It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Dishonest Unemployment Numbers and the Democrat party MSM

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
spectator.org...

A flashback to a CNN article from just before the 2004 election era shows just how unbelievable today's new unemployment numbers are.

In September 2004, new numbers came out, showing a drop in unemployment from 5.5% to 5.4%. At that time, with a much lower unemployment number than we have today (around 8% today), the increase in new jobs that caused a 0.1% decrease in unemployment was 144,000.

So, let's get this straight. With 144,000 new jobs in a smaller U.S. population (about 295 million in 2004 vs. about 314 million today), you get a drop in unemployment by 0.1%. But now, 8 years later, with a greater population, you get 114,000 new jobs and, somehow, you get an even larger drop in unemployment: from 8.1% to 7.8%?
That just makes no sense.


It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see these unemployment numbers are total bullcocks. Combine this evidence with how the MSM reported on a much lower unemployment number under Bush.

Let’s start with the New York Times. How did they lead their coverage in October 2004 of the September jobs report?
www.nytimes.com...

Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported Friday.

The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy just hours before the second presidential debate.

The Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy added just 96,000 jobs in September, substantially less than the roughly 150,000 needed to keep pace with the expansion in the labor force and start absorbing the slack in the job market.


How did they report yesterday’s jobs report? Let’s just say they gave it a … different emphasis:

www.nytimes.com...

The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign.

The improvement lent ballast to Mr. Obama’s case that the economy is on the mend and threatened the central argument of Mitt Romney’s candidacy, that Mr. Obama’s failed stewardship is reason enough to replace him.

Employers added a modest 114,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported on Friday, but estimates for what had been disappointing gains in July and August were revised upward to more respectable levels.


From Hotair:

"In 2004, a jobless rate of 5.4% “cast doubt” on the economy, and suddenly 7.8% is a sign of “a steadier recovery.” In 2012, the NYT never even mentions the need to grow jobs by 150,000 each month to keep up with expansion in the labor force. Not even once.

All right, that’s the New York Times. No one expects them to be unbiased. How about PBS? (Stop laughing, you guys.) Believe it or not, they did marginally better, only because they didn’t get so in the tank in 2004:"


www.pbs.org...

Still, the September job-creation total fell far short of Wall Street economists’ forecasts for 148,000 new jobs.September’s net increase of 96,000 payroll jobs was less than August’s rise, which the Labor Department revised downward from 144,000 to 128,000 it reported a month ago.The latest figures show four straight months of weak job growth after three strong months in the spring. It was the final jobs report before the Nov. 2 presidential election with polls indicating that jobs are a central concern of voters.


How about when the 7.8% number came out? It was “a rare banner day.” No, really:

www.pbs.org...

A rare banner day on the jobs front, at least at first glance. The official unemployment rate — U-3 — dropped below 8 percent to 7.8 and even our all-inclusive U-7 is down 0.08 percent — to 16.87 percent. The most impressive numbers are in job creation as reported by the monthly survey of “establishments.” While the 114,000 new jobs added in September is a modest figure, the upward revisions for July and August are substantial: 86,000 more jobs, or a bump of better than 30 percent. It’s a good reminder not to take any given month’s numbers too seriously. But it’s a reminder in the right direction.


How about the Washington Post? From Nexis, here’s their report from October 9, 2004:

U.S. job growth slowed last month as manufacturers, airlines and retailers shed workers, the government reported yesterday in its last official snapshot of the labor market before the presidential election.

Employers added 96,000 non-farm obs last month, down from 128,000 in August, as losses in some industries were more than offset by hires in others, such as real estate, construction and temporary help services.

September was the fourth-straight month of gains below the roughly 150,000 a month that many economists estimate are necessary to keep pace with population growth. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.4 percent as hundreds of thousands of people stopped looking for work and therefore were not counted among the jobless, the Labor Department said.


When 7.8% came out:

www.washingtonpost.com...

The nation’s jobless rate dropped to its lowest point in nearly four years in September. And unlike some recent declines, this one happened for the right reason: not because people gave up looking for a job, but because far more people reported having one.

It is a surprising improvement in a job market that had appeared listless in recent months. Although employers added a modest 114,000 jobs in September, the unemployment rate dropped sharply, from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, the government reported Friday.

Unemployment is at its lowest level since President Obama took office in January 2009, offering him a political boost just days after his performance was widely judged as lackluster during a debate against GOP rival Mitt Romney.


Here’s the Chicago Tribune in 2004, and this time, we’ll start with the headline, again from Nexis:


JOBS REPORT: September employment growth a disappointment

The nation’s payrolls grew by a less-than-expected 96,000 jobs in September, as joblessness remained at 5.4 percent, the Labor Department said in its last employment report before Election Day. …

Economists said the latest report was disappointing, and that job growth remains anemic for this stage of an economic recovery.

The country should be creating 250,000 jobs or more per month by now, one analyst said.


Continued in next post:
edit on 9-10-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/9/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Disappointment at 96,000 and 5.4%! How about in 2012?

www.chicagotribune.com...

The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to a near four-year low of 7.8 percent in September, a potential boost to President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

The Labor Department said on Friday the unemployment rate, a key focus in the race for the White House, dropped by 0.3 percentage point to its lowest point since January 2009.

A survey of households from which the jobless rate is derived showed 873,000 job gains last month, the most since June 1983. The drop in unemployment came even as Americans come back into the labor force to resume the hunt for work. The workforce had shrank in the prior two months.

The household survey is volatile. A survey of business establishments showed employers added 114,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, a touch above economists’ expectations for 113,000 jobs. Employment for July and August was revised to show 86,000 more jobs created than previous reported.


From Hotair:

"And just in case you don’t get the message from the coverage, the Tribune’s editors tell you today that the American economy “has finally broken loose,” and that the overall result is “modestly positive” at +114K and 7.8% while +96K and 5.4% in 2004 was “a disappointment”:"
www.chicagotribune.com...

After 43 straight months in the cold grip of an 8-plus percent unemployment rate, America finally broke loose — by a little.

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the jobless tally dipped in September to 7.8 percent, its lowest level since January 2009. That was down from 8.1 percent in the month-earlier report. …

The volatility in the household numbers contrasts with the more stable, larger survey of employers, which is the basis for the job creation figure of 114,000. The more encouraging part of the report was an upward revision in the number of jobs created in July and August, which suggested that the jobs slump this past summer wasn’t as deep as previous reports suggested. America’s jobs engine is bumping along a little more steadily than economists might have thought. It’s hardly robust, though.

This was a modestly positive report — period.


Ah, the huge difference between +96K/5.4% and +114K/7.8% … or really, between Republican incumbents and Democratic incumbents.


I mean really, who can deny that the US media is nothing more than an extension of the Democrat party? It's PAINFULLY obvious and it blows my mind that so many still buy their crap.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
so...the last 4 years, all those numbers were wrong?.....republican answer,...yeah, it's outragous!!! terrible!!!...that there are more people that have jobs... the entire government is lying!! (drooling, wild eyed look), sorry, but it fits your avatar
edit on 9-10-2012 by jimmyx because: addition



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I love how you try to use official BLS numbers to debunk BLS numbers, not very logical.

Here's a hint, the retired population is much larger today than it was in 2004. I'm sure you have heard, there are more retired people now than there ever has been. And each month, more and more people are retiring, which is reducing the working force at a faster rate than ever before.

Unemployment is 7.8, deal with it.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle


Unemployment is 7.8, deal with it.


Even if that is 100% accurate, how in the world do you explain the MSM's completely contradictory reporting on the numbers?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
I love how you try to use official BLS numbers to debunk BLS numbers, not very logical.

Here's a hint, the retired population is much larger today than it was in 2004. I'm sure you have heard, there are more retired people now than there ever has been. And each month, more and more people are retiring, which is reducing the working force at a faster rate than ever before.

Unemployment is 7.8, deal with it.


You didnt even read this, did you?


A flashback to a CNN article from just before the 2004 election era shows just how unbelievable today's new unemployment numbers are.

In September 2004, new numbers came out, showing a drop in unemployment from 5.5% to 5.4%. At that time, with a much lower unemployment number than we have today (around 8% today), the increase in new jobs that caused a 0.1% decrease in unemployment was 144,000.

So, let's get this straight. With 144,000 new jobs in a smaller U.S. population (about 295 million in 2004 vs. about 314 million today), you get a drop in unemployment by 0.1%. But now, 8 years later, with a greater population, you get 114,000 new jobs and, somehow, you get an even larger drop in unemployment: from 8.1% to 7.8%?
That just makes no sense.



It doesn't make sense. it also doesn't make sense that the Obama mass media is suddenly euphoric over these numbers, yet reported on much better numbers under Bush as underwhelming.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
So... the numbers from the same source were right in the past, but now, since it is good news for Obama, they are wrong?

Is this a conspiracy pushed by FOX or something?
edit on 9-10-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Unemployment at 7.8% is nothing to brag about. It sucks.
The black unemployment rate is like 13%.
REAL unemployment is more like 20% (counting those who have given up etc).
That's seriously sucky. After almost 4 years it's still this bad.
No one should be bragging about those numbers.
Get the 'real unemployment' number down to 5.0% and we can say that progress has been made.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by HostileApostle


Unemployment is 7.8, deal with it.


Even if that is 100% accurate, how in the world do you explain the MSM's completely contradictory reporting on the numbers?


Are you serious?

The 7.8% is positive because it is coming down from the recession. It is a sign that we are still on track for recovery.

In 2004, the employment growth was slowing down and was seen as a sign that the economy was starting to slow down (which it was, which led to the 2007-2009 recession).

If you don't see the differences in circumstances, then I don't think anyone can help you out.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
So... the numbers from the same source were right in the past, but now, since it is good news for Obama, they are wrong?

Is this a conspiracy pushed by FOX or something?
edit on 9-10-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't know since I don't watch Fox and don't have cable. I'm not at all surprised your programming told you to respond this way though and not address any of the points I made. How do you explain the contradictions?

No, let me guess.

"FAUX NEWZ!"



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 



It doesn't make sense. it also doesn't make sense that the Obama mass media is suddenly euphoric over these numbers, yet reported on much better numbers under Bush as underwhelming.


You, and those articles, are looking at total population, not the work force.

The articles use total population to trick people who don't understand economics, in short they lied to you and you bought it.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
The 7.8% is positive because it is coming down from the recession. It is a sign that we are still on track for recovery.

No matter who is in office ... this is a sucky number. It fails to take into account those who have 'given up' and aren't looking for work anymore - those who have fallen off the grid. It fails to take into account that the few jobs that have been created are NOT high paying jobs like Engineering or Doctoring etc .. but are low paying jobs that a person can't live on, like flipping burgers at McDonalds.

After four years of Obama, if his policies worked this number would be MUCH better.
A surprise slight dip from 8.3 to 7.8 is a blip .. not a recovery.

Bush .. Obama ... Romney .. doesn't matter who it is -
7.8% isn't the real unemployment number and it still stinks.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
So... the numbers from the same source were right in the past, but now, since it is good news for Obama, they are wrong?

Is this a conspiracy pushed by FOX or something?
edit on 9-10-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


no!...on the contrary...it's business as usual for the right-wing. i can't wait for romney to say that he will bomb iran or the USSR (absolved years ago), pump billions into defense, and cut taxes at the same time!!! i wonder if he'll voluteer his own sons or grandkids to enlist...you know for the good of the country.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Unemployment at 7.8% is nothing to brag about. It sucks.


The trend is what is worth braggin about, not the number.


REAL unemployment is more like 20%


This is 100% false. Show me any data that would suggest that, I dare you. You have been decieved by the right wing talking heads.

I think the number you are looking for is the U6 unemployment number, which is 14.7%. You should use the accurate numbers if you want to be taken seriously.


Get the 'real unemployment' number down to 5.0% and we can say that progress has been made.


And this just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. The U6 unemployment has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER been at 5% in modern history.

Get your facts straight instead of just throwing out made up numbers in your head.

www.portalseven.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
So... the numbers from the same source were right in the past, but now, since it is good news for Obama, they are wrong?

Is this a conspiracy pushed by FOX or something?
edit on 9-10-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't know since I don't watch Fox and don't have cable. I'm not at all surprised your programming told you to respond this way though and not address any of the points I made. How do you explain the contradictions?

No, let me guess.

"FAUX NEWZ!"




I don't really understand what your point is. Are you mad because you think the numbers are fraudulent? Or are you mad that Bush wasn't hailed as a saint by the "Liberal Media"?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by HostileApostle
 


People really need to understand what the U6 is. Its ignorant to toss up those numbers as an example of "real unemployment".



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I don't really understand what your point is. Are you mad because you think the numbers are fraudulent? Or are you mad that Bush wasn't hailed as a saint by the "Liberal Media"?


First off all, I'm not mad. You're the one throwing around the left wing talking point about Fox. It's a common angry liberal response. Second, I'm just exposing the media for it's completely contradictory reporting. It seems 7.8% is good if you're a Democrat and 5.4% is bad if you're a Republican. You guys always want to complain about Fox, but have nothing but excuses and deflections when it comes to the greater mass media and their deception in defense of the Democrat party.

You can go down the list of things the MSM incited outrage over under Bush, but now covers up in defense of their guy. From Gitmo, gas prices, drone strikes and unemployment. I guess you'll all dismiss it as long as Jon Stewart (the left wing entertainer) is dismissing it eh?




Funny, bush was to blame for gas prices, now the president has nothing to do with gas prices even though he said himself that high gas prices were part of his plan and policy. You all are like trained seals!
edit on 9-10-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by HostileApostle
 


People really need to understand what the U6 is. Its ignorant to toss up those numbers as an example of "real unemployment".


I agree.

And it is even more ignorant for people to throw out a completely made up number like 20% that has no factual backing.

But what I hate the most are the people who try to compare the current U6 number to the U3 number pre-Obama. Fox News does this often, they will claim that the "unemployment rate" before Obama took office was under 8%, and today the "real unemployment rate" is at 14.7%.

That is why you get very uninformed people trying to claim that the "real" (the U6) unemployment rate needs to get under 5% before we are recovered, even though that has never happened and is damn near impossible.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
The trend is what is worth braggin about, not the number.

Unless the number goes down again it's not a 'trend'. It's just a blip.

Show me any data that would suggest that, I dare you.

You 'dare me'??
Oh you are so funny. You deny that a whole lotta people have given up and have dropped off the charts? You deny that the few jobs created aren't keeping up with demand and that those that are created aren't the high paying jobs (engineer, doctor, etc) but are more in the burger-flipper category? Not enough to live on. Denial ... typical ....
(left wing) NY Times - Majority of New Jobs Pay Low Wages
LA Times - Majority of New Jobs are Low Paying
(left wing) Huffington Post - Low-Wage Jobs Replace Middle Income Work
More charts etc etc
U6 at 14.7%
REAL unemployment rate 11.6%

You should use the accurate numbers if you want to be taken seriously.

The numbers used and the way I presented them are just fine.
If you want to consider working at McDonalds as 'employed' and able to live off .. go right ahead. I DO NOT. I consider those 'jobs' in with the under employed.And I don't care if you take me seriously or not.

And this just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.

I know what I'm talking about just fine.
Those that defend this 7.8 as something wonderous are the ones that haven't got a clue.

The U6 unemployment has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER been at 5% in modern history.

No kidding. But according to Obama's utopia vision, this is possible. And yet after nearly four years he hasn't done it. He hasn't even come close. Therefore, he really can't go around bragging about a 'blip'.


The far left is clinging to this 7.8% like it's a magical number. It's not. It's an awful number
And unless there is a repeat ... It's just a blip.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I like the avatar.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain


At this point I have no belief that the federal government of this is country is honest in any area with the possible exception of the CBO. You do? Sesame Street starts in 5 minutes.

Starred and Flagged.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join