1. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12835
    04 Feb '12 06:472 edits
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm#cps_empsit_a01.f.1

    Pretty hard to argue with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Doesn't it make you angry that that blog blatantly lied to your face and you fell for it? Doesn't it make you not want to read their BS anymore?

    Of course not.
    Do the math on the Seasonally adjusted Not in Labor Force totals in that table.

    Dec 2011: 86,697,000
    Jan 2012: 87,874,000

    Increase of 1.177 million. ZH rounded that to 1.2 million.

    This table shows it a little more clearly...

    http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm

    (right most column)
  2. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    193778
    04 Feb '12 07:13
    A "game changer"

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017419190_jobs04.html
  3. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    04 Feb '12 07:46
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Do the math on the Seasonally adjusted Not in Labor Force totals in that table.

    Dec 2011: 86,697,000
    Jan 2012: 87,874,000

    Increase of 1.177 million. ZH rounded that to 1.2 million.

    This table shows it a little more clearly...

    http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm

    (right most column)
    The Not In Labor Force increased (AND) the Labor Force increased, because the population increased. 1.2 million people did not move from one side to the next.

    We gained 243,000 new jobs even after losing 18,000 government jobs. The size of the labor force has an effect on unemployment numbers, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we gained 261,000 private sector jobs.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    04 Feb '12 08:55
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Do the math on the Seasonally adjusted Not in Labor Force totals in that table.

    Dec 2011: 86,697,000
    Jan 2012: 87,874,000

    Increase of 1.177 million. ZH rounded that to 1.2 million.

    This table shows it a little more clearly...

    http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm

    (right most column)
    What would be the expected increase based on population growth, and what is the uncertainty in the one-month figure? (it is based on an estimate)
  5. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    193778
    04 Feb '12 18:081 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    The Not In Labor Force increased (AND) the Labor Force increased, because the population increased. 1.2 million people did not move from one side to the next.

    We gained 243,000 new jobs even after losing 18,000 government jobs. The size of the labor force has an effect on unemployment numbers, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we gained 261,000 private sector jobs.
    We've actually been losing government jobs steadily all year, which has slowed the recovery considerably. And we have more cuts to come, which could do some serious harm. The Republicans aren't stupid. Cynical maybe, but not stupid.
  6. Joined
    07 Mar '09
    Moves
    27933
    04 Feb '12 20:34
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    We've actually been losing government jobs steadily all year, which has slowed the recovery considerably. And we have more cuts to come, which could do some serious harm. The Republicans aren't stupid. Cynical maybe, but not stupid.
    None of this matters. Conservatism is dead in America and all Republican candidates are less exciting than cadavers. Heck, Republicans aren't even voting for those idiots. By the time the October surprise comes they'll already be measuring their nominee for a wooden box. If they want to retain any representation at all in Congress then they'll start rubber stamping everything Obama sends to the hill. Most Americans would rather plan a romantic weekend with a leper than vote for their current Congress critter. There's a strong swell gathering momentum offshore.
  7. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    04 Feb '12 21:321 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    In other news...[quote]The number of Republicans in the country inched up half a percentage point in January, while the number of Democrats dipped to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

    During January, 35.9% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 35.4% in December and the highest number of Republicans measured si ...[text shortened]...
    Edit: And I wonder how many of them are just Dems switching parties to vote for Ron Paul!!11!!
    The number of discouraged workers rose from 945,000 in December to 1.059 million in January according to the BLS. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf p. 8

    That's 114,000 not 1.8 million. At the same time, 3.325 million re-entered the work force.
  8. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    04 Feb '12 21:44
    Watch for Republicans to block extending unemployment benefits trying to hamstring the recovery. If I remember correctly we have until the end of the month to do it.
  9. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    193778
    05 Feb '12 21:01
    Well, it'll get pretty comical. Either you'll see lots of "the numbers aren't really that good arguments" coming from Republicans like you see in this thread. Or, the Republicans will try to take credit for it.

    The latest - it was the Republican governors who saved the economy!

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/mcdonnell-gop-governors-deserve-credit-for-the-recovery-not-obama.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree