Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=mlmpetert;948994]Most are predicting the DOL's jobs report to be modest in the 115k range. Although this sounds interesting and also very resonable:

[url=http://trimtabs.com/blog/2012/10/03/trimtabs-says-u-s-economy-adds-210000-jobs-september/]TrimTabs Says U.S. Economy Adds 210,000 Jobs in September - TrimTabs Money Blog[/url]

Anything over 150k will probably be very good for Obama.[/quote]

Unless it's over 200k, which I highly doubt, it won't matter much one way or the other. Already baked into the numbers.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;948984]I never thought I would say this.....but I actually feel a bit bad for Obama and the way the media wings of the DNC (msnbc, etc.) are ready to throw him under the bus. You could see it everywhere last night and this AM. They're setting up to dump an election loss squarely on him and trash the guy because he can't defend the last 3 1/2 years (I say policies, others will say bad situation, folks in the middle would say both),his far left ideology (yes I know that's a debatable point), and he can't live up to the diety-like aspirations the clowns (yes, Chris Matthews I mean you) in the left wing media put on him.

These two-faced, opportunistic, back-stabbers have carried the water and covered for Obama since 2007. Now they're ready to throw him to the wolves and cover their own hind-quarters....and this is before any real polls have come out suggesting a drastic shift in nationwide polls. Shameful. But, Obama has taken advantage of these useful idiots all this time also. Moral of the story, be careful who you make your bed with.[/quote]

They are going wild but lets be honest here, they are going after him because he wasnt aggressive enough. This is somethingthat can easily mitigated. Team Obama is a pretty smart bunch and these barking dogs will change thier and sing his praises like bird of paradise.

This is a rope-a-dope, and Romney is the dope.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

JOBS: NFP added 114K jobs; 86K jobs revised upward previous 2 months; Labor force participation ticked up a tenth, suggesting rate didn't drop due to less people looking for work.

Unemployment rate at 7.8%, lower than when Obama took office. More work to do.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;949140]JOBS: NFP added 114K jobs; 86K jobs revised upward previous 2 months; Labor force participation ticked up a tenth, suggesting rate didn't drop due to less people looking for work.

Unemployment rate at 7.8%, lower than when Obama took office. More work to do.[/quote]

Also add that most of those jobs added are part time low paying jobs.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;949140]JOBS: NFP added 114K jobs; 86K jobs revised upward previous 2 months; Labor force participation ticked up a tenth, suggesting rate didn't drop due to less people looking for work.

Unemployment rate at 7.8%, lower than when Obama took office. More work to do.[/quote]LOTS more work to do. From BLS:

[URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf[/URL]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. [/FONT]That's less than the annual inflation rate.

[FONT=Times New Roman][LEFT]The number of [/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman]long-term unemployed [/B][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman](those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed[/LEFT]
at 4.8 million and accounted for 40.1 percent of the unemployed.

[FONT=Times New Roman]The overall trend in the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;949165]Also add that most of those jobs added are part time low paying jobs.[/quote]

Most? You got a link for that?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;949174]LOTS more work to do. From BLS:

[URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf[/URL]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. [/FONT]That's less than the annual inflation rate.

[FONT=Times New Roman][LEFT]The number of [/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman]long-term unemployed [/B][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman](those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed[/LEFT]
at 4.8 million and accounted for 40.1 percent of the unemployed.

[FONT=Times New Roman]The overall trend in the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat.
[/FONT][/FONT][/quote]

Yeah, wages have been consistently stagnant (flat) for many years now and declined during the recession.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;949140]JOBS: NFP added 114K jobs; 86K jobs revised upward previous 2 months; Labor force participation ticked up a tenth, suggesting rate didn't drop due to less people looking for work.

[B]Unemployment rate at 7.8%[/B], lower than when Obama took office. More work to do.[/quote]


Definitely very good news for Obama, but maybe not so much those looking for work.

Any reasonable economist has to question the disparity between the 2 numbers. And right now i think everyone is kind of scratching their heads trying to explain it.

I initially heard the report on the radio this morning and the economist they had on was really surprised by the difference and couldnt explain it. He did mentioned that the household survey is much more volatile than the establishment survey. Im sure its way off but that the real number is still well over 200k new jobs. I believe its susposed to be revised 2 days before the election.

[IMG]http://wordpress.washingtonexaminer.com/beltway-confidential/files/2012/10/Screen-shot-2012-10-05-at-10.31.20-AM.png[/IMG]

[url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2509951#.UG8MbBgWUlb]BLS claims almost 1 million Americans found new jobs | WashingtonExaminer.com[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

The problem with these theories is the ADP actually has job growth higher (162K) and Gallup has unemployment even lower than BLS for several weeks. These coming from private entities.

My attitude is choose one. All three can't be wrong.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;949193]Most? You got a link for that?[/quote]

[url=http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html]US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low - Yahoo! Finance[/url]


Many of the jobs the economy added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million, the most since February 2009.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% we cant look at it objective? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people struggling for Mitt's sake?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Chico23231;949238]i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% [B]we cant look at it objective[/B]? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people struggling for Mitt's sake?[/quote]


Thats all im trying to do. And i dont think firstdown or anyone here is routing for a continuation of bad numbers.

I dont think there has ever been this type of disparity before. Its not just a big difference, its a huge difference. Looking at it objectively is trying to figure out why.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=mlmpetert;949239]Thats all im trying to do. And i dont think firstdown or anyone here is routing for a continuation of bad numbers.

I dont think there has ever been this type of disparity before. Its not just a big difference, its a huge difference. Looking at it objectively is trying to figure out why.[/quote]

Let me help you then, lower unemployment numbers are good. Its always a positive, never a negative.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Chico23231;949238]i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% we cant look at it objective? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people struggling for Mitt's sake?[/quote]

Funny now the left wants to look at things objectively. When Bush was in office when someone lost their job it made national news and the country was going to hell. Any positive news about the economy was then followed by 4 or 5 negative things about the economy. I just point out that alot of the jobs were part time jobs (which is true) and the left gets all up set.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?smid=FB-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-E-FB-SM-LIN-RSJ-100512-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click[/url]


There really should be buzzers or fact checkers in debates to BUZZ when candidates are lying.