Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
stacymomof2
What, exactly is the claim that the September unemployment numbers are falsified about, anyway?
October 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

So it has been repeatedly stated in threads on this board that the report is somehow false, or misleading in some way.  What is behind this claim?  Do people really think that the numbers are false?  Do they think that the number is only down because of people who have dropped out of the workforce?   Are there really people who think Obama can influence the BLS to put out false numbers?

It seems to be the latest Republican talking point.  

ETA Here is the link to the Sept report.  You can also read past reports and look up stats, even for the "real" unemployment number.  They will explain what each number means and who it will include, it is an interesting site. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Replies

  • LoveMyBoyK
    October 7, 2012 at 7:28 PM
    Just as dems did and do exactly the same thing when the Admin is Repub. Do you EVER stop trying to pretend this type of thing is unique to Repubs or do you just keep peddling that shit hoping someone will one day buy it?


    Quoting trippyhippy:

    They only believe the numbers when they are bad.

  • LoveMyBoyK
    October 7, 2012 at 7:33 PM
    You might want to broaden your narrow bias and ask Dems why they do the exact same thing and widen your chance of getting an answer.


    Quoting stacymomof2:

    I obviously didn't get accross my point clearly.  What I have said is the numbers of long term unemployed have not gone up, according to the September report.  Also those numbers are NEVER included in the "official" unemployment rate so the drop is actually comparing apples to apples.  It's not like they JUST started using these numbers.

    So why are all conservatives acting like the report is bad, and that it is only due to the long-term unemployed when 1.The number of long term employed has not gone up, and 2.There were actual jobs created.

    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    The same exact things Dems pointed out is wrong when numbers were released during Bush years. The numbers donot reflect the millions unemoloyed but NOT on the unemployment rolls. So the problem is in not counting the millions who have run out of unemploment but who are still not working. Or so Dems insisted was the case 5 years ago.



  • grandmab125
    October 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM


    Quoting TB78:

    All I know is that if they are accepting temporary holiday work as reducing the unemployment rate it should not count because when they poll the numbers again after the holidays are done then of course the numbers are going to fluctuate. I heard some claim that people have been employed in the private sector. What is the "private sector"?


    The private sector is any employer other the Federal, State or local gov't, which would also includes teachers, firefighters, police, people like that.  Companies, large and small, restaurants, stores, etc are private sector.

  • stacymomof2
    October 7, 2012 at 7:41 PM

    What?  I am talking about the BLS report.  What I am saying is that the numbers feom the BLS are currently the best picture of the unemployment problem.

    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    You might want to broaden your narrow bias and ask Dems why they do the exact same thing and widen your chance of getting an answer.


    Quoting stacymomof2:

    I obviously didn't get accross my point clearly.  What I have said is the numbers of long term unemployed have not gone up, according to the September report.  Also those numbers are NEVER included in the "official" unemployment rate so the drop is actually comparing apples to apples.  It's not like they JUST started using these numbers.

    So why are all conservatives acting like the report is bad, and that it is only due to the long-term unemployed when 1.The number of long term employed has not gone up, and 2.There were actual jobs created.

    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    The same exact things Dems pointed out is wrong when numbers were released during Bush years. The numbers donot reflect the millions unemoloyed but NOT on the unemployment rolls. So the problem is in not counting the millions who have run out of unemploment but who are still not working. Or so Dems insisted was the case 5 years ago.




  • AdellesMom
    October 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM
    I'm not sure.
  • stacymomof2
    October 7, 2012 at 7:44 PM

    If you go to the BLS site that I linked, they will tell you which numbers are affected by temporary workers and seasonally adjusted.  It's not quite as simple as the one main number that everyone usually talks about, the monthly report is pretty comprehensive and they adjust the numbers regularly.

    Quoting TB78:

    All I know is that if they are accepting temporary holiday work as reducing the unemployment rate it should not count because when they poll the numbers again after the holidays are done then of course the numbers are going to fluctuate. I heard some claim that people have been employed in the private sector. What is the "private sector"?


  • FromAtoZ
    October 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM


    Quoting TB78:

    All I know is that if they are accepting temporary holiday work as reducing the unemployment rate it should not count because when they poll the numbers again after the holidays are done then of course the numbers are going to fluctuate. I heard some claim that people have been employed in the private sector. What is the "private sector"?

    I would like to know the actual wording of the surveys that go out to the individuals.  I assume, if it is asking if you are employed, even a person working temp work would answer yes.  Some may very well lose the job after the holidays, some may very well find themselves fired and others may very well find themselves offered a permanent position.  Just like every day life.

    I would think the numbers would change, regardless, as many people work temp jobs that are not holiday related.  *shrug*

    The private sector is business not controlled or run by the State. It is not govt jobs.  Wal Mart, as a poor example, is a business in the private sector.

  • LoveMyBoyK
    October 7, 2012 at 7:46 PM
    Yes, and you are trying to find outwhy some REPUBS say the numbera are falsified - I am telling you to broaden your biased field and include Dems,some of whom also did the exact same thing whe the Bush admin released numbers, in asking WHY of that is what you want to know
  • KairisMama
    October 7, 2012 at 7:46 PM
    I always find the number to be BS since it no longer takes into account those who have exhausted UE but have not found work. Or those who never qualified for UE to begin with but have been out of work.
  • stacymomof2
    October 7, 2012 at 7:49 PM

    Ah.  That sounds about right.  Here they have been releasing the same type of report forever, certainly it hasn't changed in THIS admin, and people are acting like Obama is playing with the numbers, suddenly everyone is acting like we are all so stupid that we didn't know about the "real" unemployment number which can be heard every single time this report comes out.  It's nothing new, at all.  Obama is not playing with the stats.  (although he may be highlighting the good numbers and glossing over the drop in manufacturing jobs.)  

    Quoting Healthystart30:

    It started with two republicans tweeting this as a fact, and the rest ran with it. Now bunch of people including Romney supporters have repeatedly said that there is no way that they could have falsified these numbers and people still choose to run with it.


Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts