So 20,000 jobs lost yet unemployment number FALLS 0.3% = 450K people.

[Statistical]

Come on. I don't buy it.

The administration is gaming the numbers.

[mucifer]

1. yup just like the republicans.

public transit is falling apart here in Chicago. I really thought public transportation would improve with the Obama administration. Not seeing it happen. Guess we have to wait and see a bit longer.

[Brickbat]

2. The "unemployment rate" doesn't count people who have been unemployed long enough that their`

benefits have run out, or who have stopped looking for jobs.

Convenient, eh?

[AllentownJake]

3. They've been gaming the numbers since around July

Nothing new here, the gaming of the numbers just got bigger.

Wait for the revision in about 3 weeks, also wait for the 5%+ GDP growth to be brought down to about 3%

[CanonRay]

5. Yes-July of 1990

http://www.shadowstats.com/



















edited for link

[AllentownJake]

9. They have been getting a little more brazen since July 2009

Hence all the crazy revisions a month after the initial report.

[Statistical]

6. I mean they always game the numbers however

to turn loss job into lower UE that kinda gaming takes some balls.

They would have had to shrink the "workforce" = measure of people able and willing to work by half a million people to make those two numbers line up.

Now Vegas got nothing on that level of gaming.

[AllentownJake]

8. I figured they were going to do this

They need good news right now, and the administration has no problem creating it when they need it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. It occurs to me that is not so far fetched -

the boomers are beginning to retire. If the number of new retirees outnumbers the number of job losses, it is, in fact, possible to increase job losses while simultaneously reducing unemployment. Retirees, after all, are not 'unemployed'.

Not saying that's the case, but just a thought.

[AllentownJake]

43. That is a category in the report

Retired workers are not discouraged workers.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[galileoreloaded]

4. Here is a great chart from ZeroHedge.....

[Statistical]

11. Ouch.

So officially the workforce is about 150 million people and that is at 64.5%. If you don't believe that and use the higher 66% then the workforce "grows" by 3 million people.

Running same unemployment numbers on 153 million person workforce makes U3 at 11.5%. Essentially they are "hiding" nearly 3 million people by claiming the workforce shrunk 3 million people.

Now before people question this. Workforce does not equal employed. You can have high unemployment and workforce remain steady. Workforce = people willing and able to work.

Does anyone buy that 3 million people suddenly because unwilling or unable to work in last year.

[brentspeak]

7. The White House apparently has Toyota executives doing their work for them

[G_j]

10. LOL

[Political Heretic]

12. It's not necessarily the administration's fault. It's the standard practice of doing this:

rolling workers into the "discouraged worker" category - a category that is no longer counted in unemployment numbers. That's been part of the unemployment calculation for a long time, hasn't it? I believe it has. After a certain amount of time, possibly after benefits run out (I'm not sure) you're considered a "discouraged worker" that's "stopped looking for work" (a joke in and of itself) and thus not counted anymore.

It's part of the statistical nonsense brought to us by many administrations - both republican and democrats - when NONE of them want to own high unemployment.

[ipaint]

19. Approaching 6,000,000 on EUC tiered benefits

States reported 5,632,219 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending Jan. 16, an increase of 281,442 from the prior week. There were 1,839,758 claimants in the comparable week in 2009. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

I don't know whether these long term unemployed people are counted but this number is enormous and growing.

If the senate doesn't do anything by next week the EUC ends and whatever tier you are in you will finish out and that's it.



Fudging numbers to disappear politically inconvenient people who are suffering badly for political gain is despicable.

[DrToast]

13. Sorry, you're the one "gaming the numbers"

You're pulling from two reports. If you want to talk about the unemployment rate, why don't you mention the numbers those are based on?

The household survey, which is what the unemployment rate is based on, shows 541,000 more employed.

[Statistical]

25. The workforce shrunk by 3 million persons.

Thus 3 million people were excluded from calculations.

Just because someone is not working doesn't mean they are unemployed. Workforce and thus unemployment is based on the population who is "willing and able to work". Thus more people are not working that the unemployment rate shows. This makes sense for legitimate reasons, prisoners, retired people, people who are disabled, people who do not want to work, people in rehab, etc shouldn't be part of employed or unemployed figures.

There are:
employed
unemployed
not part of workforce

The second category shrunk by 500K people however the third category magically grew by 3 million people.

Do you really think a net 3 million people left the workforce in the last year?

If the govt shrinks the workforce they can hide unemployed people by not considering them part of the workforce. Sorry you are not unemployed you simply aren't part of the workforce.

Workforce participation has been relatively steady for last couple decades and suddenly it drops 1.5% which corresponds to reducing workforce by 3 million people (5% of entire workforce) and you don't think that is suspicious at all.

[mkultra]

30. starting school full time moves you from cat 2 to cat 3

many young people who were working have gone back to school full time.

[DrToast]

35. You're alternating between monthly changes and annual changes

Your question was how can -20,000 jobs have been lost in January yet the unemployment rate went down.

Yet when you want to cite discouraged workers, suddenly you're switching to annual numbers. Why?

The number of employed grew in January as per the Household survey. Go ahead and look: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

[AllentownJake]

36. The headline is spin

The data has some good news, some bad news, and some numbers that are going to be revised downward in 3-5 weeks.

[Statistical]

38. Ok then the manipulation occured earlier in the year.

Lets look at it on a annual basis

All numbers in millions (and rounded)

---------- Jan09 vs Jan10
Workforce- 154 vs 153 (-1)
Employed-- 142 vs 138 (-5)
Unemployed 12 vs 15 (+3)
==============================
Not in WF- 80 vs 83 (+3)

So number of unemployed increased by 3 million.
However 3 more million went into "Not in WorkForce".

Not that move is massive compared to the normal fluctuation of WorkForce percentage.

Now lets say it was gamed by 1 million.
NotInWF should be 82, WF should be 154 and unemployed actually 16 that would be U3 of 10.4% (16/154).

If it was gamed by 2 million
NotInWF should be 81, WF should be 155 and unemployed actually 17 that would be U3 of 10.9% (17/155).

It just seems "lucky" that Workforce unprecedentedly dropped off a cliff by 3 million person right when it was needed to avoid U3 being much higher.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Payroll and unemployed persons are two different numbers believe it or not.

Payroll data is reported based on the number of people receiving paychecks.

Unemployed persons are those who are registered and receiving unemployment money from the gov't or who have not registered yet.

That's how the two numbers can be different.

Weather some of those 20,000 haven't gone on unemployment yet or some on unemployment have had their unemployment run out. To cover the discrepancy, the more accurate number is unemployed persons, which is done via survey by the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

9.7 is not a feel good number at any rate and a shift of 0.3% from last month is nothing to smile about.

[AllentownJake]

16. No one's unemployment has "run out"

What has happened is people have been shifted from the state unemployment compensation pool to the federal one that is extended every 2 months.

So no, that is not true either.

My Uncle has been collecting unemployment since 2008.

[berni_mccoy]

17. Tell me then, where does the BLS get it's data for the "Unemployed Persons" data?

Oh, right, they just cook the books. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

21. Not true. It is a myth that unemployment is based on unemployment insurance/compensation.

Unemployment COMPENSATION is getting a check the govt definition of unemployment U3 is

U3 is an international standard. The ILO sets the definition for U3 and it is the percentage of people willing and able to work who are currently not employed.


Even the BLS indicates the Unemployment Insurance or Unemployment Compensation has NOTHING to do with UE numbers. This is an urban myth. When you stop collecting Unemployment Insurance you are not suddenly not unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed

The BLS conducts a household survey to find out how many people are not working. This is extrapolated to indicate raw number of people not working in the United States. However a key conversion is the measure of workforce. Since not all people not working are unemployed (by def to be unemployed one must be both WILLING and ABLE to work) if the workforce shrinks then the govt can shrink unemployment.

The govt has "determined" the workforce magically shrunk by 3 million people (roughly 5%) in the last year and thus that "hides" a lot of not working people from being classified as unemployed.

[berni_mccoy]

22. I believe I said that.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

27. Not quite you said

"Unemployed persons are those who are registered and receiving unemployment money from the gov't or who have not registered yet. "

U3 is an international definition and has absolutely nothing to do with unemployment "money from the govt".

You could never collect a single penny from the govt and you are still unemployed.

The only way a person not working is NOT unemployed is if that person is not considered part of the workforce.

Who decides how big the workforce is? The govt.

In the last year the number of people "magically" considered not part of the workforce grew by 3 million people.

500K more people in the work force stated they are now employed however the workforce shrunk by 3 million people (thus 3 mil not counted).

Kinda like 500K steps forward and 3 million steps back.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. Not necessarily magic. Retirement, starting a business...

becoming disabled, deciding to stay at home with the kids, hiding from the immigration nazis...

All of these, and more, contribute to reducing the workforce, and in these times it is often simply easier to forget about trying to find a decent job when some income is available. I suspect retirements, forced or otherwise, is the largest single reason.

[Statistical]

32. Agreed workforce numbers do vary and that is why it needs to be calculated HOWEVER

The workforce shrunk by 5% in a year and looking at BLS statistics that has NEVER happened before.

Now maybe the workforce did just happen to shrink buy 5% but...

It just seems really "lucky" for the govt that the workforce shrunk by a NET 3 million people because if hypothetically it hadn't then unemployment would be 11.5% right now. The people who calculate the size of the workforce just happen to calculate that it is 3 million persons smaller at the exact time it would need to be to get unemployment below 10% (instead of increasing to 11.5%).

Maybe the govt just is that lucky and people left the workforce at a faster rate than the continued layoffs and thus unemployment shrunk however with luck like that Congress should go to Vegas they might win enough to pay off the national debt.

[AllentownJake]

34. Retired people and small business owners have their own categories

The 3 million are discouraged workers. People who would like to work, but don't believe work is available.

[AllentownJake]

33. doubtful

This is a survey, they ask people if they have looked for work in the past 4 weeks. Since they are not connected to the people who cut the unemployment checks, the people can be honest.

The people are classified as discouraged workers, they are not classified as retired, if they started a new business, they are classified as employed.

The fact is you have an increasing number of people, who would like to have work, but don't believe it is available.

Read the report than speculate.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Are you assuming that there were absolutely no new hires during the month?

:shrug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. There were many hires. The minus 20,000 figure is *net* payrolls

That can be 450,000 hires and 470,000 fires.

[AllentownJake]

28. It's larger than that

Wait for the revision in 3-5 weeks.

[Statistical]

29. No. 20K is net loss. i.e all jobs gains - all job losses = -20K.

However that isn't the point.

The point is that the govt is "shrinking" the definition of workforce.

Since unemployment # is the percentage of the WORKFORCE (not adult population) that is not employed......

If you remove 3 million people from the workforce and the workforce now reports that it has 500K more people employed have you
a) really gained 500K employed people
OR
b) actually lost 2.5 million employed people

The only way you can believe the govt # is if you believe 5% of the workforce in the last year simply became "unwilling or unable to work" (died, retired, went to prison, became disabled etc).

Remember that is a net number also. So while 3 million people might have died another 3 million people became working adults.

Workforce size has never shrunk 3 million people in a single year. Never. Except now when unemployment magically is under 10%.

[hatrack]

37. Nothing new - all kinds of manipulation going back 50 years now . . .

EDIT

The first regular reporting of now-popular statistics such as gross national/domestic product (GNP/GDP), unemployment and the consumer price index (CPI) began in the decade following World War II. Modern political manipulation of the government's economic data began as soon as practicable thereafter, with revisions to methodology often incorporating positive reporting biases. As a result, investors and most economists, relying on the government's data, often miss underlying economic reality. Consider:

· During the Kennedy administration, unemployment was redefined with the concept of "discouraged workers" so as to reduce the popularly followed unemployment rate.

· If Lyndon Johnson didn't like the growth that was going to be reported in the GNP, he sent it back to the Commerce Department, and he kept doing so until Commerce got it right. The Johnson administration also was responsible for gimmicking the accounting that hides most of the federal deficit.

· Richard Nixon had a highly publicized war with the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the unemployment data. Nixon wanted to report the unemployment rate as the lower of the seasonally adjusted or unadjusted number, at any given time, but not specify same to the public. While that approach was unconscionable at the time and never used, basically the same methodology was introduced in 2004 as "state-of-the-art" by the current Bush administration.

· The Carter administration was caught deliberately understating inflation.

· Systemic changes were introduced during the Reagan administration to boost reported GNP/GDP growth on a regular basis. The wildest manipulations, however, happened at the time of the 1987 liquidity panic. In addition to intervention in the futures markets by the New York Fed to help prop the stock market after the October 19th crash, direct and heavy manipulation of the trade deficit data, under the direction of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, was used in conjunction with massive currency intervention to help bottom the dollar and to contain the currency panic at year-end 1987.

· The first Bush Administration began efforts at the systematic reduction of the reported rate of CPI inflation, and worked an outside-the-system GDP manipulation aimed at helping with the failed 1992 reelection bid.

· As former Labor Secretary Bob Reich explained in his memoirs, the Clinton administration had found in its public polling that if the government inflated economic reporting, enough people would believe it to swing a close election. Accordingly, whatever integrity had survived in the economic reporting system disappeared during the Clinton years. Unemployment was redefined to eliminate five million discouraged workers and to lower the unemployment rate; methodologies were changed to reduce poverty reporting, to reduce reported CPI inflation, to inflate reported GDP growth, among others.

EDIT

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/primers_intro

[Romulox]

40. They cut off your unemployment, then you don't count any more. nt

[AllentownJake]

41. Nope

People are still getting their checks, they are just asking them to keep their mouths shut.

[Romulox]

42. Ummm, yep. People's unemployment benefits have and will continue to expire

And then they are no longer counted as "unemployed". Some people are getting extensions, but certainly not everybody who is unemployed.

[AllentownJake]

44. Nope

People's state benefits are expiring, people's new federal benefits have not. Why do you think there is noise every two months on the Senate and House floor about extending benefits.

People have 26 weeks under most state plans. The Federal Government has been extending people for the past 2 years. Once you are extended the federal government is paying your benefits, no longer the state.

[Romulox]

48. I've never collected "federal unemployment benefits". Please explain.

I assumed these "federal benefits" consisted of additional funds channeled into the extant state unemployment systems. You are saying that a parallel system has been created by the Federal Government with independent criteria for qualification? Where may one apply for this separate Federal unemployment benefit?

If this is true, I am surely embarrassed. No one close to me is collecting at the moment (and I recognize how lucky we all are.)

But this is all new information for me, and certainly not how it worked when I collected unemployment about a decade ago. :shrug:

[AllentownJake]

49. A matter of definition

Once you expire your 26 weeks, you are no longer reported under the state data, though the state is still administering the plan, your funding is from an entirely different set of money and you are reported in a totally new pool of individuals.

[Romulox]

50. So you are saying that NOBODY'S unemployment benefit has expired in the last 2 years?

My research is hampered by the fact that my local paper archives stories for a few weeks at a time at most, but I simply am finding it difficult to believe that unemployment has not expired for anyone during this massive recession (and yes, I am aware of the extensions...) Will google further, but clarification from you would be appreciated since you are both so emphatic on one hand, but haven't really spoken to the meat of the matter, on the other...

[AllentownJake]

53. Can't say for certainty

But of the people receiving benefits I personally know from 2008 to today, I have not heard of one person who has lost their benefits, or have even had to do anything to get them extended.

[Romulox]

55. Simple logic: both payrolls and reported unemployment rate go down...

Either many people died, or else many people have involuntarily left the work roles and are no longer counted. QED (?).

[AllentownJake]

56. they don't use the insurance numbers in this equation

The payments from unemployment insurance aren't part of the calculation

[Romulox]

60. Setting insurance aside for a moment, the issue remains...the model can't be accurate if both

the aforementioned facts are true:

namely: that the "unemployment rate" (not the number of people drawing a benefit!) has gone as the number of over all jobs has also gone down.

No matter who is collecting what, this can only happen if people are "withdrawing from the workforce" in greater numbers than they are entering it and/or if they aren't being counted.

[AllentownJake]

62. The model is meaningless

The data that has any bearing on reality is in the details of the report. The statistic they have developed is utter and complete bullshit.

[Romulox]

65. OK. No statistician I, so I muddle through this stuff the best I can.

When I read articles like the below, for example, I cannot help but think that "voluntarily leaving the workforce" at a time of massive unemployment is a strange conceit.

One way or the other, it's certainly convenient for politicians that so many Michiganders decided to "voluntarily leave the workforce" at a time when their presence in said workforce would otherwise cause so many political problems. :shrug:

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-inside-job/2009/09/21/why-michigans-unemployment-rate-could-be-even-worse

[Statistical]

67. "it's certainly convenient for politicians that so many Michiganders ..."

it's certainly convenient for politicians that so many Michiganders decided to "voluntarily leave the workforce" at a time when their presence in said workforce would otherwise cause so many political problems

Exactly. Now if you can explain this concept to everyone you know when unemployment goes "down" next month or month after you and they will know where to look.

Very easy to spot once you know where to look.

If # unemployed shrinks but it is because the workforce shrinks IMHO it is BS.

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

Now if # unemployed shrinks and workforce GROWS then likely we have seen a real increase in percentage of population genuinely employed.

[Statistical]

64. Exactly.

Number of people employed decreased by 4 million over last 12 months however 3 million people left workforce thus the numbers don't look "so bad".

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

If someone really believes that 3 million people stopped working for reasons other than not being able to find a job when they are willing and able then the numbers are legit.

If you think that 3 million exodus is unrealistic then that is where the books are being cooked. The govt can keep a lid on U3 rate simply by moving the "right" amount of people to "not in work force category".

Now some people likely DID genuinely leave the workforce (became disabled, sent to prison, retired by choice, etc). However these numbers are all NET numbers and for the workforce to shrink by a NET 3 million is very suspect.

Another way to look at it is if the workforce keeps shrinking by 3 million people we will have 0% unemployment in 4 years. :)

[Statistical]

57. Insurance numbers have absolutely nothing to do with unemployment calculations.

None whatsoever.

This is a very commonly accepted myth and it clouds any discussion on U3, what it means, or how it is calculated.

A person collecting or not collecting unemployment doesn't change U3 at all.

BLS makes this very clear.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

Also the definition for U3 is internationally set by the ILO.

U3 is "the percentage of persons both willing and able to work who are currently not employed". Period.

If you are "willing and able to work" and you are not employed then you are part of U3.

The "scam" is in the "willing part". The govt makes assumptions on "discouraged workers" and removes them from the workforce. Poof no longer part of workforce means they are no longer unemployed.

Unemployed isn't a binary.
Employed
Unemployed

There are three possible categories
Employed
Unemployed
Not in Workforce

The govt is simply moving people from bucket 2 to bucket 3. Far far easier that manipulating unemployment insurance.

[Statistical]

46. Not true. Unemployment compensation is not a condition for calculating employment numbers.

So even if tomorrow nobody collected unemployment checks the U3 wouldn't change.

The problem is the govt determination of who is "in the workforce".
Over last year the 3 govt has excluded 3 million people from the "workforce" because they are "discouraged".

If workforce shrinks and excludes 3 million potentially unemployed persons then the unemployment rate will decline.
Add those 3 million back in and you have >11% unemployment (U3) and U6 goes up about 2% also.

So there is gaming going on but it is unrelated to unemployment insurance.

[AllentownJake]

47. Actually if they let the benefits expire

That U3 number will hit the roof, as many more people are suddenly actively looking for work, and calling them "discouraged" will be a stretch.

With supply and demand, wages will fall as well, as the supply of people willing to take anything for survival will surely depress everyone's wages.

This of course is not taking the belief in that case, they will go to outright lying instead of statistical manipulation.

[Romulox]

51. I fail to see how one definition doesn't fold into the other...

And while drawing unemployment is not a condition, it is obviously used as a baseline calculation.

[Statistical]

54. Nope not used in any way shape or fashion.

The definition of unemployed has nothing to do with Unemployment Insurance.

Unemployed is someone WILLING and ABLE to work who is currently not employed.

BLS makes it very clear that UI has nothing to do w/ collection methods.

The BLS conducts a survey and based on that survey determines 3 factors.
1) size of workforce.
2) number of people in that workforce who are employed.
3) number of prople in that workforce who are unemployed.

Since #2 & #3 are based on #1 to "reduce" (on paper only) unemployment you simply need to reduce the size of workforce.

The BLS has done just that.

---------- Jan09 vs Jan10
Workforce- 154 vs 153 (-1)
Employed-- 142 vs 138 (-5)
Unemployed 12 vs 15 (+3)
==============================
Not in WF- 80 vs 83 (+3)

Notice Unemployed has "only" risen 3 million however employed has declined 5 million. Where is the difference going......
"Not in workforce". By excluding people from workforce they can't be unemployed (by the definition).

So it is mucher easier to manipulate unemployment numbers that most people think. The govt decides the size of workforce and that size of workforce directly affects the unemployment numbers.

However the manipulation has nothing to do with unemployment checks/insurance/compensation. Tomorrow freepers could end all unemployment compensation. Not a single dime to a single person and it wouldn't change U3 at all.


http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where
-------------- Quote from BLS on calculating unemployment ---------------
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Other people think that the Government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker come to their homes every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. For instance, beginning in 1994, the CPS estimates reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey. (For more information on the CPS redesign, see Chapter 1, "Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population Survey," in the BLS Handbook of Methods.)

[Romulox]

58. Thanks for that. It was educational.

I still think the logic problem mentioned to Jake remains, which suggests this model isn't terribly accurate. :shrug:

[AllentownJake]

61. No disagreement there

The model has been manufactured and manipulated to make politicians look as good as possible for 50 years.

[Statistical]

63. Yeah not only isn't it very accurate it is also easily manipulated.

If all of the 3 million "not in workforce" increase were added back to workforce and to unemployment instead of

15/153 =9.7% unemployment

we would have
(15+3)/(153+3) = 11.5% unemployment

There is a lot of political pressure for agency not to release a devastating number like 11.5% unemployment.

Remember when the administration said unemployment wouldn't go over 10%. Well as it started to head that way the number of people "leaving" the workforce went up faster and saved the administration. Just seems very "lucky" to have that happen.

[AllentownJake]

66. Good luck disapearing voters

People aren't stupid. At the end of the day, the only people that care about these reports, are talking heads on TV.

Reality for many Americans is much bleaker than the talking heads will say, and I fear we are going to have more Mass moments and surprised democrats.

[tonysam]

45. The government is engaging in more "happy talk"

in order for consumer confidence to go up and thus jumpstart the economy again.

It won't work, but the government isn't going to stop trying.

[fascisthunter]

52. I Would Hope Those Posting Here Realize Numbers being fudged

will NOT help this country, but instead make things worse for us all. Nothing good comes from dishonesty, because then the problem is ignored instead of observed and dealt with.

[Jim__]

59. The number of seasonally adjusted jobs increased by 541,000.

Without the seasonal adjustment, there would have been a decrease in jobs:

A Labor Department survey of households found that 541,000 more Americans had jobs last month. But most of those gains were attributed to seasonal adjustments to the data. Without those adjustments, which account for reduced hiring during winter, the data show fewer people had jobs last month.

more...

[jberryhill]

68. How many people retire in a month? /nt

[AllentownJake]

69. They are a seperate category

God, it is there in the report in plain sight. DISCOURAGED WORKERS.

[jberryhill]

70. You don't have to address me as your God..

...simply becuase I had a tangential question.

But I appreciate the respect.

You may go in peace, my child.