Support NeoGAF

[Loudninja]

So is this net job growth now?

 

[empty vessel]

Edit: holy crap the gap between the establishment and household surveys is gargantuan. Any good explanations out there?

From the BLS:

The numerous conceptual and methodological differences between the household and establishment surveys result in important distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the surveys. Among these are:

--The household survey includes agricultural workers, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household workers among the employed. These groups are excluded from the establishment survey.

--The household survey includes people on unpaid leave among the employed. The establishment survey does not.

--The household survey is limited to workers 16 years of age and older. The establishment survey is not limited by age.

--The household survey has no duplication of individuals, because individuals are counted only once, even if they hold more than one job. In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one job and thus appearing on more than one payroll are counted separately for each appearance.

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

I assume that explains major differences in numbers.

 

[thefro]

So is this net job growth now?

yes, +300k for his term in overall net job growth.

 

[Krauser Kat]

Loud Ninja your avatar is amazing. Thank you for that.
The cooking numbers thing is hilarious. That was really fast.

 

[Loudninja]

yes, +300k for his term in overall net job growth.

Thanks.

 

[Eidan]

Changing the numbers? Seems like a lame tactic. Why not say it's Bernanke's doing, and that Obama's policies have been so awful that the Fed has to step in. Isn't that the talking point they were using a week or two ago?

 

[Tim-E]

Obozo to cook the October numbers so that unemployment is at 2.1% just before the election.

 

[sc0la]

Black Panthers forcing people to take union teaching jobs at Acorn bomb factories.

Awesome

 

[Particle Physicist]

.....Really? REALLY!?

That's it. That is their proof. Romney said it won't do what Obama claims...therefore FactCheck.org has listed the statement by the Obama as mostly false.

No numbers, no data...nothing. Just ....Romney's word.

Top notch fact checking by whoever did the research, there, guys. No, really.


And you thought Politico was bad. Jesus Christ.

This is what I was talking about. Heard the news break person say this in the radio.

 

[giga]

Changing the numbers? Seems like a lame tactic. Why not say it's Bernanke's doing, and that Obama's policies have been so awful that the Fed has to step in. Isn't that the talking point they were using a week or two ago?

They would have to admit then that QE works.

 

[Half and half]

Changing the numbers? Seems like a lame tactic. Why not say it's Bernanke's doing, and that Obama's policies have been so awful that the Fed has to step in. Isn't that the talking point they were using a week or two ago?

Or pull a Boehner and say House Republicans had to twist Obama's arm to extend the tax cuts and work out the debt-ceiling issue last year.

 

[Loudninja]

Dont forget they found 386,000 extra jobs as well.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-jobs-payroll-revision-20120927,0,3644872.story

 

[TacticalFox88]

OH NOES CHICAGO BOYS ARE COOKING!

Oct 5th, 2012...the day Obama was secured another 4 years.

That date would be May 1st, 2011

 

[Loudninja]

Loud Ninja your avatar is amazing. Thank you for that.
The cooking numbers thing is hilarious. That was really fast.

Thank you.

Aylinato made it

 

[GhaleonEB]

From the BLS:

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

I assume that explains major differences in numbers.

Yes. I should have clarified that I'm interested in which of those factors, or others, caused the two to diverge this month, as the gap is larger than is typical. In particular, the establishment survey number is the largest increase since 1983. So there's something unusual in this month's data.

Dont forget they found 386,000 extra jobs as well.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-jobs-payroll-revision-20120927,0,3644872.story

Yup. It's also worth noting that these adjustments are not yet in place. Had they been, this month's report would have been higher (and will be revised higher in January).

Just in time for President Romney to take credit for it.

 

[KingGondo]

@ObsoleteDogma: BREAKING: Jack Welch on the phone with Jeff Imelt, telling him to fire 115,000 people ASAP.

.

 

[Loudninja]

Romney: ‘This Is Not What A Real Recovery Looks Like’

“This is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. The results of President Obama's failed policies are staggering – 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years. If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone.”

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-this-is-not-what-real-recovery-looks

Oh man he knows the real unemployment rate!

 

[Rocket Scientist]

lol this is just too funny. The pendulum swings back just as easily as it swings forth.

 

[Effect]

Is there a video clip yet of Joe Scarboroguh reacting to the jobs report.

 

[gkryhewy]

Sony PR has met its match. Coincidentally, the Romney campaign is also about to fire everybody.

 

[DragonSworne]

Dont forget they found 386,000 extra jobs as well.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-jobs-payroll-revision-20120927,0,3644872.story

I wonder how numbers are left out.

Is it done purposefully within the department? Bad reporting from companies (purposefully or accidently)? incompetency?

 

[pigeon]

On undecided voters who haven't taken a real look at the man in nearly four years, yes. First impression of sitting President Obama at the end of his first term.

There aren't 4% of undecided voters in America.

2002 Governor race in MA...Dem candidate was leading by 6 points 5 weeks out. Lost to Romney, because just like he did at the debate he changed tack completely in the race.

Yeah, I read that Atlantic article too.

Can Romney win? Maybe. But, again, you need to take a realistic look at the situation. He cannot do it by gaining voters alone -- Obama's too close to 50 in too many states. He must convince voters who are already telling pollsters they've chosen Barack Obama to change their minds. Why do you think they've settled on Obama? Who are the confirmed Democratic voters that are going to abandon him for Mitt Romney, and what did Romney do, or what will he do, to convince them? Because either they're high-info enough to choose Obama based on policy, or they're high-info enough to vote against Romney because of the stuff he's already said and done, or they're low-info and they were always going to vote for Barack. Absent a euro crisis, who's going to switch?

7.8%!!!

Morning in America.

I wonder how numbers are left out.

Is it done purposefully within the department? Bad reporting from companies (purposefully or accidently)? incompetency?

It's just really slapdash methodology. Monthly revisions are from companies who didn't get their surveys in, yearly revisions are because the surveys aren't very accurate. I mean, they don't lie and say they're really accurate, they're up front about having like a 59% margin of error. Honestly, they probably don't expect or want everybody to follow their numbers so avidly.

 

[Y2Kev]

It's really embarrassing that the former CEO of ge would post that on a public website. Yikes.

 

[norinrad]

One of the side effects of this is that it over shadows Romney's 47% apology attempt. So he can keep on owning that.

lol pretty much

 

[Loudninja]

For the new page

Romney: ‘This Is Not What A Real Recovery Looks Like’

“This is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. The results of President Obama's failed policies are staggering – 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years. If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone.”

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-this-is-not-what-real-recovery-looks

Oh man he knows the real unemployment rate!

 

[Measley]

That's the game folks. Obama saved the US economy, and Romney's main selling point is gone.

 

[codhand]

Loud Ninja your avatar is amazing.

He didn't build that.

 

[isoquant]

Doesn't this graph suggest that the uptick could well be very short-lived? The trend in the LFPR is solidly downward.

Labor force participation
That said, the unemployment rate is a function of two things: the number of people employed, and the number of people in the labor force. But the proportion of people in the labor force actually went up, suggesting the fall in the unemployment rate reflects a real improvement, rather than people stopping their work search.

I working off about 3 hours sleep at the moment, so perhaps I am missing obvious something here.


Oh and sweet new model, guys: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/02/new-model-to-predict-unemployment-sees-rate-at-8-1/

 

[RDreamer]

For the new page

Romney: ‘This Is Not What A Real Recovery Looks Like’

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-this-is-not-what-real-recovery-looks

Oh man he knows the real unemployment rate!

This real unemployment rate crap is kind of annoying. Has anyone ever used that sort of number before now? Also, isn't it a bit shitty to start using that number when we've got a population that's getting pretty old and at least some of those are dropping out because they're retiring? From now on for a while the baby boomers are going to be retiring, so isn' that number going to remain pretty high?

 

[empty vessel]

Yes. I should have clarified that I'm interested in which of those factors, or others, caused the two to diverge this month, as the gap is larger than is typical. In particular, the establishment survey number is the largest increase since 1983. So there's something unusual in this month's data.

Yeah, I realized after I posted that that you probably understood those basic differences between the surveys. I don't really know, but it seems to me it has to be something within the first bullet point, unless there are other differences between the surveys than those.

 

[B-Dubs]

For the new page

Romney: ‘This Is Not What A Real Recovery Looks Like’

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-this-is-not-what-real-recovery-looks

Oh man he knows the real unemployment rate!

Oh Romney, you're just mad this is going to eclipse your debate performance while simultaneously driving a stake through the heart of your campaign. Obama not only has net job growth but now unemployment is under 8%.

 

[teruterubozu]

This real unemployment rate crap is kind of annoying. Has anyone ever used that sort of number before now? Also, isn't it a bit shitty to start using that number when we've got a population that's getting pretty old and at least some of those are dropping out because they're retiring? From now on for a while the baby boomers are going to be retiring, so isn' that number going to remain pretty high?

I don't know but the rhetoric about "job numbers" over the years I think have convinced people to distrust them. I know I always question them now and don't take it at face value.

 

[thefro]

Doesn't this graph suggest that the uptick could well be very short-lived? The trend in the LFPR is solidly downward.

Part of that is natural because the Baby Boomers are retiring en masse.

 

[Mario]

"The real unemployment rate is higher because people have given up looking!"

For the new page

Romney: ‘This Is Not What A Real Recovery Looks Like’

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-this-is-not-what-real-recovery-looks

Oh man he knows the real unemployment rate!

Too damn predictable.

 

[Black Republican]

Is there a video clip yet of Joe Scarboroguh reacting to the jobs report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42853472#42853472

 

[Cheebo]

Sad thing is this won't do much to change the trajectory. The bad results last month did nothing to slow down Obama's polls. This on the flip-side likely will have no impact. For some reason (good or bad) the job report numbers don't have an impact on where the race is.

 

[Incognito]

Is there a video clip yet of Joe Scarboroguh reacting to the jobs report.

his flailing attempts to dismiss the report was particularly embarrassing. "it just doesn't add up"

suddenly everyone on morning joe's panel turned into an economist over night. willie saying that he's computing the numbers to explain the 'discrepancies..." yeah, ok.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I wonder how numbers are left out.

Is it done purposefully within the department? Bad reporting from companies (purposefully or accidently)? incompetency?

They didn't "leave them out".

There are a ton of inputs into the report, which get revised over time as additional data flows in. In this case, some of the assumptions they made at the start of the year (such as about population growth and other factors) get revised in January once more data is in place. They can then revise the employment figures for the preceding year with the benefit of hindsight.

Revisions are made every year, in January. This report was providing a preview of where the revisions are tracking to, which is also something the BLS provides every year.

 

[KingGondo]

Sad thing is this won't do much to change the trajectory. The bad results last month did nothing to slow down Obama's polls. This on the flip-side likely will have no impact. For some reason (good or bad) the job report numbers don't have an impact on where the race is.

I doubt that most Americans even know what the unemployment rate is.

Any jobs report that isn't a disaster is good for Obama.

 

[teruterubozu]

Sad thing is this won't do much to change the trajectory. The bad results last month did nothing to slow down Obama's polls. This on the flip-side likely will have no impact. For some reason (good or bad) the job report numbers don't have an impact on where the race is.

I agree. People simply don't take job number reports at face value anymore. People look at their immediate lives, like how much money are they are making today.

 

[Cheebo]

I doubt that most Americans even know what the unemployment rate is.

Any jobs report that isn't a disaster is good for Obama.

More neutral than good since these numbers don't change the horse race ever.

 

[norinrad]

Romney: ‘This Is Not What A Real Recovery Looks Like’

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-this-is-not-what-real-recovery-looks

Oh man he knows the real unemployment rate!

Romney is the biggest liar on the planet since Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh.

 

[DasRaven]

I agree. People simply don't take job number reports at face value anymore. People look at their immediate lives, like how much money are they are making today.

Well, the Dow is over 13,500 and 873,000 people are making more money than they were a month ago, being now employed.
So, this will either have an effect or has already been part of the breakaway since the conventions. Even assuming the latter, the "psychological effect" is still beneficial to the American people.

 

[Loudninja]

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 114,000 in September. In 2012, employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. In September, employment rose in health care and in transportation and warehousing.

Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year, employment in health care has risen by 295,000.
In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing. Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).

Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).
Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related activities (- 3,000).

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction, wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-05/u-s-employment-situation-report-for-september-text-.html

 

[Averon]

The only effect this job report does is blunt some of the media attention on Wednesday's debate and kills the "Obama can't get UE under 8%" attack from the right.

 

[Plinko]

For the new page

Romney: ‘This Is Not What A Real Recovery Looks Like’

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-this-is-not-what-real-recovery-looks

Oh man he knows the real unemployment rate!

OK Mr. Romney, what exactly ARE those pro-growth policies? Because there is no shred of evidence that cutting taxes to businesses creates jobs.

 

[Half and half]

If nothing else, the new numbers provide a nice easy talking point for Obama and supporters to pass around.

"Unemployment is at its lowest in nearly four years". Fits on a postcard.

 

[Miletius]

More neutral than good since these numbers don't change the horse race ever.

Actions that are neutral for Obama are losses for Romney at this point since he is running out of time.

 

[Stinkles]

The only effect this job report does is blunt some of the media attention on Wednesday's debate and kills the "Obama can't get UE under 8%" attack from the right.

those are hugely significant things.

 

[isoquant]

Reading the comments on the WSJ's UE article is fun. Now the unemployment numbers are skewed too.

Gotta give ole Monkey ears credit for doctoring the number.

But then he's known for doctoring documents....like is birth certificate.

So I guess the BLS now offically stands for the "Bulls%&t Labor Statistic".

The number is total BS and The President tanked the debate and needs some ammo to crow about at the next one.

And if Obamaniods could do math they would agree.

What is more insulting is they did not even bother to manipulate the data so the Math adds up!!!