7.8% unemployment

[SMEGMA STENCH]

No president has been reelected with unemployment over 8% so Obama had the numbers lowered.

ROFL!! Its like even for potuses theres sh!+ no one will take . You dont perform in this area and its gtfo! no matter who you are

cant wait to see ryan disintegrate biden

[Forever_frost]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/11/bls-fail-jobless-claims-number-doesnt-include-california

Jobless Claims Number Doesn't Include California
Print Article Send a Tip
by Mike Flynn 11 Oct 2012, 11:09 AM PDT post a comment
I didn't buy into the idea last week that the Labor Department "cooked the books" on the September jobs report. If you were going to go to the trouble of fixing the numbers, wouldn't you come up with good numbers for both parts of the report? The household survey, upon which the unemployment numbers is based, is historically very volatile. Its suggestion of 800k new jobs in the month is obviously an outlier. Even if you accept the number at face value, an oddly precise 2/3rds of these jobs were part-time. You don't build a recovery on part-time jobs.

But, today, I admit, I'm starting to wonder. This morning the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that initial claims for unemployment benefits, i.e. jobless claims, fell a staggering 30k to 339k for the week. It's the lowest level of claims since January 2008! Analysts had expected the number to remain essentially unchanged at around 370k, where it's been pretty much for more than a year.

The media, of course, swooned at the news. NPR bellowed the report through my car speakers this morning and I swear I could hear high-fiving in the background of their studio. You would think we'd posted double-digit growth in GDP for the way the media greeted the news. The long-stalled economic recovery had appeared on the horizon at preciously the moment Obama needed it to.

Except, um, it turns out that number wasn't right. They forgot to include CALIFORNIA, the most populous and economically depressed state in the country. A source at the Labor Department brushed aside the omission by saying that, sometimes, if a state office is under-manned they don't complete all the jobless claims in time to report them to BLS.

In other words, the dog ate their homework.

I have long marveled at the slow-march disintegration of the once Golden State, but has the state really become so utterly dysfunctional that it can not process jobless claims in a timely fashion?

More importantly, shouldn't BLS have noted this somehow? Shouldn't there have been a big neon asterisk at the top of their press release? Billions of dollars move in the market on reaction to these reports. Should we really have to wait hours into the trading day to find out the numbers don't include the biggest state in the country?

It reminds me of the great Marion Barry line when he was Mayor of DC: crime in DC isn't that bad if you don't count the murders.

So, we had the lowest number of jobless claims in over four years... if you don't count the claims from the biggest state with one of the highest unemployment rates.

I hadn't realized that the Keystone Kops took over leadership at BLS. Very convenient that all these aberrations are potentially helpful to Obama. A bit too convenient.

[slow99]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ude-california

Jobless Claims Number Doesn't Include California
Print Article Send a Tip
by Mike Flynn 11 Oct 2012, 11:09 AM PDT post a comment
I didn't buy into the idea last week that the Labor Department "cooked the books" on the September jobs report. If you were going to go to the trouble of fixing the numbers, wouldn't you come up with good numbers for both parts of the report? The household survey, upon which the unemployment numbers is based, is historically very volatile. Its suggestion of 800k new jobs in the month is obviously an outlier. Even if you accept the number at face value, an oddly precise 2/3rds of these jobs were part-time. You don't build a recovery on part-time jobs.

But, today, I admit, I'm starting to wonder. This morning the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that initial claims for unemployment benefits, i.e. jobless claims, fell a staggering 30k to 339k for the week. It's the lowest level of claims since January 2008! Analysts had expected the number to remain essentially unchanged at around 370k, where it's been pretty much for more than a year.

The media, of course, swooned at the news. NPR bellowed the report through my car speakers this morning and I swear I could hear high-fiving in the background of their studio. You would think we'd posted double-digit growth in GDP for the way the media greeted the news. The long-stalled economic recovery had appeared on the horizon at preciously the moment Obama needed it to.

Except, um, it turns out that number wasn't right. They forgot to include CALIFORNIA, the most populous and economically depressed state in the country. A source at the Labor Department brushed aside the omission by saying that, sometimes, if a state office is under-manned they don't complete all the jobless claims in time to report them to BLS.

In other words, the dog ate their homework.

I have long marveled at the slow-march disintegration of the once Golden State, but has the state really become so utterly dysfunctional that it can not process jobless claims in a timely fashion?

More importantly, shouldn't BLS have noted this somehow? Shouldn't there have been a big neon asterisk at the top of their press release? Billions of dollars move in the market on reaction to these reports. Should we really have to wait hours into the trading day to find out the numbers don't include the biggest state in the country?

It reminds me of the great Marion Barry line when he was Mayor of DC: crime in DC isn't that bad if you don't count the murders.

So, we had the lowest number of jobless claims in over four years... if you don't count the claims from the biggest state with one of the highest unemployment rates.

I hadn't realized that the Keystone Kops took over leadership at BLS. Very convenient that all these aberrations are potentially helpful to Obama. A bit too convenient.

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36447

[Captain Crawfish]

Obama admin = fail they can cook the numbers all they want

[big_tiger]

Have they posted corrected numbers yet?

[CJ]

Have they posted corrected numbers yet?

For some reason I feel it may take 25 days. Omitting California easily accounts for the mysterious drop.

Oh, we didn't omit anyone, they just happened to forget to report.

[Forever_frost]

Have they posted corrected numbers yet?

No, and they're not going to.

[stang]

How many times in the past have states forgot to include unemployment data?

[CJ]

How many times in the past have states forgot to include unemployment data?

That's a good question to ask. I am not sure, but I have never heard of this occuring before, as it could greatly effect the jobless rates. I would presume it would be mentioned as I regularly listen to analysts on each of the jobless reports, and I would think that would be significant enough to mention.

The fact it's California is almost certainly intentional. They are extremely cooperative with the adminstration, run almost entirely by the left, and it's one of the highest unemployment rates. Last time I checked it was nearly 11% unemployment there, and considering it's the 8th largest economy in the world that's going to have one hell of an effect on jobless percentages. If you wanted to get the unemployment rate under 8%, California is the easiest way to do it, coincidentally. This adminstration has proven time and time again they will do anything to get the numbers or the outcome they want.

[slow99]

Have they posted corrected numbers yet?

Relatively sure it'll be on the next release - Thursday.

[slow99]

How many times in the past have states forgot to include unemployment data?

Jobless numbers. Look at the thread I linked in post 33. You guys are confusing two separate reports.

[Geor!]

Surprise, surprise! Odds on MSNBC and the left touting this report?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. The increase represents a rebound from the previous week's sharp drop. Both swings were largely due to technical factors.

The Labor Department says the four-week average of applications, a less volatile measure, fell slightly to 365,500, a level consistent with modest hiring.

Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008.

This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week. (Read More: Why Jobless Claims May Not Be as Good as Market Thinks)

A department spokesman says the seasonally adjusted numbers "are being distorted ... by an issue of timing."

Applications are a proxy for layoffs. When they decline, it suggests hiring is improving.

The prior week's figure was revised up to show 3,000 more applications than previously reported to 342,000.

[Zfan]

The new numbers are like a kick in the nut sack for the choosen one (Obama)!

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Is Fox News considered a media outlet? Kind of a dumb question but I have no idea. Tey also hate on "the media".

all media hate on all other media

they are a lot like some relgions

[CJ]

And there you go.