shameful. there are less people working and somehow unemployment drops?? go
figure. Team Obama continues to rely on their perception that people are dumb.
Just 30 days before election and two days after Obama got his clock cleaned an
improvement(so called) happened. Mmmm
Less people are working today in America than when Mr. Obama took office. That
is the real point and there are more people living in the country today of
working age than when he took office. This report is a good example of bad
statistics. And, re: Tolstoy the Obama Administration has changed the
methodology for the report. It has eased the measure by which those available
for work are eliminated from the total, thereby decreasing the percent of
unemployed. The unemployment rate if reported as the numbers were calculated
during the Clinton and Bush administration would be approximately 9.8%
It is all about job...no wait.
Good grief, This is NOT any kind of improvement in jobs for the President.
I've posted this on other articles yesterday. It is exactly the SAME 7.8%
number that Obama had when he "inherited" it from Bush. Look it up if
you don't believe it. So Obama is supposed to run on No Improvement?
It's like a football coach taking over a losing team 4 years ago and having
the same losing record 4 years later. You don't get re-hired. Romney
should clean Obamas clock with this, should Obama be foolish enough to bring it
up in the next debate.
Of course Romney isn't impresesed -- the omrpvement of the economy and
lowering of the unemployment rate takes away one of his major talking points.
If he were the one in office, dealing with a bad economy, he would be extatic
with this type of improvement. Another example of his hypocricy.
Well, there goes that GOP talking point.
A1994 7:13 p.m. Oct. 5, 2012WSJ is owned Rupert Murdoch who has no
agenda whatsoever. Sarcasm off?re: UtahBlueDevil"Does anyone think the problems were all driven by the Bush administration
- No. When Obama took over, this was 40 years of problems in the making -from
both parties."Agreed. Things have devolved alot since Reagan
left office; there have been only Ivy Leaguers @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The
source of our problems is more than just 40 yrs of bad policy; it was the
creation of the Fed In 1913.@ Grammy3Perhaps, Jack Welch
is right & maybe big oil is behind the spike in gas prices in CA in an
attempt to get another Repub in the Oval Office. Here is something
to ponder... Unemployment figures always come out this time of the month; the
debates were scheduled knowing that.
Something smells fishy here to me. I for one do not believe it at all. Many
people might have found part time work or something like that. Yet so many many
people out there have just given up and no longer get unemployment. Or like my
husband they are working but not even coming close to making what they were
before. They find a job just to have a job. My husband is working 72 hours or
more a week just to make sure we have what we need. We have not had a vacation
in over four years our retirement is almost all gone because we had to live on
it before he found this job. I am mad because it should not have been like this.
I know that it is not all Obama's fault but I also feel that he has not
done his job so I want him fired and bring in someone else to see if they can
fix this mess. We are in for some major hard times no matter if Obama gets
reelected or Romney wins but I have more faith in Mitt Romney than I do Obama.
@A1994 the 7.8% was determined the same way it has been for many decades
now and is the same "real numbers" that have been used to determine the
unemployment rate for decades so stop trying to compare apples to cantaloupe.
The real problem here is that neither the media nor its readers understand what
comprises the data. The unemployment rate is meaningless unless delivered in
conjunction with the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR), meaning the
percentage of the workforce (those eligible for work who are either employed or
unemployed but looking for work) who are actually working. The LFPR is the
lowest it's been in 30 years. In fact, if you go to the LFPR page on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics website and look at their graph, you'll see a
deep nosedive for the last four years. Now, there are all sorts of
complexities that figure into these data, that make them all very difficult to
use as a barometer of national economic health, including the fact that they are
based on survey samples, not actual numbers, and the minor detail that sometimes
people eligible to work stop working for other voluntary reasons besides despair
at getting a job. The very idea that one tenous number could sway
the whole result of this presidential race is simply ludicrous!
MapleDon - you comment would be interesting if Obamacare was actually in force
right now. Very few provisions are actually in force yet, and yet people want
to believe that these future cost are what is causing today's problem. So
lets look are the real world for a minute. Under the low taxes plan
we had the single most 1 year loss of jobs in 80 years. We had the collapse of
the banking system. We had manufacturing crashing to the ground. And we had a
housing market in free fall. I know you all don't like it when people show
you this all began in 2006 - 3 years before Obama took office - but denying the
problem doesn't make it go away.Does anyone think the problems
were all driven by the Bush administration - No. When Obama took over, this
was 40 years of problems in the making -from both parties. Claims
that the problems we had were a result of Obama's 3.5 years in office show
a real lack of honesty or knowledge of the facts. Obama perfect... nope. But
lets stop making up stuff. It doesn't add any credibility to ones
@TolstoyIt can't be both ways. If it was just based off the
114,000 and the rate dropped that far, that would mean fewer people were
counted. (The thing that has been happening for months now...people dropping
out of the work force.)CNBC and the Wall Street Journal are
questioning these numbers. They don't add up. But the real point is that
real unemployment is over 10%. Just because the government decides to stop
counting people who have dropped out of the labor force, it doesn't make
then any less unemployed.
@A1994the problem is that you all keep leaving out the fact that the
unemployment numbers are based on the 114,00 jobs added report not the 873,000
Boosts Obama? How?The country's economy is in the toilet, most
otherwise employable people have given up looking for jobs, nearly 50 million
people on food stamps, and you're saying this is all good news for Obama?
Do you really want us all to suffer more?We're destroying our
economy following the Greece model under Obama's direction.Give
me a break, DesNews. Why don't you report the real facts about the economy
and then let your readers decide for themselves whether they want this train
wreck to continue? Instead, you feel it's your duty to go along with the
NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. model of being Obama's advocate.
In your face, conservatives! We got the unemployment rate UNDER 8% for the first
time in 44 months! Take that!I'd really like to believe the
economy had the biggest one month jobs jump in 29 years. However, the numbers
make no sense. One report shows 114,000 jobs were added. But anther report
shows 873,000 people found work. That's what GWB calls 'fuzzy
That's OK. It's not about impressing romney. In fact, he doesn't
need another job. Especially as president.