More promising jobs numbers today

http://mam.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=450925&cust=mam&year=2012&lid=0#top

Big improvement in jobless claims may be tied in part to the week's seasonal adjustment and will in any case have to be confirmed by improvement in subsequent weeks. Claims fell to 339,000 in the October 6 week for a 30,000 decline that's the biggest since July. The 339,000 level is the best reading of the recovery! The four-week average is down 11,500 to 364,000 and is now trending more than 10,000 below the month-ago comparison in what points to improvement for both payroll growth and the unemployment rate.

A possible issue skewing the number is the adjustment which expected a big swing for the first week of the quarter that didn't happen. Next week's report will help clear up this issue. Continuing claims continue to move lower, down 15,000 in data for the September 29 week to 3.273 million with the four-week average down 12,000 to 3.279 million. But the unemployment rate for insured workers isn't improving, holding at 2.6 percent where it's been since mid-March.

The Labor Department said one large state did not report numbers which accounted for a substantial part of the decline.

Good thing for the "amazing" jobs report that they don't count these millions of capable workers:

"In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 802,000 discouraged workers in
September, a decline of 235,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking
for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in September had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

nochain wrote:
Good thing for the "amazing" jobs report that they don't count these millions of capable workers:

"In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 802,000 discouraged workers in
September, a decline of 235,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking
for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in September had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

This is a different report. Persons marginally attached to the work force existed before Obama became president.

Republicans can't seem to grasp that the financial mess we find ourselves in was a direct result of BUSH's laissez-faire economic policies and chickenhawk diplomacy. And that the candidate du jour is planning to follow the exact same path that Bush did...wars for profit and to hell with the majority of our citizens. How can "you people" be so blind?

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:
Good thing for the "amazing" jobs report that they don't count these millions of capable workers:

"In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 802,000 discouraged workers in
September, a decline of 235,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking
for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in September had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

This is a different report. Persons marginally attached to the work force existed before Obama became president.

Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then, that makes it all better.

Floridatexan wrote:
Republicans can't seem to grasp that the financial mess we find ourselves in was a direct result of BUSH's laissez-faire economic policies and chickenhawk diplomacy. And that the candidate du jour is planning to follow the exact same path that Bush did...wars for profit and to hell with the majority of our citizens. How can "you people" be so blind?

Hilarious, you continue your journey into total ignorance. Thanks.

nochain wrote:Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then, that makes it all better.

Well. It sort of makes your post irrelevant to this thread, doesn't it?

Also, you probably shouldn't be citing that particular jobs report anyways. Your political world view rests on the idea that that report was manipulated via a clandestine conspiracy to promote Obama.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then, that makes it all better.

Well. It sort of makes your post irrelevant to this thread, doesn't it?

Since you cherry pick data and obviously suffer from selective reasoning I suppose my post is not important to advancing your blatantly partisan agenda. Good.

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then, that makes it all better.

Well. It sort of makes your post irrelevant to this thread, doesn't it?

Since you cherry pick data and obviously suffer from selective reasoning I suppose my post is not important to advancing your blatantly partisan agenda. Good.

Actually, you and boards are on the same page..in one specific way: the data you presented shows dramatic improvement in the labor market.

Further, I wouldn't refer to pointing out a weekly headline data point as "cherry picking".

It's funny that now the nutties think that not only is Obama cooking the books but so are 50 individual states!

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then, that makes it all better.

Well. It sort of makes your post irrelevant to this thread, doesn't it?

Since you cherry pick data and obviously suffer from selective reasoning I suppose my post is not important to advancing your blatantly partisan agenda. Good.

Cherry picked data? I posted a jobs report that came out today. How is that cherry picking data?

You, on the other hand, posted a report from last week and cherry pi...er...selectively chose to highlight only one particular aspect of that report which as a whole was positive.

[quote="Margin Call"][quote="nochain"]

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then,.

Actually, you and boards are on the same page..in one specific way: the data you presented shows dramatic improvement in the labor market.

Further, I wouldn't refer to pointing out a weekly headline data point as "cherry picking".

I would hardly say stagnation is "dramatic improvement". One must look at the total picture not select data points, of course it always helps when the BLS shifts the goal posts a little with an adjustment. A truly improving job picture would encompass employing those who want to work but haven't looked in over 4 weeks due to the utter futility of finding a job. Considering part-timers who want full time work, underemployed, and those who choose an early and underfunded retirement alternative to beating their head against the job search wall would be telling.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then, that makes it all better.

Well. It sort of makes your post irrelevant to this thread, doesn't it?

Since you cherry pick data and obviously suffer from selective reasoning I suppose my post is not important to advancing your blatantly partisan agenda. Good.

Cherry picked data? I posted a jobs report that came out today. How is that cherry picking data?

You, on the other hand, posted a report from last week and cherry pi...er...selectively chose to highlight only one particular aspect of that report which as a whole was positive.

I think the term "marginally attached worker" is often misunderstood, thus misused.

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then, that makes it all better.

Well. It sort of makes your post irrelevant to this thread, doesn't it?

Since you cherry pick data and obviously suffer from selective reasoning I suppose my post is not important to advancing your blatantly partisan agenda. Good.

Cherry picked data? I posted a jobs report that came out today. How is that cherry picking data?

You, on the other hand, posted a report from last week and cherry pi...er...selectively chose to highlight only one particular aspect of that report which as a whole was positive.

You should do stand up political comedy. Of course you used your amazing super-zero powers of selective reasoning to ignore my point. Again.

[quote="nochain"][quote="Margin Call"]

nochain wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:Oh really? Your amazing insight is truly enlightening. "This is a different report!"

Well then,.

Actually, you and boards are on the same page..in one specific way: the data you presented shows dramatic improvement in the labor market.

Further, I wouldn't refer to pointing out a weekly headline data point as "cherry picking".

I would hardly say stagnation is "dramatic improvement". One must look at the total picture not select data points, of course it always helps when the BLS shifts the goal posts a little with an adjustment. A truly improving job picture would encompass employing those who want to work but haven't looked in over 4 weeks due to the utter futility of finding a job. Considering part-timers who want full time work, underemployed, and those who choose an early and underfunded retirement alternative to beating their head against the job search wall would be telling.

This is part if the misunderstanding. The BLS does not adjust the marginally attached figure!

nochain wrote:You should do stand up political comedy. Of course you used your amazing super-zero powers of selective reasoning to ignore my point. Again.

Let's examine what is going on here:

1. I post a jobs report that came out today.

2. Rather than comment on that, you produce one line item from a fairly massive jobs report that came out last week and basically say "Oh yeah? Well look at this!"

3. You go on to say that I am cherry picking data.

4. I point out the fact that I posted a jobs report that came out today and that I am not merely taking one aspect of it that is positive and ignoring the rest. I further go on to point out that you are selectively looking at one line item on a massive report that, as a whole, was positive.

5. You state that I am using powers of "selective reasoning".

Are you following this, nochain?