PDA

View Full Version : Economics Welp, this is weird. We found 400,000 more jobs.


Direckshun
09-28-2012, 08:07 AM
WTF?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/27/bureau-of-labor-statistics-revises-job-growth-upward-by-a-huge-386000-jobs/

Bureau Of Labor Statistics Revises Job Growth Upward By A Huge 386,000 Jobs
Op/Ed
9/27/2012 @ 6:25PM

As if to pile on to what may be the worst two week period a presidential campaign has ever suffered, Governor Mitt Romney has now lost one of the campaign’s key narratives.

Romney can no longer claim that President Obama’s first term in office has resulted in a loss of jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is out with its annual update to benchmark unemployment numbers (for the more cynical among you, the BLS does this every fall so this is not a number being ‘timed’ for the election), and the numbers reveal that 386,000 more non-farm jobs were actually created between March, 2011 and April 2012 than what had been originally reported.

The figures represent a variance from the previous data of 0.3 which sits right at the norm for annual benchmark adjustments which are typically up or down by 0.3 percent.

As a result of the revision, the Obama administration can now claim a net job increase of 125,000 rather than what had previously been believed to be a net loss of 261,000 jobs.

While this may not seem like a lot of jobs to show for the first four years of the Obama presidency, it must be remembered that an astonishing 4.316 million jobs were lost in the first 13 months of the Obama presidency—including 800,000 lost in the first month along—creating a hole that was virtually impossible to climb out of in four short years. The turn-around is not only something of a marvel but puts a significant crimp in the argument for a Romney presidency.

Alan Krueger, chairman of the President’ Council of Economic Advisors had this say:

“The revisions announced in today’s reports are a reminder that economic data are subject to large revisions. As a whole the pattern of revisions suggest that the recession that began at the end of 2007 was deeper than initially reported, and the jobs recovery over the last 2.5 years has been a bit stronger than initially reported, although much work remains to be done to return to full employment.”

While the upward revision does not impact on the sluggish job growth experienced during the summer months, there was more good news out today, in that regard, as we learn that individuals filing for unemployment benefits this week dropped by 26,000 to a seasonally adjusted 359,000—the best showing in two months. Better still, the four week average, the preferred indicator of job market trends, dropped 4,500 to 374,000 after rising for the past six weeks.

This milestone represents a significant number as many economist believe that the number had to drop below 375,000 to produce a lowered unemployment rate and it has now done so.

Direckshun
09-28-2012, 08:08 AM
The electoral upshot of this:

As a result of the revision, the Obama administration can now claim a net job increase of 125,000 rather than what had previously been believed to be a net loss of 261,000 jobs.

Obama administration: took over during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and managed to end its first term with a track record of net job creation.

FD
09-28-2012, 08:12 AM
The BLS models do a good job, but aren't great at inflection points. If you look at previous annual revisions, there are huge negative ones for 2008-9, and then positive ones for 2010-2011. They get these by comparing their estimates in different sectors to the actual measurable differences which are made available by firms after a long lag.

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:17 AM
The electoral upshot of this:



Obama administration: took over during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and managed to end its first term with a track record of net job creation.

We can only imagine what could have been accomplished with a Congress that was even 25% less dickish about supporting anything that might help improve the economy.

ReynardMuldrake
09-28-2012, 08:19 AM
Were they between the couch cushions?

headsnap
09-28-2012, 08:25 AM
they must have polled likely voters in Arizona...

FishingRod
09-28-2012, 09:54 AM
Something that we all need to keep in mind regardless of who is POTUS in the next term.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80,000 jobs a month needs be created just to break even in the number of people out of work. That being the net increase of young people joining the workforce minus those retiring, dying, or becoming disabled.

vailpass
09-28-2012, 10:37 AM
The electoral upshot of this:



Obama administration: took over during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and managed to end its first term with a track record of net job creation.

:LOL:

HonestChieffan
09-28-2012, 10:40 AM
400,000 people who thought they had jobs stayed home, got unemployment, dropped out of the work place and got food stamps. Now they learn they had a job all along, housing prices are rising, and the recession is over.

blaise
09-28-2012, 11:09 AM
Credit bad jobs reports to Bush. Credit good jobs reports to Obama.

ChiTown
09-28-2012, 11:16 AM
We can only imagine what could have been accomplished with a Congress that was even 25% less dickish about supporting anything that might help improve the economy.

:LOL:

vailpass
09-28-2012, 11:18 AM
Are there any studies that show what sectors have lost jobs and in which sectors new jobs have been created?
I'd like to know what kind of jobs are being created, if they are full or part time, benefitted or no, and what they pay.
Same data for the jobs eliminated.

KC native
09-28-2012, 11:21 AM
Are there any studies that show what sectors have lost jobs and in which sectors new jobs have been created?
I'd like to know what kind of jobs are being created, if they are full or part time, benefitted or no, and what they pay.
Same data for the jobs eliminated..

http://bls.gov

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 11:23 AM
Are there any studies that show what sectors have lost jobs and in which sectors new jobs have been created?
I'd like to know what kind of jobs are being created, if they are full or part time, benefitted or no, and what they pay.
Same data for the jobs eliminated.

Bureau of labor stats has all kinds of data polls. Granted I don't know what alot of it means.

qabbaan
09-28-2012, 11:26 AM
Are there any studies that show what sectors have lost jobs and in which sectors new jobs have been created?
I'd like to know what kind of jobs are being created, if they are full or part time, benefitted or no, and what they pay.
Same data for the jobs eliminated.

When Bush was in office, any jobs created were supposedly from people giving up and taking a low paying job because they couldn't find a good paying job. I'm sure now the job quality is so much higher. That's why the number of people on disability and food stamps is at a record.

jjjayb
09-28-2012, 11:54 AM
We can only imagine what could have been accomplished with a Congress that was even 25% less dickish about supporting anything that might help improve the economy.

Or what might have happened if Republicans didn't take over the house to stop some of the foolishness that was working to keep business from growing. ;)

Iowanian
09-28-2012, 11:56 AM
How convenient this close to a debate.

vailpass
09-28-2012, 12:00 PM
.

http://bls.gov

Thanks. I was hoping someone might be aware of a study that had already culled the pertinent data.

vailpass
09-28-2012, 12:00 PM
Bureau of labor stats has all kinds of data polls. Granted I don't know what alot of it means.

Thanks. Agreed, I'm not qualified nor am I inclined to comb that data to find what I was asking about.

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 12:02 PM
How convenient this close to a debate.

It is odd isn't it?

I've heard that it's due to the increased sales and consequent rise in manufacturing of right leaning tinfoil hats.

-King-
09-28-2012, 12:04 PM
How convenient this close to a debate.
LMAO