Don't let Obama lie to you!

[jasonbrinn]

The tidal wave of 7.8% unemployment rate news should be held to honest numbers and REALity;

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-september-jobs-report-was-bad-2012-10

 

[Xue Sheng]

How can you tell when a politician is lying?

His lips are moving

 

[WC_lun]

Here's another quote from a different author on the same site;

Goldman thinks the unemployment rate number is solid despite all the hyperventilating and BLS conspiracy mongering out there.

Looks like a little selective linking from the OP.

 

[seasoned]

Makes no differents, 7.8% is, and should be unexceptable........ The is not the new norm, this is way out of line.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Other things to consider

1) Those that stop trying to find work are not included in this at all
2) Those that found work, was it comperable to what the had before based on pay scale. Or is a $80,000 per year business man now getting $7.25 and hour working at McDonalds

I have said this many times before statistics are fairly useless without knowing the data and formulas used to get the number you re throwing out.

 

[billc]

Some interesting thoughts on the October Surprise...or one of many October surprises...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/an-october-surprise.php

Today, the Labor Department reported that the jobless rate in the U.S. dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent last month. This is the lowest rate in approximately three and a half years.
But there’s a problem with the report: it doesn’t make sense. As Kevin Hassett points out, the 114,000 net jobs created in September is well below the average for this year (146,000) and the average for last year (153,000).
So how did the Department of Labor come up with an unemployment rate that indicates significant improvement in the jobs picture? It found the alleged improvement through its survey of households. As Hassett explains, the Labor Department’s jobs report is always based on two surveys, one of households and one of establishments.
Professional economists and the press usually emphasize the establishment survey because it is considered less volatile. This month, that survey continues to show the usual weakness in the job market. But the household survey purports to show massive improvement.
Hassett says that during the Bush presidency, the MSM discounted the household survey whenever it revealed good news, claiming that the numbers are suspect. I find the latest household survey numbers — coming just before the climax of this election and contradicting more reliable data — to be suspect, indeed.

The drop in the unemployment rate under 8% was predicted a long time ago by almost every conservative in the country. We knew that if no modern President was ever re-elected with the unemployment rate over 8%, there was no way obama and his people were going to let it stay over 8%. This isn't a surprise to us and I have to say that it won't be the last one this month. The end game is upon us and they will pull out all the stops and will do whatever they have to to get obama back in office.

 

[arnisador]

The BLS does an excellent, nonpartisan job--don't buy into the conspiracy theories.

 

[WC_lun]

There are some legitimate concerns on how the jobless rate is calculated. I think we can all agree on that. However, those same calculations are what most right wing people have been using to attack the president. Now that those numbers have dropped below 8% it is no longer a valid calculation for those who just a month before were quite happy using the over 8% number. Then you have those that because the number no longer fits within the attack box that was built, all of the sudden the BLS is part of a conspiracy. No, there is no conspiracy. Sometimes things don't go as you would want them politically. Get over it. I do think it is sad that so many Republicans were rooting for the jobless rate to be higher, rather than lower. It is an indication that some people do not care about Americans in general, just what can be used as political fodder.

 

[Cryozombie]

There are some legitimate concerns on how the jobless rate is calculated. I think we can all agree on that. However, those same calculations are what most right wing people have been using to attack the president. Now that those numbers have dropped below 8% it is no longer a valid calculation for those who just a month before were quite happy using the over 8% number.

That's not necessarily true is it? If, say those calculations the right wing people were using to attack the president were so high because they included people actively seeking work/collecting unemployment, and then, as we are being told, those people suddenly drop off the list (no longer eligible because of time span/Activley stopped looking) and that caused a downward spike in the numbers making falsely appear that unemployment dropped, when in fact it didn't I would say that your statement is incorrect.

HOWEVER... I agree with your assessment that the way it's calculated is suspect, and I take all of it for granted from both sides as a result.

 

[WC_lun]

Those that are underemployed not being a part of the equation, and those that have been unemployed dropping off the tally has been part of the BLS's computations all along. That can and should be part of the discussion on the % number given EVERY month. What I take exception to is those on the right saying the number is not a true reflection this month or even worse that the .3 drop in that number was a conspiracy. They were more than happy to use that calculation when it put Mr Obama in a bad light politically, but now that isn't so much the case, all of the sudden the number is suspect. The same problem with that calculation exsisted a 6 months ago that is used today. If a person is willing to persecute someone over that number politically, then they need to pull up thier big boy pants and concede that the number isn't as bad as it used to be and that is good news for the president politically.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329519/think-again-about-good-jobs-report-kevin-hassett

The report, of course, reveals the results of two surveys, one of households, one of establishments. The professional economists and the press usually emphasize the establishment survey because it is viewed as less volatile. The establishment survey was terrible. The 114,000 number of jobs created on net in September is well below the average for this year (146,000) and the average for last year (153,000). This is wholly consistent with the story that the economy is decelerating sharply as we head into the fall.

The household survey, on the other hand, portrays a September that was booming, far more so than could possibly be true given the other indicators. According to it, the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8 percent, with total employment jumping by a whopping 873,000. I wish it were true, but it will likely be a blip when we have a few more months of data.
Back when President Bush presided over a jobless recovery, the household survey tended to show better news. At the time, every media organization carefully emphasized the establishment numbers, and warned that the household numbers are suspect. That, of course, is what happens when a Republican is in office.