http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16...81451.html

And yet, big companies are laying off and small businesses aren't hiring.

Anyone who is math literate is puzzled by this.

Are you implying the numbers are 'cooked'?

The original narrative was that the economy couldn't possibly improve because of Obama's leadership.
Now the narrative is that the recovery would be better if not for Obama.
Later the narrative will be that even Obama couldn't keep American greatness down, thanks to the GOP-lead house.

As for the large corporation that I work for. We aren't laying anybody off and we do have several job openings. And we're also making money hand over fist as we have for the last several years. But as with most corporations, we're finding ways to make money with less (or current) employment levels.

I hate it when people ignore those who are so discouraged they stopped looking, or settled for a crappy part time job.

(02-16-2012 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I hate it when people ignore those who are so discouraged they stopped looking, or settled for a crappy part time job.

Crappy part time job = unemployed. Good to know.

(02-16-2012 03:18 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I hate it when people ignore those who are so discouraged they stopped looking, or settled for a crappy part time job.

Crappy part time job = unemployed. Good to know.

Um, no. Are you aware of what the word "settled" means? He was just pointing out that the Hopium addicts are ridiculous for celebrating the unemployment rate going down due to adding a bunch of part time jobs (plus the labor force shrinking, questionable "seasonal adjustments" by the BLS, etc.)

(02-16-2012 03:18 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I hate it when people ignore those who are so discouraged they stopped looking, or settled for a crappy part time job.

Crappy part time job = unemployed. Good to know.

$50K full time job to feed family of four is the same as $18K part time job to feed family of four.

Good to know.

(02-16-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Are you implying the numbers are 'cooked'?

I would say it's more like the way they are counted is fairly misleading, though no different than in past years. Last week's claims were down as well, but were revised up north of 361,000, which is above the 350k that accounts for new people entering the workforce.

It's like the unemployment number not counting anyone who has exhausted their benefits or has just stopped looking all together.

Foreclosures are up, gas prices are shooting up while demand is low, the housing market is still fairly stagnate.

It's a mixed bag of news but the trends look better than they have.

As far as Obama, I could easily make the case that the improvement in the economy has happened because the GOP took congress. Not by virtue of what they've done, but what they haven't allowed Obama to do. Remember his jobs bill that we had to pass now or the world would end? Clearly that wasn't the case.

See Post #5.

Look. No one is jumping up and down. But continual denial that things have improved and the ridiculous insistence that the figures are being purposely or questionably adjusted to make it look better is pathetic.

(02-16-2012 03:29 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:18 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I hate it when people ignore those who are so discouraged they stopped looking, or settled for a crappy part time job.

Crappy part time job = unemployed. Good to know.

Um, no. Are you aware of what the word "settled" means? He was just pointing out that the Hopium addicts are ridiculous for celebrating the unemployment rate going down due to adding a bunch of part time jobs (plus the labor force shrinking, questionable "seasonal adjustments" by the BLS, etc.)

You can slice and dice the numbers however you want, but the unemployment rate is going down.

See:

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

Even counting the people discouraged from looking, and the people working part time jobs as unemployed (U-6), the number is going down.

(02-16-2012 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Look. No one is jumping up and down. But continual denial that things have improved and the ridiculous insistence that the figures are being purposely or questionably adjusted to make it look better is pathetic.

Improved from what? I don't see anyone saying things aren't better now than they were when unemployment was 10%. But clearly your standard for what truly constitues a recovery and what mine are is vastly different.

And it is a fact that the way unemployment is calculated is not an accurate picture of the health of the economy. When people aren't counted because they've run out of benefits, that's not a good thing. When people aren't counted because they've stopped looking all together, that's not a good thing. So when the rate drops largely due to those factors the intellectually honest person will at least ask, are things really getting better or are we just getting by?

Question: Is the current method of calculating the unemployment percentage any different now that it has been? If so, when and how did it change?

And foreclosures are going to rise 25% this year. Just another sign of the good times we're in.

Again Paul. No one is jumping and down. We're all full aware that things are still tough and we would like them to get better quicker. Well, at least I do.

(02-16-2012 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  See Post #5.

Look. No one is jumping up and down. But continual denial that things have improved and the ridiculous insistence that the figures are being purposely or questionably adjusted to make it look better is pathetic.

Do you honestly believe that the President (I by that, I mean just about any President, not just Obama) would be above putting pressure on the BLS or whoever to make the numbers look as good as possible in an election year?

Yes.

(02-16-2012 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Question: Is the current method of calculating the unemployment percentage any different now that it has been? If so, when and how did it change?

Yes. It changed after the most recent census when the decision was made to not count those ages 16-24 and above 55 the same as in the past as they were "determined" to be less likely to be in the work force. Essentially they dropped the employable number down by decreasing the impact of that group in the calculations.

MiniPower had a nice big orgasm over that a few weeks ago.