Too bad barely any jobs were added and 368,000 Americans had to 'drop out' of the work force to get the % rate down.

If only another 700,000 Americans would stop looking for work, the Obama administration could get the unemployment rate below 8% just in time for the election.

If the workforce today was as large as it was when Obama was elected, the unemployment rate would be over 11%!

IMO, it was obvious months ago: They WILL get the 'official' unemployment rate below 8% in time for the (re)election. No matter how many people have to 'drop out' of the labor force. The govt. can always revise it later.

 

Not too mention when Obama took over they had a different method of calculating unemployment. They changed it, I believe in December 2009. When they did that, the unemployement rate dropped from 10% to around 9.5%, while at the same time the number of unemployment claims remained the same.

Found the article. The unemployment rate for December 2009 was 10% with a gain of 4k jobs. In Janurary 2010 the rate dropped to 9.7% with a loss of 85k jobs.

 

Wow, questionable numbers from our ruling class in DC. Who would have thunk it?

Next thing you know, the government won't include energy or food prices when measuring inflation.

Oh, snap. The CPI (Consumer Price Index) actually DOES exclude energy and food prices.

Here's one number that does sound true: Median household income down $4,000 in the last 4 years. Somehow, my newspaper keeps forgetting to mention that amongst all the 'good news' about the dropping unemployment rate and stable CPI.

 

They also announced that they "overestimated" the number of jobs "created" in June and July, by 41,000. Men's participation in the work force is the lowest since 1949.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ms-solved.html

 

Yep, the revisions downward seem to happen just about every month. Seeing as they are always too high originally, I Wonder why they don't adjust their methods so that the original estimate is a bit closer to the truth?

On new jobs, I hear we need at least 125,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth (citizens and non-citizens).

To make a real dent in unemployment, we need to add 250,000+ jobs for month after month. If the economy were in RECOVERY mode, we would easily be surpassing that number, perhaps for several years in a row. Not happenning with the rollout of Obamacare, possible tax increases, etc.... etc...

 

The initial numbers are what everyone pays attention to. The revisions are done quietly and always have been. If they can point to the initial numbers and say, See my policies are working." It is a win for them, even if the numbers are grossly overstated.

People are generally stupid (but a person is generally smart). They pay attention to the headlines and little else. Even if these numbers stay the same, which is doubtful, people will see the 8.1% unemployment rate and think the number dropped due to hiring. When you explain that it dropped because people left the workforce few will understand (because those who would understand it will already know it), and most will look at you with the big dumb dog look as their eyes glaze over. Most think things are way more complicated than they really are, because they have been told their entire lives, by people they love and trust that things are too complicated and they have to have all of this formal education to understand anything. I have the formal education and learned very little that I didn't already know from life experience.

A perfect example is BMI as used in fitness testing. Some how this thing became the standard for determine if you are healthy or not. If you actually do research and learn about the methodology, you understand that the metrics is nothing more than a height/weight ratio which was discredited in the 80's. If you are 6 foot and weigh 220 lbs you will be considered over weight every time. It doesn't take body composition into consideration at all. It doesn't matter if you have a higher muscle content or higher fat content you are at an unhealthy weight. If your body structure consists of having large thick bones you might have 3% body fat, and almost no muscle, but your bones are heavy enough to say you are unhealthy. Conversely, if you rarely eat and don't eat healthy when you do, and never work out you will have a lower BMI that shows you are healthy. Again if your body make up gives you naturally smaller bones you will show a lower BMI, resulting in a healthy rating. BMI is wildly inaccurate, but people still use it as the gold standard.

 

I lost my job of $53 per hour soon after he was elected. After more than 2 years without a job the $28 per hour looked okay that I am getting now.