Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Jobless rate falls to 7.8%


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#1 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,343 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:32 AM

Thank you president obama for your leadership.

Lowest since 2009, attributed to more people finding part time work.

#2 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,320 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:34 AM

Wierd

114k new jobs, but .3 percent drop due to "volitile" home based jobs.

something smells especially since GDP at 1.3%

I guess after election, they can revise downward

#3 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,265 posts
  • LocationRaleigh,NC

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:39 AM

Ironicly on the heels of him getting pasted in the debates....

Somthing smells like bullshit....

#4 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,492 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:40 AM

same as always for the duration of this administration. not counting those persons that have stopped looking altogether.

#5 The Saltman

The Saltman

    I am always watching so make sure you keep your clothes on

  • Moderators
  • 25,016 posts
  • LocationAtlanta,GA

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:42 AM

Doesn't smell like bullshit. More people giving up and not collecting unemployment can help that number.

#6 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,320 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:42 AM

740-800k new home jobs? They stress that it is a very volitile number.

What the heck is that?

#7 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,265 posts
  • LocationRaleigh,NC

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:42 AM

I just took a look at it... there counting part time jobs.... and there leaving out the people who have quit looking...

Actual unemployment is closer to 11.5%

#8 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,320 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:45 AM

Even the looney lefties on MSNBC do not understand the math, but are happy that the Repubs can no longer say 44 months above 8% unemployment.

Every economist survey predicted it would go up to 8.2 because of only 114k new jobs. We need over 200k just to stay even.

I am certain it is not political

#9 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,320 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:51 AM

This will be the first of several October surprises

#10 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,523 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:05 AM

same as always for the duration of this administration. not counting those persons that have stopped looking altogether.

Unemployment has ALWAYS been calculated like that, not counting those that have stopped looking is not new with this administration.

#11 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,523 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:06 AM

Even the looney lefties on MSNBC do not understand the math, but are happy that the Repubs can no longer say 44 months above 8% unemployment.

Every economist survey predicted it would go up to 8.2 because of only 114k new jobs. We need over 200k just to stay even.

I am certain it is not political

I thought it was 400,000 to stay even?

Either way, not enough being created, but it is better than losing jobs I suppose.

#12 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,492 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:09 AM

nor is it a means of accurately painting a truthful picture. it wasn't a point of issue before because the rate of attrition via retirement was supposed to be factored in rather a rate of attrition for simply stopping looking fo work

#13 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,492 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:10 AM

I thought it was 400,000 to stay even?

Either way, not enough being created, but it is better than losing jobs I suppose.


that's the point everyone is making. we are still losing jobs. the statistics are nt showing that. hence, the fallicy

#14 mr beauxjangles

mr beauxjangles

    Large Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,411 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:12 AM

same as always for the duration of this administration. not counting those persons that have stopped looking altogether.


this is simply how unemployment is calculated. always has been. nothing new to this administration.

edit: i see now that tensor said the same thing...

#15 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,343 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:13 AM

whether it be more people are working from home or more people are getting part time work, it's better than sitting on their collective asses collecting unemployment.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com