September Employment Report: 114,000 Jobs, 7.8% Unemployment

[DEATH ROW JOE]

September Employment Report: 114,000 Jobs, 7.8% Unemployment Rate

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2012
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm
payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Employment increased in health care and in transportation and warehousing
but changed little in most other major industries.

Household Survey Data
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September.
For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1
and 8.3 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by
456,000 in September. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3 percent),
adult women (7.0 percent), and whites (7.0 percent) declined over the month.
The unemployment rates for teenagers (23.7 percent), blacks (13.4 percent), and
Hispanics (9.9 percent) were little changed. The jobless rate for Asians, at
4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), fell over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2,
and A-3.)

In September, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
decreased by 468,000 to 6.5 million. (See table A-11.)

The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks declined by 302,000 over
the month to 2.5 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for
27 weeks or more) was little changed at 4.8 million and accounted for 40.1
percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

Total employment rose by 873,000 in September, following 3 months of little
change. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.4 percentage point to
58.7 percent, after edging down in the prior 2 months. The overall trend in
the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat. The civilian labor
force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force
participation rate was little changed at 63.6 percent. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August
to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because
their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)

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.)

Establishment Survey Data
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 114,000 in September. In 2012,
employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average
monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. In September, employment rose in health care
and in transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1.)

Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory
health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year,
employment in health care has risen by 295,000.

In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing.
Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger
transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).

Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).

Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
activities (-3,000).

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services,
leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September. The manufacturing workweek edged up by
0.1 hour to 40.6 hours, and factory overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 7 cents to $23.58. Over the past 12 months, average hourly
earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. In September, average hourly earnings of
private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents
to $19.81. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from
+141,000 to +181,000, and the change for August was revised from +96,000 to
+142,000.

========
INTRADE

Barack Obama
70.7%
Today's Change: +4.7
Shares Traded: 1,400,764


Mitt Romney
29.3%
Today's Change: -4.8
Shares Traded: 1,523,915

[FullMetalWhackit]

October Surprise.

[GeddyCriss3]

I saw this very simple math today and thought it was interesting (it is being posted around)...

114,000 jobs in 30 days equals 3,800 jobs per day. 3,800 jobs divided by 50 states equals an average of 76 new jobs per state, per day.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

I saw this very simple math today and thought it was interesting (it is being posted around)...

114,000 jobs in 30 days equals 3,800 jobs per day. 3,800 jobs divided by 50 states equals an average of 76 new jobs per state, per day.

From Oct 1998 until Feb 2010, 39,000 jobs were added to the private sector. That's 4,138 days or 9.42 jobs per day or .188 new private sector jobs per state, per day. Or 70.72 jobs per state, per year.

Private sector employment (thousands)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
Oct 1998: 106734
Feb 2010: 106773

[Luminiferous]

Let the conspiracy theories begin...


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The big drop in the unemployment rate a month before the presidential election brought cries of disbelief and conspiracy theories from Jack Welch and other critics of the Obama administration Friday. But the Labor Department was quick to dismiss such claims.

"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," tweeted Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE, Fortune 500). Welch did not respond to a request for further comment on his tweet. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Welch said "I wasn't kidding" about his accusations.

The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1% a month earlier. The drop was due to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' survey of households showing that 873,000 more people had jobs than in the previous month. That was the biggest one-month gain in more than nine years.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis criticized the conspiracy theories Friday.

"This is a methodology that's been used for decades. And it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we're manipulating numbers," Solis told CNN's Richard Quest.

Welch wasn't alone in raising questions about the jobs numbers.

Americans for Limited Government, a conservative group that has been a steady critic of the Obama administration, issued a statement that said the numbers the BLS "used to calculate the unemployment rate are wrong, or worse manipulated. Given that these numbers conveniently meet Obama's campaign promises one month before the election, the conclusions are obvious. Anyone who takes this unemployment report serious is either naive or a paid Obama campaign adviser."

Conn Carroll, a senior writer at the conservative Washington Examiner suggested a slightly less nefarious form of manipulation of the data.

"I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect," he tweeted. "Would love to see the partisan breakdown of the 873,000 Americans who say they got new jobs."

BLS denied there was any manipulation of the data or anything out of the ordinary about the unemployment rate calculation.

"No political appointee is involved in the collecting, processing and analyzing of the data," said Thomas Nardone, the associate commissioner for employment and unemployment statistics.

Nardone said the Council of Economic Advisers doesn't get the numbers until Thursday afternoon, and that the Secretary of Labor herself doesn't see them until Friday morning.

Even some conservative economists defended the BLS's integrity and legitimacy of the numbers.

"The jobs #'s may look fishy to some, but if you step back, it's just a plow horse economy lumbering along," tweeted Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust. To top of page

[Moggio]

And in other news, the U-6 unemployment rate (you know, the FAR more accurate unemployment rate) is STILL 14.7%...

And I'm not surprised that DEATH ROW BLOW JOB didn't post this info...

[brotherplanet]

And in other news, the U-6 unemployment rate (you know, the FAR more accurate unemployment rate) is STILL 14.7%...

And I'm not surprised that DEATH ROW BLOW JOB didn't post this info...

BINGO!

[DEATH ROW JOE]

And in other news, the U-6 unemployment rate (you know, the FAR more accurate unemployment rate) is STILL 14.7%...

LMFAO, the U6 rate is not FAR more accurate unemployment rate. It includes people working part time for economic reasons you dunce. If you are working part time for economic reasons, you are not unemployed.

And I'm not surprised that DEATH ROW BLOW JOB didn't post this info...

I simplied copied and pasted the entire employment situation summary. The BLS did not mention the U6 rate in their report. If you want to talk about it, fine.

First, the U6 rate has fallen this past year.
U6 rate Sept 2011: 16.4%
U6 rate Sept 2012: 14.7%

Now you want to talk about why the U6 rate did not change this month. The answer is pretty obvious from the numbers. 582K more are working part time for economic reasons. All the other numbers that drive the U6 rate up improved in September. The number unemployed fell and the number marginally attached to the labor force fell.

Hiring people to work part time is a step in the right direction. It shows the economy is improving. Perhaps if they were working part time because their hours were reduced, you might have an argument. But the average workweek increased in September.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September

Working more hours plus more part time workers shows an improving economy.

Also, even with the huge increase in September, the number working part time for economic reasons fell 657K from a year earlier while the employment level rose by 2.8 million during that time.

Sept 2011: 9.270 million
Sept 2012: 8.613 million

Employment level:
Sept 2011: 140.107 million
Sept 2012: 142.974 million

So the U6 rate shows an improving economy. It also supports the claim that the problem with the economy is weak demand rather than employers unwilling to hire because of Obama's policies. They only need part time workers because demand is weak. If Obama's policies and "uncertainty" were holding them back, they would hire full time temp workers or not hire at all.

So there you go asswipe. This is definitely a much longer response than you deserve.
=================================
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

U6 rate = (Unemployed + marginally attached to the labor force + employed part time for economic reasons)/(civilian labor force + marginally attached to the labor force)

Unemployed:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
12088K in Sept

-456K in September
-1809 K from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012

marginally attached to the labor force:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU05026642
2517K in Sept

-44K in September
+6K from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012

employed part time for economic reasons:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
8613K in Sept

+582K in September
-657K from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012

civilian labor force:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
155063K in Sept

+ 418K in September
+1059K from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012

12088 + 8613 + 2517 = 23218

23218/(155063 + 2517) = 14.73%

[brotherplanet]

joey... Do you ever go outside?

[Danzig in the Dark]

Brotherplanet, why do you feel being a knowledgeable and informed voter is a personal failing? Maybe you should spend a few minutes less outside and instead learn more about the issues you insist on discussing so you don't end up looking like an ass so often. Speaking from ignorance is a far greater failing than staying indoors.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

joey... Do you ever go outside?

You fucking dildo. You can't even come up with an original internet insult. Wow, the brutal "do you go outside" question. I just went outside. I drove down to the ghetto to collect the money your family made last night sucking dicks at the local glory hole. Your little sister asked me for $5 loan so she could buy you a happy meal and a tin foil hat.

Go ahead and explain why the U6 rate is "a FAR better measure of unemployment" than U3. You idiots were told it was a better measure by conservative blogs who talk down the economy and like the fact that U6 is always much higher number than U3. The alternative measure that is disproportionately high right now is U1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force. U1 rate is usually about 35% of U3 rate and now it's 60% of U3 rate. But running around claiming that "the real unemployment rate is 4.2%" is not going to make the economy sound worse than it is so you don't hear about it when Fox News feeds you shit.

U3/U6 and U1/U3
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=bw1

[RATTdrools]

Joe, the economy is CLEARLY improving and the fucking hateful crazy Repukes can't stand it!

Just 3 years ago we were at 10% unemployment and the President has brought us all the way back. Even the CBO says we'll add 12 million more jobs in the next 4 years!

All this is definitely enough for the president to win re - election!

[Moggio]

And in other news, the U-6 unemployment rate (you know, the FAR more accurate unemployment rate) is STILL 14.7%...

LMFAO, the U6 rate is not FAR more accurate unemployment rate. It includes people working part time for economic reasons you dunce. If you are working part time for economic reasons, you are not unemployed.

And I'm not surprised that DEATH ROW BLOW JOB didn't post this info...

I simplied copied and pasted the entire employment situation summary. The BLS did not mention the U6 rate in their report. If you want to talk about it, fine.

First, the U6 rate has fallen this past year.
U6 rate Sept 2011: 16.4%
U6 rate Sept 2012: 14.7%

Now you want to talk about why the U6 rate did not change this month. The answer is pretty obvious from the numbers. 582K more are working part time for economic reasons. All the other numbers that drive the U6 rate up improved in September. The number unemployed fell and the number marginally attached to the labor force fell.

Hiring people to work part time is a step in the right direction. It shows the economy is improving. Perhaps if they were working part time because their hours were reduced, you might have an argument. But the average workweek increased in September.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September

Working more hours plus more part time workers shows an improving economy.

Also, even with the huge increase in September, the number working part time for economic reasons fell 657K from a year earlier while the employment level rose by 2.8 million during that time.

Sept 2011: 9.270 million
Sept 2012: 8.613 million

Employment level:
Sept 2011: 140.107 million
Sept 2012: 142.974 million

So the U6 rate shows an improving economy. It also supports the claim that the problem with the economy is weak demand rather than employers unwilling to hire because of Obama's policies. They only need part time workers because demand is weak. If Obama's policies and "uncertainty" were holding them back, they would hire full time temp workers or not hire at all.

So there you go asswipe. This is definitely a much longer response than you deserve.
=================================
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

U6 rate = (Unemployed + marginally attached to the labor force + employed part time for economic reasons)/(civilian labor force + marginally attached to the labor force)

Unemployed:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
12088K in Sept

-456K in September
-1809 K from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012

marginally attached to the labor force:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU05026642
2517K in Sept

-44K in September
+6K from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012

employed part time for economic reasons:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
8613K in Sept

+582K in September
-657K from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012

civilian labor force:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
155063K in Sept

+ 418K in September
+1059K from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012

12088 + 8613 + 2517 = 23218

23218/(155063 + 2517) = 14.73%

Yes, the U-6 unemployment rate is FAR more accurate, because it includes, part-time, marginally attached and underemployed workers (you know, workers who are qualified to earn more $$$ and hence should be able to get a better job but don't because of the mess we're STILL enduring and the fact that the 1% run the show and are low-balling salaries). In a normal economy, the U-6 should be between 8-10%. That's a difference of at least 12 million jobs.


NOBODY here has said the economy isn't improving. But we are saying that it's not improving as fast as it should be. In REALITY, there's only a slight improvement. So, STOP swinging from Obama's nuts - he's doing a HORRIBLE job.


Next up...the imminently-bursting Treasury Securities Bubble. Projected by several economists to burst between 2013-2014. And unless The Powers That Be smarten up and reconfigure their way of handling debt and the printing of $$$, it will make the Housing Bubble crisis, that we're STILL enduring, look like a fucking CAKE WALK...


Meanwhile, 47 million Americans are now on food stamps. Whereas, 4 years ago, 32 million of them were, you fucking idiot...


Thanks for playing. This is just too damn easy...

[RATTdrools]

And if the fucking crazy Repukes didn't block the President's Jobs Bill we'd have an unemployment near 7%!

[FullMetalWhackit]

Not sure that is accurate. I believe the President did sign the jobs bill.

[FullMetalWhackit]

Yes, he did in fact:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... HHHTsq2V2M

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Yes, he did in fact:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... HHHTsq2V2M

The bill was signed April 5, 2012. The unemployment rate is a lagging economic indicator. The unemployment rate of 7.8% for September reflects the state of the economy in April - June. So that law has not had time to lower the unemployment rate.

The jobs bill was proposed in the 2011 state of the union address. The Tea Baggers killed it and finally 15 months later that bill was signed which merely cuts some regulations and taxes. If the bill proposed in 2011 had been passed in 2011, the unemployment rate today would be below 7%. Factor in the damage the GOP did to the economy with the debt ceiling debacle, and you get it down to 6.5%. Republicans have been deliberately slowing down the economy to improve their chances of retaking the White House. Also, corporations like high unemployment because it drives down their wage expense and drives up corporate profits. Unemployment leads to lower wages which leads to higher profits. Corporate profits have gone through the roof the past 3 years. If you want to know why Republicans bitch about the Federal Reserve trying to reduce unemployment or about fiscal stimulus, that's why. A high unemployment rate means higher corporate profits. Nobody with an R after their name gives a fuck about the deficit or "free markets." That's just a spin they put on it to get dumb asses to vote against their own economic self-interest.

Corporate Profits After Tax
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=by5

[Cyd]

If it dropped to 5% Republicans would still bitch. They're ok with the metrics when the numbers are high, but when they drop it's a liberal plot.

[FullMetalWhackit]

All I was saying was that the President did sign a jobs bill. He signed a jobs bill in 2010 as well:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/201 ... -bill.html

[Danzig in the Dark]

Nobody with an R after their name gives a fuck about the deficit or "free markets." That's just a spin they put on it to get dumb asses to vote against their own economic self-interest.

Look how well it works.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

What a coincidence. Two articles published today support the claim that Republicans drove up unemployment since taking control of the house.

Opinion piece in today's NY Times by a Nobel Prize winning economist agrees that if the Jobs Act had passed last year, unemployment would be below 7% right now.

Article in Bloomberg about DC dysfunction mentions the negative impact the debt ceiling fiasco had on economic growth.

Truth About Jobs
Published: October 7, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/opini ... ml?hp&_r=0
None of this should be taken to imply that the situation is good, or to deny that we should be doing better — a shortfall largely due to the scorched-earth tactics of Republicans, who have blocked any and all efforts to accelerate the pace of recovery. (If the American Jobs Act, proposed by the Obama administration last year, had been passed, the unemployment rate would probably be below 7 percent.)

Debt Ceiling:
How Washington’s Dysfunction Harms Economic Growth
Oct 7, 2012 5:30 PM CT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... rowth.html
A 2011 study by economists at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business found periods of economic policy uncertainty -- such as the debt-ceiling dispute, the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the 2010 midterm elections -- are followed by significant declines in output, investment and employment.

[RATTdrools]

Great job as always Joe.

I should've said if the Repukes didn't block the President's Jobs Act we'd have an unemployment at or below 7%!

[DEATH ROW JOE]

More on the U6 rate for the twin dumb asses, birtherplanet and Moggio. They consider someone working 30-34 hours a week "unemployed."
=========================
How bad is the surge of involuntary part-time workers?
By Brad Plumer , Updated: October 9, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... s/?print=1

There are currently 8.6 million workers in the United States who are employed part-time “for economic reasons.” These are workers who would prefer to clock a full 40 hours a week, but they have either seen their hours pared back by their employers or else can’t find full-time jobs.

By and large, that’s not a great indicator. Before the recession struck in late 2007, there were 4.5 million Americans working part-time for economic reasons. There was a big surge after the financial crisis. But how bad is this rise, exactly? Are these involuntary part-timers working 10 hours per week? 30 hours? That would, after all, make a big difference to their paychecks.

Here’s one clue: Masa Sederevic highlights a research note from Paul Dales at Capital Economics suggesting that America’s underemployment situation might not be quite as grim as it first appears.

Among other things, Dales notes that both the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the OECD keep data on part-time workers in the United States. But there’s a key difference: The BLS defines “part-time” as anyone working less than 35 hours. The OECD defines “part-time” as anyone working less than 30. And only the BLS figures show part-time employment remaining at elevated levels:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... /part2.jpg

In fact, according to the OECD, the number of workers putting in less than 30 hours a week is already back down to pre-recession levels. This suggests that most of the rise in involuntarily part-time employment since the recession has been for Americans who are still working between 30 to 34 hours per week.

That’s far from ideal — it’d be much better if everyone who wanted full-time work could get it. But as Dales points out, U.S. economic growth would be about 0.3 percentage points lower if all of those additional involuntary part-time workers were clocking 20-hour weeks rather than 34-hour weeks. That makes a big difference in the aggregate.

[Moggio]

More on the U6 rate for the twin dumb asses, birtherplanet and Moggio. They consider someone working 30-34 hours a week "unemployed."
=========================
How bad is the surge of involuntary part-time workers?
By Brad Plumer , Updated: October 9, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... s/?print=1

There are currently 8.6 million workers in the United States who are employed part-time “for economic reasons.” These are workers who would prefer to clock a full 40 hours a week, but they have either seen their hours pared back by their employers or else can’t find full-time jobs.

By and large, that’s not a great indicator. Before the recession struck in late 2007, there were 4.5 million Americans working part-time for economic reasons. There was a big surge after the financial crisis. But how bad is this rise, exactly? Are these involuntary part-timers working 10 hours per week? 30 hours? That would, after all, make a big difference to their paychecks.

Here’s one clue: Masa Sederevic highlights a research note from Paul Dales at Capital Economics suggesting that America’s underemployment situation might not be quite as grim as it first appears.

Among other things, Dales notes that both the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the OECD keep data on part-time workers in the United States. But there’s a key difference: The BLS defines “part-time” as anyone working less than 35 hours. The OECD defines “part-time” as anyone working less than 30. And only the BLS figures show part-time employment remaining at elevated levels:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... /part2.jpg

In fact, according to the OECD, the number of workers putting in less than 30 hours a week is already back down to pre-recession levels. This suggests that most of the rise in involuntarily part-time employment since the recession has been for Americans who are still working between 30 to 34 hours per week.

That’s far from ideal — it’d be much better if everyone who wanted full-time work could get it. But as Dales points out, U.S. economic growth would be about 0.3 percentage points lower if all of those additional involuntary part-time workers were clocking 20-hour weeks rather than 34-hour weeks. That makes a big difference in the aggregate.

Holy jumping shit-balls, you're stupid. I wasn't just talking about part-time workers, jerk-off...


ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:


The U-6 unemployment rate is FAR more accurate way of determining just how bad it STILL is in the job market, because it includes, part-time, marginally attached and underemployed workers (you know, workers who are qualified to earn more $$$ and hence should be able to get a better job but don't because of the mess we're STILL enduring and the fact that the 1% run the show and are low-balling salaries). In a normal economy, the U-6 should be between 8-10%. That's a difference of at least 12 million jobs.


NOBODY here has said the economy isn't improving. But we are saying that it's not improving as fast as it should be. In REALITY, there's only a slight improvement. So, STOP swinging from Obama's nuts - he's doing a HORRIBLE job.


Next up...the imminently-bursting Treasury Securities Bubble. Projected by several economists to burst between 2013-2014. And unless The Powers That Be smarten up and reconfigure their way of handling debt and the printing of $$$, it will make the Housing Bubble crisis, that we're STILL enduring, look like a fucking CAKE WALK...


Meanwhile, 47 million Americans are now on food stamps. Whereas, 4 years ago, 32 million of them were, you fucking idiot...


Thanks for playing. This is just too damn easy...

[Danzig in the Dark]

This is just too damn easy...

Stupidity doesn't require much effort.

[Moggio]

This is just too damn easy...

Stupidity doesn't require much effort.

And that's why you can't construct a convincing rebuttal to save your life.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Comment posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 by Bill McBride on the Calculated Risk blog:

"The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. This is the REAL unemployment rate (some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense - although U-6 is an alternative measure of underemployment, it includes many people working part time)."
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/ ... J9elgw8.99

Sound familiar Moggio and birtherplanet? It should. You've been told that many, many times.

Calling the U6 rate the "real unemployment rate" is NONSENSE.


some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
=====================================================================================

[Moggio]

This is just too damn easy...

Stupidity doesn't require much effort.

Now THAT is what I call an OWN!!!

But you don't even know what an OWN is.

Comment posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 by Bill McBride on the Calculated Risk blog:

"The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. This is the REAL unemployment rate (some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense - although U-6 is an alternative measure of underemployment, it includes many people working part time)."
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/ ... J9elgw8.99

Sound familiar Moggio and birtherplanet? It should. You've been told that many, many times.

Calling the U6 rate the "real unemployment rate" is NONSENSE.


some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
some claim U-6 is the "real rate", but that is nonsense
=====================================================================================

Holy jumping shit-balls, you're stupid. I wasn't just talking about part-time workers, jerk-off...


SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:


The U-6 unemployment rate is FAR more accurate way of determining just how bad it STILL is in the job market, because it includes, part-time, marginally attached and underemployed workers (you know, workers who are qualified to earn more $$$ and hence should be able to get a better job but don't because of the mess we're STILL enduring and the fact that the 1% run the show and are low-balling salaries). In a normal economy, the U-6 should be between 8-10%. That's a difference of at least 12 million jobs.


NOBODY here has said the economy isn't improving. But we are saying that it's not improving as fast as it should be. In REALITY, there's only a slight improvement. So, STOP swinging from Obama's nuts - he's doing a HORRIBLE job.


Next up...the imminently-bursting Treasury Securities Bubble. Projected by several economists to burst between 2013-2014. And unless The Powers That Be smarten up and reconfigure their way of handling debt and the printing of $$$, it will make the Housing Bubble crisis, that we're STILL enduring, look like a fucking CAKE WALK...


Meanwhile, 47 million Americans are now on food stamps. Whereas, 4 years ago, 32 million of them were, you fucking idiot...

Oh...and here are words of wisdom earlier today from Mr. Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAOtaNloigc



Thanks for playing. This is just too damn easy...

[Turner Coates]

This is just too damn easy...

Yeah, cutting and pasting someone else's words over and over IS pretty easy.

[Moggio]

This is just too damn easy...

Yeah, cutting and pasting someone else's words over and over IS pretty easy.

Are you sure NINTH CHORDS and you aren't related? You're both EXCELLENT at misquoting me and then debating the misquote...