WRECKING THE ECONOMY AS WE SPEAK

[blackjedii]

Jobless Rate Falls to 7.8%, Lowest Level of Obama’s Term
The nation’s unemployment rate dropped sharply to 7.8 percent in September, its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, the Labor Department said Friday

Comments

[layweed]

Local newspaper had a story about it and the FB post was all "THIS SEEMS CONVENIENT. I BET OBAMA TOTALLY MANIPULATED THESE NUMBERS. AS A REPUBLICAN I AM SKEPTICAL ABOUT THESE NUMBERS." and I had to get the hell out of there post haste. =\

On a srs note though, is the sharp decrease in unemployment numbers because of seasonal hiring?

[bord_du_rasoir]

I don't consider the decrease in unemployment sharp.

Google: unemployment rate
Click on the line graph (the first result under News)

The unemployment rate has been on a relatively steady decline since it peaked on Oct 2009.

This month's job gains / unemployment rate decline perfectly fall in line with this 3-year trend.

[caerfrli]

The rate is seasonally adjusted.

[bord_du_rasoir]

I believe the number of jobs lost during Obama's term in office is now roughly equal to the number of jobs gained back since - but I've been unsuccessful in my 15-min-or-so of google searching to confirm that

[bord_du_rasoir]

RE: "Can anyone find a link that compares jobs lost to jobs gained under Obama - that is up to date with these job gains from September?"

From the linked article in the OP: "The nation now has nearly the same number of jobs as when Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. Since the economy stopped hemorrhaging jobs in February 2010, there has been an increase of more than 4.3 million. A mere 61,000-job increase would allow Mr. Obama to claim a net gain in jobs over his tenure."

[caerfrli]

Since the January 09 rate was calculated before Obama was inaugurated, it is actually higher now than when he took office.

[bord_du_rasoir]

Still, Nigel Gault, the chief United States economist at HIS Global Insight, wrote that he believes Friday’s report was “highly significant politically” but “less significant economically,” noting that underemployment, which counts people who would like to work full time but can find only part-time jobs, was unchanged over August. It was down over the year, from 16.4 million to 14.7 million.

I can't believe a New York Times article would make a mistake like this.

"Underemployment," as they call it here (The Bureau of Labor Statistics calls it U-6 unemployment), was down from 16.4 PERCENT in Sept 2011 to 14.7 PERCENT in Sept 2012.

[bord_du_rasoir]

The article copied in this post doesn't match the linked 'source' article.

[blackjedii]

It doesn't? That was the only article I had open I thought.... Is it possible that I copied page 2? I will double check as soon as I can get home from work

[bord_du_rasoir]

Maybe they've just revised it so much that it's now unrecognizable? I'm not sure. I keep looking back & forth between the two & very little matches.

[blackjedii]

That's possible too... I'm sorry for the confusion. :/ I definitely remember using NYT as the main source but that is weird and I am wondering if I accidentally had another window open and just flaked out about it

[fuck_of_nature]

MSNBC had a great segment on this last night (I think on The Last Word) about how this really wasn't all that amazing, in terms of the drop. What was more amazing was it went until the supposed telling 8% mark, but they did point out that the job growth included a lot of part time jobs, which are most likely seasonal work. It was a fantastic explanation of all this.

[rhysande]

Adjustments are made to correct for seasonal work.