US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low

WakeandBake · Oct 5, 2012

Go said:
Yes Bush & Cheney were the guys screwing around with the mortgage industry, they forced banks to give people loans who had no business owning houses, etc.

Fighting two wars is certainly part of the problem but the American economy fell for several reasons and several of the reasons aren't Bush/Cheney's fault.

If you think banks were somehow 'forced' to give loans you are sadly mistaken and horribly misled.

There was no law that forced them to do anything, go back and read about redlining.

Those mortgage lenders badly wanted to issue those loans, to anyone and everyone they could. Them ore loans they issued the more money they made as they sold them.

THE DEUCE · Oct 5, 2012

TuffaloDeac10 said:
Weird how this report comes out on the first Friday of every month. So curious. GMAFB.

This^^^^^^^^^^^

THE DEUCE · Oct 5, 2012

My GOPer FB friends are livid about the low number. Hilarious that after 2 days of gloating the BS on stage and winning the debate they have become angry again.

SkinsNDeacs · Oct 5, 2012

TuffaloDeac10 said:
There was only support for a $800B stimulus. I think the hand-wringing over the PPACA is mostly misplaced, it's not like that took away from any real existing support for further short-term deficit spending.

I don't think your confidence narrative really fits the data.

I think they could have passed any bill they wanted to....they had the votes. And while Obamacare might be misunderstood (because no one really knows what's in it) it only eroded public support for any large spending bill coming out of Washington. After the public perceived no real benefit of stimulus, the budget compromise and healthcare there was no apatite for another large spending bill

ONW · Oct 5, 2012

WakeandBake said:
If you think banks were somehow 'forced' to give loans you are sadly mistaken and horribly misled.

There was no law that forced them to do anything, go back and read about redlining.

Those mortgage lenders badly wanted to issue those loans, to anyone and everyone they could. Them ore loans they issued the more money they made as they sold them.

+1. This issue is so misunderstood.

RJKarl · Oct 5, 2012

Tin Cup said:
Curious timing

But it wasn't curious timing last month when the report wasn't good?

dartsndeacs · Oct 5, 2012

THE DEUCE said:
This^^^^^^^^^^^

I can't imagine this number makes any sense. There's no way that the 200,000 jobs or whatever created equates to three tenths of a percentage point. I'm guessing there was a MASSIVE amount of folks that dropped from the "looking for work" to the "retired/havebeenlookingforworksolongIgaveupandnolongercount" number.

Surprised Mish hasn't posted yet.

TuffaloDeac10 · Oct 5, 2012

SkinsNDeacs said:
I think they could have passed any bill they wanted to....they had the votes. And while Obamacare might be misunderstood (because no one really knows what's in it) it only eroded public support for any large spending bill coming out of Washington. After the public perceived no real benefit of stimulus, the budget compromise and healthcare there was no apatite for another large spending bill

Members don't have lifetime terms, though. They were afraid to go above $800B or $850B, economics be damned. That's a problem. It's not the fault of individual policy-makers per se, but it is something that damns all policy-makers, IMO. Bernanke goes to the Hill pleading for further fiscal stimulus and he's talking to people totally enthralled by Bowles-Simpson in the absence of any demonstrable reason for near-term fiscal austerity. It's nuts, and it's a big reason why unemployment is taking so long to come down.

PhDeac · Oct 5, 2012

Wrangor said:
*grits teeth* Great news...always love to see this rate falling.

Fixed.

ArlingtonDeac · Oct 5, 2012

SkinsNDeacs said:
I think they could have passed any bill they wanted to....they had the votes. And while Obamacare might be misunderstood (because no one really knows what's in it) it only eroded public support for any large spending bill coming out of Washington. After the public perceived no real benefit of stimulus, the budget compromise and healthcare there was no apatite for another large spending bill

Obamacare happened during the only possible window for HC reform that will exist perhaps in our lifetime. Hardly wasted political capital.

PhDeac · Oct 5, 2012

palmab03 said:
I can't imagine this number makes any sense. There's no way that the 200,000 jobs or whatever created equates to three tenths of a percentage point. I'm guessing there was a MASSIVE amount of folks that dropped from the "looking for work" to the "retired/havebeenlookingforworksolongIgaveupandnolongercount" number.

Surprised Mish hasn't posted yet.

The two numbers come from completely different sources and they're both estimates. It's a disservice that they're released at the same time.

WakeandBake · Oct 5, 2012

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

In looking over those charts, I see an economy that is steadily climbing up a steep hill while having to drag a heavy ball and chain of high gas prices, low (but rising) home values, and sluggish consumer spending due to high household debt accumulated over the past 15 to 20 years - all while facing the specter of dealing with public debt in the future.

explain again how a POTUS is a hack or a genius for managing this situation and this being the outcome.

PhilliesDeacs · Oct 5, 2012

This chart is pretty telling on just how long it has takes for the UE rate to come down after a disaster like 2008.

latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M09_data.gif

And here's a better one:

latest_numbers_LNS14000000_1979_2012_all_period_M09_data.gif

cville deac · Oct 5, 2012

DiegoTiger said:
Also, tin cup wears tin hat is pretty solid whoever tagged that.

guilty

RJKarl · Oct 5, 2012

SkinsNDeacs said:
I think they could have passed any bill they wanted to....they had the votes. And while Obamacare might be misunderstood (because no one really knows what's in it) it only eroded public support for any large spending bill coming out of Washington. After the public perceived no real benefit of stimulus, the budget compromise and healthcare there was no apatite for another large spending bill

No they couldn't. Ben Nelson and a couple of others would not have voted for a penny more. Without Nelson they wouldn't have had 60 votes in the Senate.

TuffaloDeac10 · Oct 5, 2012

Tin Cup said:
I wish people would focus more on the underemployment number of 14.7% - that takes into account unemployed, those who have quit looking (dont count towards the unemployment rate) or part-time workers that would rather be full-time but can't find it. That's a much better measure of where we stand from an employment perspective in this country.

U-6 doesn't account for people moving from unemployed to underemployed, which is still an improvement. It's a good metric for hackery or pointing out the need for further stimulus, but little else.

TuffaloDeac10 · Oct 5, 2012

palmab03 said:
I can't imagine this number makes any sense. There's no way that the 200,000 jobs or whatever created equates to three tenths of a percentage point. I'm guessing there was a MASSIVE amount of folks that dropped from the "looking for work" to the "retired/havebeenlookingforworksolongIgaveupandnolongercount" number.

Surprised Mish hasn't posted yet.

Unemployment rate comes from the household survey, which always comes in higher than payrolls. Size of the labor force is actually up in 2012.

dartsndeacs · Oct 5, 2012

TuffaloDeac10 said:
Unemployment rate comes from the household survey, which always comes in higher than payrolls. Size of the labor force is actually up in 2012.

Size of the Labor force went up, but so did the size of those not in the Labor force

"
In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,701,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,059,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,643,000 to yet another record high 88,921,000....

U-6 is much higher at 14.7%. Both numbers would be way higher still, were it not for millions dropping out of the labor force over the past few years"

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/september-jobs-114000-unemployment-rate.html

TuffaloDeac10 · Oct 5, 2012

Shockingly, an aging population coincides with declining labor force particpation rates.

My point is that this month's gains are attributable to Biden's three-letter word: J-O-B-S, not dropouts.

I'm guessing there was a MASSIVE amount of folks that dropped from the "looking for work" to the "retired/havebeenlookingforworksolongIgaveupandnolongercoun t" number.

That's just dead-wrong.

TuffaloDeac10 · Oct 5, 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...al-obsession/2012/03/09/gIQADZPW1R_story.html

Good info. Tin-foil hat lunatics would do well to read it.

US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banhammer'd

THE quintessential dwarf

&#127801;&#9773;

PM a mod to cement your internet status forever

Well-known member

PM a mod to cement your internet status forever

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banhammer'd

&#127801;&#9773;

&#127801;&#9773;

THE quintessential dwarf

&#127801;&#9773;

&#127801;&#9773;

🌹☭

🌹☭

🌹☭

🌹☭

🌹☭