It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


7.8%: This Is Economic Recovery?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by HostileApostle

Why do you think republicans are immune to the destructive policies of Obama?

People, left and right have suffered greatly from this president.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:14 PM

Originally posted by HostileApostle

Made up numbers aren't "facts".

Except all of my numbers came straight from all BLS reports from January 2010 - August 2012. You know, the same reports that Obama reads a quick little summary on but doesn't go over it with a fine tooth comb for the revisions.

Jobs have been added in the past 24 months straight, I call that improvement.

Hours worked per week are up, I call that improvement.

Wages are up, I call that improvement.

Personally, I think anyone as President would have seen that happen, but I think we might have seen more of an improvement if employers weren't freaked out about the affects of Obamacare, the affects of our U.S. credit rating downgrade, etc.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:00 PM
HostileApostle, here's something for you to celebrate.

873,000 in one month?

Can you spell C-O-O-K-E-D?


The U.S. economy generated a lackluster 114,000 jobs in September, but the unemployment rate fell to 7.8% from 8.1%, the lowest level since January 2009, the government said Friday. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch expected a 110,000 increase in jobs, based on the Labor Department's survey of businesses. The unemployment rate, which is drawn from a separate survey of households, was forecast to tick up to 8.2% from 8.1%. Yet the jobless rate fell sharply after the biggest increase in employment as measured by the household survey since 1983. 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. In September, average hourly wages rose 7 cents, or 0.4%, to $23.58. The average workweek edged up 0.1 hour to 34.5.

Sept. U.S. jobs up 114,000; jobless rate 7.8% By Jeffry Bartash
reply to post by HostileApostle

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by alternateuniverse

Definition between U-3 and U-6 gives a good explaination,

This is the current U-6.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by alternateuniverse

It was said that over 10 million people lost their jobs just before Obama took office, so…I guess he has a long way to go, its plain common sense how many jobs he has to create from the republican era of 8 years.

July = 181,000 jobs
August = 142,000 jobs
September = 114,000 jobs

I guess he has a long way to go to help the populace get there jobs back after it was lost...on another watch.

edit on 5-10-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:39 PM

The unemployment data comes from two sources.
The first is a representative household survey of about 60,000 American households, which is conducted monthly.

The researchers count people as employed if they have worked in the past week, and they are considered unemployed if they haven’t worked but have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is not calculated based on who is collecting unemployment benefits.

The household survey, from which that 7.8 percent unemployment rate was calculated, is considered valuable because it includes self-employed people and others who might not show up in the payroll survey.

That’s the second source of data for the unemployment report. It’s compiled from a survey of about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, which account for about one-third of all nonfarm payroll employees.
That’s the data that is used to calculate the payroll figure, which in Friday’s report showed that nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000 in September.

nbcnews. com

Now of course Obama and his staff are going to jump all over this and though it is positive, economists commenting in the article are stating that this is really just a continuation of the slow recovery that we've been seeing for a while, that the job market numbers can swing wildly from month to month and are revised every few months for greater accuracy. This isn't really as big of a deal as either side is making it out to be.
edit on 5-10-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:42 PM
Jobs Growth Rises 114,000 as Rate Slides to 7.8 Percent By Jeff Cox

-Job growth remained tame in September, but a big drop in the unemployment rate sparked a huge debate about what this meant for the economy—and the presidential race.

-The US economy created just 114,000 new jobs last month, while the unemployment rate skidded to 7.8 percent

-The Bureau of Labor Statistics' nonfarm payrolls report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number.

-The falling jobless rate had been a function as much of the continued shrinking in the labor force as it was an increase in new positions.

-But the government said the total number of workers employed surged by 873,000, the highest one-month jump in 29 years. The total of unemployed people tumbled by 456,000.

-Economists were expecting 113,000 more jobs and the rate to rise to 8.2 percent. Last month saw 142,000 new jobs as the rate dropped from 8.3 percent in July.

-While the headline unemployment rate number likely will be something the president touts on the campaign trail, few on Wall Street expected it to be a game-changer

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 05:35 PM
Can someone, using the K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid) principle, please advise me as to whether these numbers went up or down using simple arithmetic?

Not being a U.S. guy, I just want a truthful evaluation, explained in a common-sense type of explanation.

..or, is the system so messed up that everyone can interpret what they want from any number?


posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 05:42 PM
Household Survey:

July '12 = -195,000
August '12 = -119,000
Sepetmber '12 = +873,000

Notice the mega-difference from August to September. WOW....W-O-W!


Headline Jobs +163,000, But Household Survey Shows -195,000 Jobs; Unemployment +.1 to 8.3%

Household Survey: Number of Employed Declines by 119,000 as Those Not in Labor Force Rises by Spectacular 581,000; Yes, Virginia, It's a Recession

September Jobs +114,000; Unemployment Rate 7.8%; Part-Time Workers +582,000; Initial Reaction and Election Impact

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:35 PM

Tony Fratto, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush, tweeted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics "is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility."

In another tweet, Fratto said: "Stop with the dumb conspiracy theories. Good grief."


Who'd have thought that a sane voice coming out of the Right wing would be a former Bush spokesman...

edit on 5-10-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:49 PM
Welch to MSNBC: I stand by my tweet

In a face-off with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Friday afternoon, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch refused to take back his accusation that the Obama administration rigged the Labor Department’s jobs report.

“These numbers defy logic. They defy logic. We do not have a 4 to 5 percent booming economy,” Welch told Matthews.

Matthews grilled Welch over the tweet.

“This is an assertion that there was Jimmy-ing with the numbers, that there was corruption here, an infiltration or getting to — it’s not funny, Jack,” Matthews said. “You’re talking about the president of the United States playing with the Bureau of Labor statistics number. This is Nixon stuff. This is what Nixon did back in the old days.”

“Chris, don’t lose it now,” Welch said.

“I’m not losing it. Look at my face. I’m not losing it,” Welch said.

“I can’t see your face,” Welch said.

“Do you want to take back the charge that there was corruption here?” Matthews said.

“No, I don’t want to take back one word in that tweet,” Welch said.

“Those that don’t like to agree with me say that I am old and senile but it is about asking questions. Does the economy feel like the employment has improved by 6 percent in the last 60 days?” Welch said on Fox.

Welch to MSNBC: I stand by my tweet By KEVIN CIRILLI | 10/5/12 6:04 PM EDT Updated: 10/5/12 6:37 PM EDT
reply to post by Kali74

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:03 PM
reply to post by alternateuniverse

How does dropping from 8.3% to 7.8% = 6% improvement? Maybe my math is screwey but doesn't that = a .5% drop?

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by Kali74

Jack Welch was trying to imply unemployment had to have been at 6% for 2 months in order for unemployment to really drop from 8.3% to 7.8%.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:27 PM
Tonight, at a H.S. football game in a +70% Democratic central, northern MA town (where I went to H.S.) everyone was embarassingly loud mocking those Obama unemployment number claims. Even I was cringing. It was turning into a mob scene in the stands because everyone was roaring about being lied to over the edge with this one. (We're all used to being lied to but this was the last straw)

West Wing - I know your monitoring this site. You just lost MA.

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by tkwasny

Yeah... no. Romney's numbers in MA sunk today to about 30%

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by alternateuniverse

That doesn't even make sense...
edit on 5-10-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by FlyersFan

7.8 isn't an 'economic recovery' ... and it isn't even the accurate number.
Real unemployment is something like 21 or 22 %.

No it's not.

The highest rate is the U6 rate that inclued the marginally employed and those that have drop off unemployment but are still looking for work.

Obama's first term as President U6 was at 15.1%, now it is at 14.7%.

I love how all you Obama haters are hell bent on denying reality, and actually hoping that the economy is worse.


I cant help but to get sick to my stomach because we have so many people who are not only denying the health of the nation getting better, but they're actually rooting for it to get worse!

It's treasonous. In all honesty, take it as you will, but if Mitt Romney were president and the unemployment numbers slowly got better while the stock market climbed at that same time, I would be happy. I'm an American for cryin out loud. What's wrong with some of you? It's gotten so bad that we have members here who will attack cancer cures if they have a (D) next them.
edit on 5-10-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:40 PM
Total Employment Rises 873,000 To Highest Level Since December 2008

Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983. Read more:

The highest jump in employment in 29 years. I must have missed some awfully wonderful news.

edit on 10/5/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:49 PM
Hiring has been unnaturally low since 9-11 because corporations don't want to hire Americans (because the hate the middle class). Also banks were sitting on their TARP loans for the same reason. Maybe they finally couldn't hold out anymore?

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:55 PM
Some of you guys are just pathetic. We get some good news, but oh no, its suddenly a conspiracy and the books were cooked. Will anything Obama does, satisfy you?. Fact is nothing he does will satisfy you, because you think that the cultist multi-millionaire who dismissed 47% of the population will magically create millions of jobs. The guy with the magic underpants is looking after your interests. Give me a break and face reality. If you want to argue facts, then lets look at facts since 1980 as most of you posting this crap were probably born after that date, as I can not fathom anyone posting rubbish could be that mature and have developed a working brain.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in