Obama's Cooking the Books

[CitadelGrad]

I thought it was 6.93

That will be the October number that Obama will release two days before the election.

[CitadelGrad]

It depends on which rate you are talking about. The U-3 rate is 7.8%. The U-6 rate is unchanged at 14.7%.

The U-3 rate decline is related to the household survey which showed an increase of 840,000 jobs. The much larger survey of businesses showed an increase of 114,000. The business survey numbers in July and August were much higher (190,000 and 160,000), yet didn't budget the U-3 rate from 8.1%. The question is how did a smaller increase of 114,000 move the U-3 rate down .3% when the labor force participation rate continued to decline?

If it isn't cooking the books, then I don't know what it is. Clearly, the household survey number is not valid, but it is the basis for the September decline in the U-3 rate.

Didn't know the names but knew there were two different measurements and the one that people should be paying attention to is the one that is at 14.7. Honestly don't know the recipe

The U-3 rate is what is commonly called "the unemployment rate) and what is reported by the media most often. The U-6 rate is what most economists call "the real unemployment rate". That's the rate that presidents don't want the public to know anything about.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Statistics are wonderful. But I try to deal with real things. Do you know anyone who has been unemployed within the last year? Are they still unemployed? For each one uf us it's a very limited sample but maybe together we can draw a conclusion. I know one person who has been unemployed during the past year. They are still unemployed.

[Tod]

Didn't know the names but knew there were two different measurements and the one that people should be paying attention to is the one that is at 14.7. Honestly don't know the recipe

The U-3 rate is what is commonly called "the unemployment rate) and what is reported by the media most often. The U-6 rate is what most economists call "the real unemployment rate". That's the rate that presidents don't want the public to know anything about.

Maybe true, but changing the rules now in order to harm a particular president is petty. If this is the way it's always been done...

[GannonFan]

The U-3 rate is what is commonly called "the unemployment rate) and what is reported by the media most often. The U-6 rate is what most economists call "the real unemployment rate". That's the rate that presidents don't want the public to know anything about.

Maybe true, but changing the rules now in order to harm a particular president is petty. If this is the way it's always been done...

I don't understand the changing rules question - there has always been an unemployment rate that excluded people who have left the workforce although still eligible and then an unemployment rate that kept them in the equation. Both have always been reported, although the former is the one that is normally written about first in news stories (and often the second one is then referred to as well). Not sure what rules would possibly be changed.

[CitadelGrad]

The U-3 rate is what is commonly called "the unemployment rate) and what is reported by the media most often. The U-6 rate is what most economists call "the real unemployment rate". That's the rate that presidents don't want the public to know anything about.

Maybe true, but changing the rules now in order to harm a particular president is petty. If this is the way it's always been done...

It isn't changing the rules, you fvcking dimwit. There are six unemployment rates that the BLS publishes every month. U-6 is the one that matters but it is never reported by the media.

[Pwns]

How much of this can be explained by seasonal effects and people just giving up looking for work?

[CitadelGrad]

How much of this can be explained by seasonal effects and people just giving up looking for work?

Quite a bit. Most of the added jobs were temporary and seasonal. It's the only reason that the labor force participation rate didn't decline.

[Tod]

Maybe true, but changing the rules now in order to harm a particular president is petty. If this is the way it's always been done...

It isn't changing the rules, you fvcking dimwit. There are six unemployment rates that the BLS publishes every month. U-6 is the one that matters but it is never reported by the media.

Let me explain this to you again, since you fail to comprehend, by using your own words; "It is NEVER reported by the media".

You want the media to use the higher figure to hurt Obama.

Why start now?

[CitadelGrad]

It isn't changing the rules, you fvcking dimwit. There are six unemployment rates that the BLS publishes every month. U-6 is the one that matters but it is never reported by the media.

Let me explain this to you again, since you fail to comprehend, by using your own words; "It is NEVER reported by the media".

You want the media to use the higher figure to hurt Obama.

Why start now?

You wan the lower rate (which is fudged) to be publicized because it doesn't make Obama look as bad. Why do you want to deny the reality. Why do you want to deny the public the full story?

[BDKJMU]

U-1 through U-5 unemployment are all down ... but wait, what about U-6? These stupid govt. pukes don't even know how to cover their tracks.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

I was surprised to hear that 114K jobs can drop the rate .3%. I thought it would take a much more significant jump in jobs to get to that number.

Edit: oh yeah, the Labor dept. realized their July and August numbers were understated suddenly too.

Something fishy going on here. 114k jobs accounts for well less than 1 tenth of 1% of the employed, yet the unemployment rate drops 3 tenths of 1%. Something doesn't smell right here.

[Chizzang]

Maybe true, but changing the rules now in order to harm a particular president is petty. If this is the way it's always been done...

It isn't changing the rules, you fvcking dimwit. There are six unemployment rates that the BLS publishes every month. U-6 is the one that matters but it is never reported by the media.

It's gotta be tough for you...
I can see your frustrating having to deal with all of us idiots here and you being the only intelligent person left in the entire world - try to grind it out for us - we really need you to help us see

[BlueHen86]

Obama can't win.

If unemployment goes up, Obama losses.
If unemployment goes down it because people have given up looking for work, and Obama losses
or
it's because Obama is cooking the books.

If Obama is cooking the books he should be out. If he's not then all the conks that say he is should STFU.

[Tod]

Let me explain this to you again, since you fail to comprehend, by using your own words; "It is NEVER reported by the media".

You want the media to use the higher figure to hurt Obama.

Why start now?

You wan the lower rate (which is fudged) to be publicized because it doesn't make Obama look as bad. Why do you want to deny the reality. Why do you want to deny the public the full story?

Because it's ALWAYS been done that way.

[Pwns]

Obama can't win.

If unemployment goes up, Obama losses.
If unemployment goes down it because people have given up looking for work, and Obama losses
or
it's because Obama is cooking the books.

If Obama is cooking the books he should be out. If he's not then all the conks that say he is should STFU.

The raw unemployment rate is not a rock-solid indicator of the health of the economy. It isn't when there is a republican president or a democratic president. You have to consider seasonal effects, people dropping out of the work force or giving up on full time work, and what TYPE of jobs it is that is being created.

[Tod]

Obama can't win.

If unemployment goes up, Obama losses.
If unemployment goes down it because people have given up looking for work, and Obama losses
or
it's because Obama is cooking the books.

If Obama is cooking the books he should be out. If he's not then all the conks that say he is should STFU.

The raw unemployment rate is not a rock-solid indicator of the health of the economy. It isn't when there is a republican president or a democratic president. You have to consider seasonal effects, people dropping out of the work force or giving up on full time work, and what TYPE of jobs it is that is being created.

This is true, but it's still good news for the country (unless you're a POS), Obama, and his campaign.

[blueballs]

The numbers very clearly don't add up, and will likely be revised (this report is always revised, lookit up).

The reason it doesn't jive is because it isn't realistic that 800k people all of s sudden entered the ranks of self- employed in one month.

All one needs to know about the perception of this number can be seen in the stock and bond markets... Both were relatively benign today, which means the guys who analyze and trade off these numbers don't believe it.

If this number- 800k newly self employed + 114k non farm payroll added, real UE down .3- the stock market would have rallied like crazy and the bond market would have taken a massive dump. Neither happened.

The headline number was exactly what Obama needed to take some of the heat off after the debate, but the devil- literally- is in the details.

[Ivytalk]

The Chicago Board of Trade erupted in laughter when that number was announced. Word.

Back atcha, 86.

[Tod]

The Chicago Board of Trade erupted in laughter when that number was announced. Word.

Back atcha, 86.

Video?

[BlueHen86]

Obama can't win.

If unemployment goes up, Obama losses.
If unemployment goes down it because people have given up looking for work, and Obama losses
or
it's because Obama is cooking the books.

If Obama is cooking the books he should be out. If he's not then all the conks that say he is should STFU.

The raw unemployment rate is not a rock-solid indicator of the health of the economy. It isn't when there is a republican president or a democratic president. You have to consider seasonal effects, people dropping out of the work force or giving up on full time work, and what TYPE of jobs it is that is being created.

Really? No kidding? I don't recall saying anything about the health of the economy, but thanks for the lesson.

My point is that no matter what the data is, it gets spun to fit an agenda.

[BlueHen86]

The Chicago Board of Trade erupted in laughter when that number was announced. Word.

Back atcha, 86.

They should have been in mourning, the number is clearly bad for Obama.

[Ivytalk]

The Chicago Board of Trade erupted in laughter when that number was announced. Word.

Back atcha, 86.

Video?

Heard it secondhand from a trader. No pix, but it's someone I trust - not an ideologue, either.

[Ivytalk]

The Chicago Board of Trade erupted in laughter when that number was announced. Word.

Back atcha, 86.

They should have been in mourning, the number is clearly bad for Obama.

Thanks, Mr. Opinion Leader.

[BlueHen86]

They should have been in mourning, the number is clearly bad for Obama.

Thanks, Mr. Opinion Leader.

You're welcome Mr. Guy who knows a guy...

[Ivytalk]

Thanks, Mr. Opinion Leader.

You're welcome Mr. Guy who knows a guy...

Hey, I have the courage of my connections. Let me know if you want a guy who knows his grain futures!