Can that possibly be right? :wacko:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/september-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/opinion/nocera-jobs-report-cooked-or-correct.html
You got a problem with that?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2012, 11:55:43 PM
You got a problem with that?
No, but the number seems wildly implausible. Even if growth was roaring along at 6% I'd be skeptical.
Most of them are crappy part-time jobs for the college set.
Yeah. It's broadly in line with previous months - especially if you take into consideration the upward revisions of July and August.
It's not that good a number, Tim. It's solid, but not outstanding.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2012, 12:30:12 AM
Yeah. It's broadly in line with previous months - especially if you take into consideration the upward revisions of July and August.
It's not that good a number, Tim. It's solid, but not outstanding.
We've had trouble matching population growth at 150k a month, what are you talking about. I don't think I ever saw a number that high, not even during the Clinton years.
I heard 140,000.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2012, 01:11:15 AM
I heard 140,000.
Looking over it again, they're using two different sets of numbers. The more commonly used one is 114k
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2012, 12:57:13 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2012, 12:30:12 AM
Yeah. It's broadly in line with previous months - especially if you take into consideration the upward revisions of July and August.
It's not that good a number, Tim. It's solid, but not outstanding.
We've had trouble matching population growth at 150k a month, what are you talking about. I don't think I ever saw a number that high, not even during the Clinton years.
Can you fucking read? The CNN article you posted explains where the number comes from. Did you just read the headline and posted here?
Btw, if unemployment is to fall, you have to create more jobs than the population growth. You know that, right? :huh:
Monthly figures should always be taken with a pinch of salt. There are also seasonality factors, at a guess September is often a good month for new jobs as students find crappy jobs in their college towns.
Now The Economist is currently displaying some limited optimism about the US and UK economies, but with the way the Eurozone is and the worries about China I'm not expecting much. This "crisis" is over 5 years old now, I reckon we are going to do a Japan until something big changes things :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2012, 01:15:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2012, 01:11:15 AM
I heard 140,000.
Looking over it again, they're using two different sets of numbers. The more commonly used one is 114k
And the larger figure derives from a household survey, so it's far more volatile.
The figure that matters is, taking the revisions into account, par for the course.
Perhaps the jobs are election-related.
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2012, 01:16:20 AM
Btw, if unemployment is to fall, you have to create more jobs than the population growth. You know that, right? :huh:
False. Unemployment can also fall if people stop looking for work.
For example, a solution is sending women back to the kitchen/bedroom.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 06, 2012, 02:02:05 AM
Monthly figures should always be taken with a pinch of salt. There are also seasonality factors, at a guess September is often a good month for new jobs as students find crappy jobs in their college towns.
I think the numbers are seasonally adjusted.
Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2012, 10:10:28 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 06, 2012, 02:02:05 AM
Monthly figures should always be taken with a pinch of salt. There are also seasonality factors, at a guess September is often a good month for new jobs as students find crappy jobs in their college towns.
I think the numbers are seasonally adjusted.
Isn't that playing God?
Most of the people they added to the jobs number are part-timers: 582,000 who are newly working part time. A part timer is defined as working 1 to 34 hours per week.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/rise-of-the-reluctant-part-timer-class/
If someone worked 2 part time jobs he'd be counted twice, right? I mean it's two new jobs.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 06, 2012, 11:49:20 AM
Most of the people they added to the jobs number are part-timers: 582,000 who are newly working part time. A part timer is defined as working 1 to 34 hours per week.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/rise-of-the-reluctant-part-timer-class/
Part time jobs are good though, right? Especially for someone who advocates getting rid of unemployment insurance.
Not too surprising. Especially with many college kids returning to school in September. They probably sought and found local jobs in their college communities. I know Provo-Orem had a large number of crap job postings near the end of the summer that have now been filled. Praise be to Barack and his enlightened policies.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 06, 2012, 08:17:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2012, 01:16:20 AM
Btw, if unemployment is to fall, you have to create more jobs than the population growth. You know that, right? :huh:
False. Unemployment can also fall if people stop looking for work.
That has been the case previously, but this time participation increase too.
I love the fact that the right is having kittens over the unemployment number dropping to 7.8%; if it had dropped from 8.4% to 8.1%, there wouldn't be nearly as much howling; but the fact that it broke the 8.0 barrier the GOP loves to quote is rubbing them the wrong way. Dude, it's still only .3%. It's not
that good.
QuoteBoomers typically have more seniority in their jobs, offering better job security, and making their unemployment rate lower than younger workers; the rate for the entire work force announced on Friday is considerably higher, 7.8 percent. But when older workers lose a job, it takes longer to find a new one, often because of age and salary expectations. The average worker laid off in this country spent 18.9 weeks finding a new job, while for 45- to 54-year-olds it was 27.6 weeks and 33.4 for the older boomers. But even the long search for the oldest boomers has eased considerably; that 33.4-week average was 43 weeks a year ago.
Fucking Baby Boomers just won't fucking go away and die already. Fuck, I can't wait until that bullshit generation disappears and actually makes room for the rest of the planet. Fuck. Useless fucking hippie old as fuck fucks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2012, 01:51:09 PM
Fucking Baby Boomers just won't fucking go away and die already. Fuck, I can't wait until that bullshit generation disappears and actually makes room for the rest of the planet. Fuck. Useless fucking hippie old as fuck fucks.
My parents are lovely people, so fuck you. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2012, 02:27:06 PMMy parents are lovely people, so fuck you. :)
Too bad that wasn't passed on to the next generation :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2012, 01:51:09 PM
Fucking Baby Boomers just won't fucking go away and die already. Fuck, I can't wait until that bullshit generation disappears and actually makes room for the rest of the planet. Fuck. Useless fucking hippie old as fuck fucks.
What? So your generation of incompetent narcissists can take over?
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2012, 03:38:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2012, 01:51:09 PM
Fucking Baby Boomers just won't fucking go away and die already. Fuck, I can't wait until that bullshit generation disappears and actually makes room for the rest of the planet. Fuck. Useless fucking hippie old as fuck fucks.
What? So your generation of incompetent narcissists can take over?
There's less of us. Think of the environment.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2012, 02:35:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2012, 02:27:06 PMMy parents are lovely people, so fuck you. :)
Too bad that wasn't passed on to the next generation :(
Hey I just received a rave review.
Didn't the Baby Boom end in '68? :hmm:
From a Canadian, a quebecker at that.