Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So they expected over 100,000 new jobs, but instead lost 4,000.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 05:29 PM
Original message
So they expected over 100,000 new jobs, but instead lost 4,000.
This is some seriously BAD forecasting:

~snip~ Investors were taken aback by the Labor Department's report that payrolls dropped by 4,000 in August, the first decline since August 2003. Economists had forecast payrolls would increase by 110,000. However, the unemployment rate held steady at 4.6 percent as expected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090700646.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. yeah and they glossed over the June and July numbers
the revised em down 71,000!

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. that's how it works, I've argued with some
that point to the numbers posted during any given month and they say the economy is rosy, meanwhile, each month the number gets revised down. How the hell does the unemployment number stay at 4.6????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Simple. To get the number, they use

a Magic 8-Ball. "Is the number 4.9?" "Most defnitely so."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nostradamus, they ain't.
:dunce: :dunce: :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. The "unemployment rate" is such a crock.

For those who may not know, here's why:

They know pefectly well that are untold ten of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more American citizens who have been unemployed for years but are not included in their count.

When they say the unemployment rate is 4.6%, all they mean is that 4.6% of Americans are receiving unemployment benefits.

Once your benefits run out, they take your name off the list. But a lot of people whose benefits ran out years ago have never been able to find another job.

In other words, they're still unemployed. They're just left out of the count.

It's a classic example of the three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. They want people to think "Well, 4.6% is not so many people. They're probably lazy or something, anyway" and go back to watching "American Idol" or FOX "news." A perfect example of people being led to feel comfy in the "I've got mine" mentality that's endemic to our society.

:grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. the truth has never been part of this cabals vocabulary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. It was the same when Clinton was president and

probably has been ever since they started reporting unemployment numbers, as far as no longer counting people as unemployed when their unemployment benefits run out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. it goes back as far as the Truman Administration and has continued ever since
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
7.  isn't that the truth
They can make anything sound anyway they desire . I wonder what sort of jobs these projected 10,000 jobs were going to be , more subcontract min wage no benefit jobs pouring coffee or driving your car to it's death for a messenger service .

What they do is spread all these loan companies out across the TV adds to fixed rate loans but what they leave out is you must qualify so those who hope to get these loans are out of luck unless they meet the mark .

This un-employmet figure is pure crap , as you said if you are not collecting anymore you vanish and if you do they is no voice for you anylonger .

There is no way to count the ones who have fallen off un-employment and have not found a job or if they did and it's some part time thing then you count as employed but the outcome is the same number .

It's one thing to be young living at home but quite another to be stuck with bills and face losing everything . No one who can change this cares after all there are 300 million people here what is 100,000 or more fallen off the charts .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. and the msn headline says
countrywide to lay off 12,000. maybe they'll get retrained for something, but I kinda doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eagle_Eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. Looks like the Army will make its recruitment goals for the next couple of months
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC