Community Blogs
About that "7.8%" unemployment number...
That tweet came from former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, after the new jobs numbers were reported today. I agree.
What is funny about the 7.8% figure is that conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh actually predicted that the national unemployment number would fall below 8% right before the presidential election! Lo and behold - shazaam!!! It happened! Rush had been reporting this for months. Coincidence? Well, conservatives aren't the only ones shaking their heads in disbelief. The numbers just don't add up...
"Job growth remained tame in September, with the economy creating just 114,000 net new positions though the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent, the first time it has been below 8 percent in 43 months. The 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."
ABC News reporter Chris Cuomo also tweeted:
--------------------------------------
#unemployment is at 7.8% in September. Except it really wasn't. It is much higher, w/ underemplyd and those who stopped looking. #notfixed"
-------------------------------------
I do think that Mitt Romney can use this to full advantage in the next debate. We cannot believe fudged numbers that just don't match reality. The number of Americans who have stopped looking for work has never been higher - due to the economic conditions and anti-business climate created by Obama & Co. For Obama to "celebrate" 7.8% (when Obama had promised that the unemployment rate would be 6% by 2012) is horrible and is akin to a baseball team having a losing season and winning a few games. Time to party? No. The team is still a loser.
Here is an excellent read on the recent unemployment numbers (that will only be "adjusted" after the election!):
"How did they get unemployment to 7.8%?"
Come mid-November, that 7.8% number will miraculously be revised - perhaps a wee bit above 8%?
In the words of Gomer Pyle: "surprise, surprise, surprise!"
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (170)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts
77 Comments
Janetluvshorses - Oct 05, 2012 4:58 PM
ahemmer - Oct 05, 2012 5:02 PM
Now, go back to the post to which our exchange is taking place. Otherwise, please stay on topic for this post. Them's the rules, and I do enforce them.
Janetluvshorses - Oct 05, 2012 5:16 PM
Janetluvshorses - Oct 05, 2012 5:18 PM
ahemmer - Oct 05, 2012 5:40 PM
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/7176-obamas-team-promised-58-unemployment-by-now
And Obama's study actually predicted 5.8% unemployment. Read it all, janet. It will give you something to do on a Friday night. Why not contact Achieve1 who seems to have disappeared. I'd love to sign our "agreement" on a bet that Romney will win the presidency. Sadly, Achieve1 is no longer responding to my e-mails. He/she seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. Maybe you can find him/her for me?
Have a good one! I'm out of here for the night! :)
Janetluvshorses - Oct 05, 2012 6:08 PM
yert49 - Oct 05, 2012 9:07 PM
says that the unemployment figures will get adjusted on or about October 7th. I
wonder how many of the political magpies will be "surprised". My kingdom for a
muckraker!
jhayett - Oct 05, 2012 9:15 PM
Rasmussen on Romney/Obama: Ohio = 49%/50%, Virginia = 49%/48%,
and Florida = 49%/47%
Janetluvshorses - Oct 05, 2012 9:37 PM
over Romney in Ohio except the For the republican rage polls. Even they can't pull off the
throwing it in the plus for Romney.
jman99 - Oct 05, 2012 10:46 PM
Fewer people were in a position where they were laid off or or had their employment terminated than in the months previously. when this happens, any additional jobs created have a larger effect of bringing the percentage down than if there were an equal number of people let go from work.
What it says is that some stability has returned for those who are employed and employers are feeling more confident.
If you just think about it , it's not that hard to figure out: but you have to think about it first.
If it turns out to be true after adjustments, both Democrats and Republicans should be happy that things may have turned the corner.
jman99 - Oct 05, 2012 10:54 PM
Keith Hall, a former commissioner of the BLS who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said the numbers could not have been manipulated.
"It's impossible to do it and get away with it," he said. "These numbers are very trustworthy."
Economists offered reasons not to read too much into them, though. Most of the increase in employed Americans came from those who had to settle for part-time work: 582,000 more people reported that they were working part-time last month but wanted full-time jobs."
http://www.necn.com/10/05/12/US-jobless-rate-falls-to-78-pct-44-month/landing_nation.html?&apID=1ddde1c53cfd4d3f8277e874e2a56893
WFB resident - Oct 06, 2012 12:11 AM
realize they have been led by a fool ? I doubt it !!! lol...
ahemmer - Oct 06, 2012 8:48 AM
More people have dropped out of even bothering to look for work, and they are not counted in the overall unemployment numbers. If they were, we'd be looking at double-digit unemployment. Not good for Barry & Co., nor America.
The dishonesty that comes out of this Administration knows no bounds. One only has to look at how this Administration kept insisting a YouTube video - from California made early in the year - was to blame for Middle East uprisings on 9/11 and the murders of four Americas, including a U.S. Ambassador. Just recently, it has leaked out that Obama & Co. KNEW that terrorism was to blame. Now, why they refused to admit such in the first place is questionable. What has also come out is that Ambassador Stevens actually asked for beefed up security way before 9/11 - and Obama & Co. said no. Yet, during the debates, the "Campaigner-In-Chief" spoke about keeping America - and Americans safe. How'd that work out, Barry? Seems you got some 'splainin' to do. Hopefully Romney will bring this whole sordid Middle East episode up in Round 2 of Romney vs. a lazy teleprompterless empty suit.
geno53151 - Oct 06, 2012 11:23 AM
jman99 - Oct 06, 2012 1:06 PM
Proof please.
""But the unemployment data is calculated by a government agency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, under tight security and with no oversight or input from the White House.
Keith Hall, a former commissioner of the BLS who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said the numbers could not have been manipulated.
"It's impossible to do it and get away with it," he said. "These numbers are very trustworthy.""
And yes that's from a former Bush staffer.
Carl Hicks - Oct 06, 2012 1:58 PM
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/officials-reject-conspiracies-
unemployment-rate-070150404--finance.html?
orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US
ahemmer - Oct 06, 2012 2:20 PM
Even CNN seems to see some kinks in the numbers. (See: http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/september-jobs-report/index.html)
A few snippets from the Communist News Network article:
"Unemployment unexpectedly fell to 7.8%...." (exactly, by all accounts most economists were expecting a few tenths of a percent increase. What happened? The numbers do not compute with reality.)
"A separate survey of employers, considered the key metric that Wall Street watches, showed businesses added 114,000 jobs in September. It marked a slowdown in hiring, after July and August were revised significantly higher." (So a slowdown in hiring results in less people unemployed in Sept. than previous months?)
"The Labor Department collects the data monthly, using both a survey of employers and a smaller survey of households. The two surveys don't always tell the same story on the first read, but over time, the data is revised to reflect more comprehensive information." (Ah, an "adjustment" is due.)
"The so-called "underemployment rate," which includes people who are working part time for economic reasons, and those who have recently stopped looking for a job, was 14.7% in September." (The number of people who have given up and are not included anymore in the 7.8% figure is upwards of more than 7 million.)
A comment I found amusing on the CNN site reads:
Under Bush, working at Walmart is a failure.
Under Obama, working at Walmart is a success.
WFB resident - Oct 06, 2012 8:09 PM
We are not the ones who have trouble not believing our leader ! So far I counted 9
different reasons why the o did poorly ! Instead of his minions adfmitting he is an
idiot !! In any economy there will be up and downs ! remember when the o got in to
his position the redid the way they took unemployment numbers ? I do , but some
how you guys are forgetting that it would be around 11% now under the old way
while still using the new numbers that are adjusted for the o !!! lol... If we seem to
be unglued by your side . It is because we are not sure how educated people could
be so stupid and believe the o !!
ahemmer - Oct 07, 2012 8:35 AM
"The truth is that the real unemployment rate is actually much higher than 7.8 percent when you factor in the number of people who have given up looking for work since the President took office. Seventeen million American's have been driven out of the workforce by the Obama administration's failed economic policies -- 17 million! If the job participation rate were the same today as when our 44th president was inaugurated, the AP and other media outlets would have announced an unemployment rate of 10.7 -- not 7.8 -- percent.
But Obama NEEDS the unemployment rate to be under 8 percent to be re-elected. So the Labor Department counts a smaller and smaller percentage of the population as actually being in the workforce ... and an election is won."
I disagree that Obama will win the election based on the misleading and untrue number of 7.8%. As many are saying, myself included: is a fudged number of 7.8% really something to be proud of? And many other economic measurements of how well the country is doing do not correspond to the 7.8% figure. All Romney has to do is to keep hammering away at the number of people who have stopped looking for work, the number of households reliant upon food stamps, the GDP, and the debt/deficit/spending figures.
The truth is on Romney's side. Obama can lie and distort all he wants, but even the media cannot protect him up on the national debate stage.