SURPRISE! The 7.8% jobs numbers were in fact, wrong.

Oh, what a surprise! The 7.8% unemployment number was wrong!

www.foxbusiness.com...

A sharp drop in the number of weekly jobless claims filed last week was caused by the failure of one large state to report all of its claims, a Labor Department spokesman confirmed to FOX Business.

Initial jobless claims, which are a measure of the number of people recently laid off, fell by 30,000 to a seasonally adjusted 339,000, the lowest level in more than four years.

But the Labor Department spokesman said the numbers were skewed by one large state that underreported its data. The spokesman declined to identify the state, but economists believe California is the only state large enough to have such a significant impact on the overall numbers.
ring the numbers to support President Obama’s re-election bid.

Of course this all happened because of an accident. Yeah, I'm sure. I knew something was up when Jack Welch was seized on by the entire MSM. They're defensiveness gave them away. Why should the MSM be personally offended by a charge that jobless numbers weren't accurate? I don't buy for a second that this was a mistake, a month before the election.

You do realize that 30,000 unreported claims is a drop in the bucket, right? The number isn't likely to change at all if this is the case.

Clinging to any hope that good news is wrong is the republican way, especially on FOX.

reply to post by PvtHudson


Yup...Executive Order mistake.....

Oh my...it just never ends....does it.

Des

Originally posted by nuclear12346
You do realize that 30,000 unreported claims is a drop in the bucket, right? The number isn't likely to change at all if this is the case.

Clinging to any hope that good news is wrong is the republican way, especially on FOX.

I'm all for goods news. Just not manufactured good news meant to carry water for a bad president.


Funny, I don't recall this kind of attitude when the Democrats and media were constantly seizing on the slightest bit of bad news in Iraq.

reply to post by PvtHudson


You didn't because you were probably too busy calling them traitor for not blindly following Bush.

reply to post by nuclear12346


I think 30,000 unreported claims in comparison to the claimed 114,000 added jobs in the month will actually make a substantial difference in the numbers. Of course, the numbers can be manipulated to serve any agenda.

reply to post by PvtHudson


With 57 states, there's always the chance they might miss one.

I wonder if thisis the first time this has happened.

Hmmmmmmmm. . .. . . . .

Couldn't be that FOX is trying to spin the data

Originally posted by nuclear12346
You do realize that 30,000 unreported claims is a drop in the bucket, right? The number isn't likely to change at all if this is the case.

Clinging to any hope that good news is wrong is the republican way, especially on FOX.

You seem to be caught up in this Republican vs. Democrat show. Could you do us all a favor and go look up the EMployment number. Do you believe it is 92.2%? Is that your real world experience? If you don't want to do the critical thinking/legwork - I will go ahead and tell you its not. 100% - UNemployment EMployment. You know that though right?

Originally posted by nuclear12346
You do realize that 30,000 unreported claims is a drop in the bucket, right? The number isn't likely to change at all if this is the case.

Clinging to any hope that good news is wrong is the republican way, especially on FOX.

Clinging? heck... I don't have to work one bit to see the truth behind the news. I only have to open Barack Obama's own Bureau of Labor Statistics website and read what Obama's own statisticians have been busy as little beavers putting together for the world to see. It only sometimes matches what Obama himself is handed by others to read for a speech.



Seems to me....it might be getting better...but hell... Then if one goes to reading the text reports on that very same (Executive Branch agency) website, you find they attribute the lower numbers in large part to workers dropping out of the hunt for a job and NOT by more jobs being created. They need to come at a pace to keep up with growth of job seekers as THAT number builds daily with new people needing NEW jobs atop the ones already out there.

Obama's policies would seem to be kryptonite to Job growth unless is Government job growth. Hell, I have those figures around somewhere too and if you are into civil service...THAT area is BOOMING with employment. No Doubt!

Anyone who looks at the U3 number as anything of merit is fooling themselves. That number is already skewed to make unemployment look better than it really is. How about looking at U6 instead? unemployment

Hey look at that, the UE is really close to double what they are reporting.

Originally posted by campanionator
Couldn't be that FOX is trying to spin the data

Fox isn't riding solo with this news.
Here are some more sources for you.

www.cnbc.com...
www.businessinsider.com...

The large state was California:

It is likely that some of the jobless claims in one large state--California--were not included in the claims reported to the Department of Labor this week. This happens occasionally, our source says. When a state's jobless claims bureau is short-staffed, sometimes the state does not process all of the claims that came in during the week in time to get them to the DOL. The source believes that this is what happened this week.

www.businessinsider.com...

Stop the nonsense. All the figures are wrong, and not a true measurement of the real unemployment rate. Truth is we really don't know what percentage of Americans are unemployed. 17%? 20%?Whatever means you can use against the opposing political party though, right? After all, 8% sounds so much better than 18%. A bunch of tools you guys are, just eating up the rhetoric without ever giving credence to the real issue. The real issue is that you're being lied to by both parties. Both parties will manipulate the numbers to make themselves look better in the public eye. And you wonder why it doesn't get fixed.Have a nice day

Welch was right!!!!!!!

Of course everyone knew this already

So what is the REAL figure?
Will it come out before the elections?
Will it get as much media coverage as this 7.8 blip?

I already know the answer.

Labor-force participation rate has gradually declined since Obama took office. It is a correct assumption to say the jobs market is weaker in 2012 than 2011. And 2011 is weaker than 2010 and so on.

Sept. 30, 2012 63.60%
Aug. 31, 2012 63.50%
July 31, 2012 63.70%
June 30, 2012 63.80%
May 31, 2012 63.80%
April 30, 2012 63.60%
March 31, 2012 63.80%
Feb. 29, 2012 63.90%
Jan. 31, 2012 63.70%
Dec. 31, 2011 64.00%
Nov. 30, 2011 64.00%
Oct. 31, 2011 64.10%
Sept. 30, 2011 64.10%
Aug. 31, 2011 64.10%
July 31, 2011 64.00%
June 30, 2011 64.10%
May 31, 2011 64.20%
April 30, 2011 64.20%
March 31, 2011 64.20%
Feb. 28, 2011 64.20%
Jan. 31, 2011 64.20%
Dec. 31, 2010 64.30%
Nov. 30, 2010 64.50%
Oct. 31, 2010 64.40%
Sept. 30, 2010 64.60%

US Labor Force Participation Rate Historical Data Chart and More Here:
ycharts.com...

Originally posted by neo96
Welch was right!!!!!!!

Of course everyone knew this already

I knew he was on to something with how defense the Democrat media got.

Take a look at all the abuse I took from "deny ignorance" ATS for questioning the numbers. It's pretty telling.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems questioning the establishment is only called for when the establishment is Republican.

Fox news trying to make the current administration look bad.....Im shocked!!!
And as usual the Paul fanatics here will do their best to do the same