cry about pennies to the poor but never say jack shit about the 2 trillion wasted in their BS wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. These fuks are the real cancer to our country.

[dante1]

Stupid clowns that support the GOP cry about pennies to the poor but never say jack shit about the 2 trillion wasted in their BS wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. These fuks are the real cancer to our country.

EH, just when I am about ready to count you as a crazy you say something so very sane and sensible. Good for you sir.

[guitarjosh]

Here is a fact for you Joshie boy, a crazy R the type I am talking about one of your buddies. Read the last two paragraphs and tell me my argument isn't valid.

Paragraphs didn't show, well read the last few sentences.

Let's take a look at what you said earlier

You know D's will support a good man a good president even if they don't agree with everything he preaches.

If you mean by D's, plural, as in more then one, I'll cede you that point. However, there are more then 2 R's that will support a good man if he is a democrat.

Case in point was RR he carried a ton of D's.

Again, he didn't carry a ton of D's because he was a good man, he carried them because Carter and Mondale were disasters. Many, many left wingers consider RR to be one of the most evil men to live since WW2 ended. And Obama carried a lot of R's himself.

The same cannot be said of a majority of the R's Mr. Josh.

The majority of R's? A couple sentences ago it was more then one D, now it is a majority?! That's nothing but a double standard. Name any republican that can carry the majority of D's!

Your point is clever but not as true as my point and I think you know it.

Actually, my point is truer.

Many R will never, ever in their life vote for a D nor will they even begrudgingly admit a D was either a good president or a good man. D's will do that in a heart beat, that is the difference sir.

I will give you the first sentence, but the first sentence is as wrong as the first is right. It is pretty funny that when it comes to political debates, the #1 debating tactic of the R's is to use facts, logic, and history, while the #1 debating tactic of the D's is to use insults, character assassination, and violence, but those same D's will say the R's are good people?! They always try to portray R's as either evil or stupid!

[rkelly110]

Quote:
I will give you the first sentence, but the first sentence is as wrong as the first is right. It is pretty funny that when it comes to political debates, the #1 debating tactic of the R's is to use facts, logic, and history, while the #1 debating tactic of the D's is to use insults, character assassination, and violence, but those same D's will say the R's are good people?! They always try to portray R's as either evil or stupid!

Have you NOT been watching the Repub debates Josh? Seen some of the hate ad's?

[andywend]

EH, just when I am about ready to count you as a crazy you say something so very sane and sensible. Good for you sir.

When Dante disagrees with you = count you as a crazy/When Dante agrees with you = sane and sensible.

You win, like I said can't reason with you guys.

[guitarjosh]

Have you NOT been watching the Repub debates Josh? Seen some of the hate ad's?

Not too much, for me it is either Ron Paul or nothing. What have I missed? Have they been calling any candidate who is against Obamacare racist? Anyone who is against Affirmative Action racist? Anyone who wants to reform welfare a hater of poor people? Pro life is sexist? You know, the things democrats call republicans? What exactly?

[rkelly110]

Yeah, Paul is the least basher out of the bunch. The candidates are worse than a bunch of
old women in the same kitchen together.

There's nothing to bash 'bama on, because he has a Repub agenda. They can only bash
'bama care.

[d2bets]

While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million.

What difference does it make that the population jumped? Last I heard, infants tend to be unemployed. Also, this is going to be a trend. Consider that we are getting to the time where baby boomers are hitting retirement en masse. So it's not surprising that a lot of people are leaving the workforce. I'd need to see the figure broken down further by age. As baby boomers age and people live longer, it is going to the case that we have a lower total proportion of the population that is working. That is not unemployment though. That's just demographics.