Unemployment Rises To 8.3%

[02ducky]

Best part of this is highlighted in red below, for some reason I am still thinking that Obummer, will get re-elected (I hope not tho). Here to your "Hope and Change"


The July jobs report was released on Friday morning and shows that 163,000 jobs were added during the month. However, despite the additions, the unemployment rate still rose to 8.3 percent.
July’s hiring was the best since February. Still, the economy has added an average of 151,000 jobs a month this year, roughly the same as last year’s pace. That’s not enough to satisfy the 12.8 million Americans who are unemployed.
The rate increased because the government uses two surveys: A survey of businesses showed job gains, but a survey of households showed fewer people had jobs. Economists say the business survey is more reliable.
In addition, June’s jobs numbers were revised down.
High unemployment could hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election hopes. [B]No president since World War II has faced re-election with unemployment over 8 percent


Read more: http://www.khow.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10318244#ixzz22UVwKMA3

[yankeefan98121]

I'm with you ducky, as much as I do not want to see it happen, I see the p o s re-elected

[Sharpienads]

Everytime I hear a jobs report, they always say "Such and such happened more than (or less than) experts expected..."

Who are these experts? Why are they experts if they're always wrong?

Anyways, anybody that tells you things are getting better is either drinking the kool-aid or lying (or both). July's numbers will be revised as well, and I bet the number of jobs "created" will be less than the initial report.

The sad part is, IF we take the senate, keep the house, get the presidency, or any combination of those three and start doing exactly the opposite of what we have been doing and see the economy start to improve, the libs will just say that what they did just started to take effect and try to take credit.

[yankeefan98121]

Everytime I hear a jobs report, they always say "Such and such happened more than (or less than) experts expected..."

Who are these experts? Why are they experts if they're always wrong?

Anyways, anybody that tells you things are getting better is either drinking the kool-aid or lying (or both). July's numbers will be revised as well, and I bet the number of jobs "created" will be less than the initial report.

The sad part is, IF we take the senate, keep the house, get the presidency, or any combination of those three and start doing exactly the opposite of what we have been doing and see the economy start to improve, the libs will just say that what they did just started to take effect and try to take credit.

Either way, IF that happens, we'll all be better for it and the libs can talk about it all the want while others are actaully doing

[yankeefan98121]

It's Bush's fault...he did it.


Might as well blame him. Libs are great at the blame game. Can't accept the blame themselves so... Douches.

hahaha yup, 3.5 years later and they're still saying that shit

... chicago politics, it's always the other guys fault if that fails, smear campaign

[XJ]

The widely reported numbers are at the best misleading. Among other ways of manipulating the data, the number of people considered to be in the workforce has been shrinking.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2002_2012_all_period_M0 7_data.gif


I can't find a linkable graph, but just google US population and look at the same time period.

More people. Less workers. 8.3% is bullshit.

[BPTactical]

Yup, data manipulation and flat out falsehoods hide the real numbers, probably closer to 20%.

Hopefully another nail in BHO's re-election coffin.

[Rucker61]

Everytime I hear a jobs report, they always say "Such and such happened more than (or less than) experts expected..."

Who are these experts? Why are they experts if they're always wrong?



Here's a link to some basic economics on unemployment and measurement. It's an inexact science at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

The BLS itself uses six different measurements, and that's going to give you six different answers every time. Collecting the data accurately seems difficult, also.

[Ronin13]

Yup, data manipulation and flat out falsehoods hide the real numbers, probably closer to 20%.

Hopefully another nail in BHO's re-election coffin.

That's what I was thinking... the numbers only account for those collecting unemployment, but doesn't factor in the folks who's benefits have run out and are no longer able to collect- I was almost in that boat once.

The problem though, and it's a doosy (I can't spell that word), is that there are people, I see them every day driving to work, who blindly support this jester in chief and will vote for him in Nov, despite his making no gains in job creation. But hey, if it's broke, why fix it? Right?

[WETWRKS]

Yup, data manipulation and flat out falsehoods hide the real numbers, probably closer to 20%.

Hopefully another nail in BHO's re-election coffin.

The other day...an expert anounced on tv that the unemployment rate is actually around 25%.

This is taking into account the number of people who haven't found a job but can no longer claim unemployment benefits as well as other factors.

So...1 in 4 cannot find work. And this is supposed to be acceptable?

[sniper7]

I believe they define unemployment as people out of work seeking a job. Those who are not seeking may still be on unemployment to receive money and will use that benefit until it runs out.
My BIL lost his job last year and had to apply so often in order to keep his unemployment benefits.

He found a 1/2 time job but they still allow him to stay on unemployment....I don't understand this. The .gov makes it beneficial to not have a job or only work under a certain amount of hours and still get the benefit.

If people would get nothing after say 3-6 months of actively looking for employment, then the benefit goes away and you better do something quick even if it means working the cabbage and potato fields.

[Sharpienads]

Here's a link to some basic economics on unemployment and measurement. It's an inexact science at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

The BLS itself uses six different measurements, and that's going to give you six different answers every time. Collecting the data accurately seems difficult, also.

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with the basics of unemployment. My point was if they are "experts", why is it that they are always surprised by the numbers, regardless of if they were better or worse than they expected? I do not consider myself to be an expert, but I am not surprised, and actually expected that unemployment would go up.