Unemploment drops to 9.7%
-
gibby08
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/05/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm?hpt=T2
Hmm....very interesting
Average weekly paycheck went up by 1.36 to $761.06 -
Manhattan BuckeyeSo we lost jobs and yet the unemployment rate went up, so does everyone realize that the unemployment rate is a completely manipulated statistic? A better measure of the earnings of working Americans is withholding tax receipts.
-
Cleveland Buck
Luckily they passed the stimulus package so unemployment won't get over 8%. -
gibby08
Figures....
Something good about the economy and Republicans try to discredit it -
Writerbuckeye
True.Manhattan Buckeye wrote: So we lost jobs and yet the unemployment rate went up, so does everyone realize that the unemployment rate is a completely manipulated statistic? A better measure of the earnings of working Americans is withholding tax receipts.
The unemployment numbers only improved because a significant number of people have STOPPED LOOKING and basically given up.
That's why the economy lost jobs and the unemployment rate went down a tick.
It's the most important part of labor statistics (whether people are really looking or have given up) and probably the least reported. -
Pick6
Look at it again. The number is lower than the previous month.
The unemployment rate can be a bit misleading. By definition it is, people 16 or older who are currently looking for a job. Who is to say who is really looking for a job and who is not? -
Pick6
honestly?Writerbuckeye wrote:
True.Manhattan Buckeye wrote: So we lost jobs and yet the unemployment rate went up, so does everyone realize that the unemployment rate is a completely manipulated statistic? A better measure of the earnings of working Americans is withholding tax receipts.
The unemployment numbers only improved because a significant number of people have STOPPED LOOKING and basically given up.
That's why the economy lost jobs and the unemployment rate went down a tick.
It's the most important part of labor statistics (whether people are really looking or have given up) and probably the least reported. -
Manhattan Buckeye"Something good about the economy and Republicans try to discredit it "
Yeah, even giving complete credence to the stat, 9.7% is good news? How old are you? Do you remember back in '03 when W was being reamed for the country having a rate 33% less than that?
But again, explain to me how the country can LOSE jobs yet still have a lower UE rate? -
ytownfootball
How much of this number includes people for which unemployment compensation has run out? -
queencitybuckeye
The latter has no bearing at all on the former.ytownfootball wrote: How much of this number includes people for which unemployment compensation has run out? -
Manhattan Buckeye
I could be wrong about this, but from what I understand the BLS survey doesn't take this into consideration, they base their stats on two different surveys (employment stats by the workforce, job cuts by employers). Now certain states may keep numbers on who receives benefits or who has run out.ytownfootball wrote: How much of this number includes people for which unemployment compensation has run out? -
Manhattan Buckeye
-
ytownfootball
I'm not sure I buy the validity of the data. I think the jobless rate is higher. But I've never been up on how this number is derived.
-
believer
No, no, NO. Didn't you people listen? Thanks to the $800 Billion Porkulus Sammich the unemployment rate hasn't risen above 8% as promised. Thank God BHO, Pelosi, and Reid spent that money or we would be in a world of hurt.
All kidding aside while it's good to see the rate allegedly drop, it amazes me that the Obama lap dogs in the media are describing this as a sign that the employment picture is "moderating." I guess 9.7% is "moderating" not to mention I have a hunch someone is cooking the books a bit.
I remember the rate ticking slightly above 5% when Bush was in office and the media was trumpeting the impending doom & gloom. -
Footwedge
And the media got it right.believer wrote:
I remember the rate ticking slightly above 5% when Bush was in office and the media was trumpeting the impending doom & gloom. -
believer
Yeah....6 years later. From 2002 NYT Criticism of Bush's 5.7% rateFootwedge wrote:
And the media got it right.believer wrote:
I remember the rate ticking slightly above 5% when Bush was in office and the media was trumpeting the impending doom & gloom.
Even I can predict the economy will enter recoveries and recessions with the best of the media lap dogs. -
Swamp FoxIt's all pretty much politics. I know only that at present, I still have a job so the unemployment rate in my household is 50% because my wife chose many years ago to not seek employment outside the house and be a traditional housewife, mother, grandmother, and so forth and so on. That would be about the same unemployment rate as the one in post WW1 Europe so I guess I need a little stimulus boost in my house. Otherwise I may just have to quit working and stop trying to find another job. According to some of you, that would make the unemployment rate in my household 0%. (That is if my wife "gave up" trying to find a job! also.)
-
believer
I've been waiting for my BHO Stimulus check for a year now...nothing yet.Swamp Fox wrote:....so I guess I need a little stimulus boost in my house.
My brother's been unemployed for 6 months now with no bites. He tells me he's been waiting for his check too. -
Manhattan BuckeyeSwamp fox, congrats on your wife's choice, unfortunately, she is in the minority. There are millions of Americans unemployed not out of choice. I don't know what it will take to beat in some people's heads that we are in the worst labor situation since the '40's. That's not politics, it is reality.
-
believer
It's bad no doubt but people quickly forget the 11% unemployment in the late 70's recession. So your statement about the worst labor situation since the 40's isn't entirely accurate. In fact employment in the 40's was good due to WWII. Methinks you are talking about the 30's but I digress.Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Swamp fox, congrats on your wife's choice, unfortunately, she is in the minority. There are millions of Americans unemployed not out of choice. I don't know what it will take to beat in some people's heads that we are in the worst labor situation since the '40's. That's not politics, it is reality. -
CenterBHSFan
You guys are completely missing the point of this thread.
There are still democrats out there trying to find promise and meaning to their vote and/or political associations.
If that graph gives them HOPE, then let them have it.
If they want to believe that graph represents CHANGE, let them believe it.
-
Manhattan Buckeye"It's bad no doubt but people quickly forget the 12% unemployment in the late 70's recession"
Oh, I agree, I remember the late 70's well. Eating Vienna sausages and having 2 or 3 gifts for Christmas is a highly overrated experience (although for some folks here at least the Steelers were winning).
I think there are some differences between now and then, just a couple off of the top of my mind:
1) The "official" UE stats don't take into consideration folks that voluntarily stay at home (as swamp fox mentioned), the percentage of households that rely on a 1 person income has declined considerably in the last few decades, thus the "unofficial" stats are more indicative of the economic situation.
2) I remember kids at school in the late 70's who's Dad was "laid off" from the factory, by being "laid off" that meant they were on hold until orders came back again and they were recalled back to work. Today "laid off" is a nice way of saying "your job is gone forever." -
gibby08
Your post was so dumb I'm not going to reply any furtherbeliever wrote:
I've been waiting for my BHO Stimulus check for a year now...nothing yet.Swamp Fox wrote:....so I guess I need a little stimulus boost in my house.
My brother's been unemployed for 6 months now with no bites. He tells me he's been waiting for his check too. -
ross ford81Can anyone site one month in the entire decade of the 1970's when the U.S. unemployment rate was over 10%?
-
believer
^^^OK...let's call it the "Late 70's-Early 80's Recession" fair enough?
70's/80's Recession
If you are too young to remember those years or weren't even born then THIS recession I'm sure seems bad to you especially since the BHO media keeps telling you that this is the "Worst Economy Since the Great Depression." It's bad without a doubt but I've seen worse.During the 1973-1975 and 1980-1982 periods the unemployment rate almost doubled (4.6-9.0 percent, 5.6-10.8 percent, respectively), which means a peak of about 8.6-8.8 percent this time around. In further contrast, during a ten-month stretch in 1983-1983, the jobless rate was above 10-percent.
Can't argue with these points. Regarding point #2 you can thank over-inflated labor rates in the U.S. and Chinese subsidized labor rates for that one. We either live and work in a semi-free market global economy or we don't. I guess it's now the laid off Chinese laborer who is on hold until the orders come back.Manhattan Buckeye wrote:Oh, I agree, I remember the late 70's well. Eating Vienna sausages and having 2 or 3 gifts for Christmas is a highly overrated experience (although for some folks here at least the Steelers were winning).
I think there are some differences between now and then, just a couple off of the top of my mind:
1) The "official" UE stats don't take into consideration folks that voluntarily stay at home (as swamp fox mentioned), the percentage of households that rely on a 1 person income has declined considerably in the last few decades, thus the "unofficial" stats are more indicative of the economic situation.
2) I remember kids at school in the late 70's who's Dad was "laid off" from the factory, by being "laid off" that meant they were on hold until orders came back again and they were recalled back to work. Today "laid off" is a nice way of saying "your job is gone forever."