7.8% Unemployment not a credible number

[eplurabusunum]

You don't get from 8.3% unemployment to 7.8% by adding so few jobs unless you cook the books. Turns out that the 7.8% unemployment doesn't include state of CA's huge unemployment numbers since CA conveniently did not report. Including CA in stats would push UE back above 8%. Also, not included are new welfare recipients moved from UE to welfare. Two months were conveniently revised after Workfare became Obamafare--albeit without including California's UE. Seems to me if you are going to go to the trouble to revise the numbers, you should include all the numbers, especially the state with the largest unemployment number (CA accounts for 30% to 40% of all UE).

You can't believe this administration on Syria or Libya; you can't believe them on unemployment; you just can't believe them period.

[Mr. Tempus]

You don't get from 8.3% unemployment to 7.8%

It did not fall from 8.3% to 7.8%. You already have your facts mixed up and we aren't even through the first sentence. I have a feeling that's a bad sign for the rest of this post....

by adding so few jobs unless you cook the books.

It did not add so few jobs. The CPS showed an increase of 800k jobs. Are you confusing the CPS with the CES(payroll survey)? What about the Republican economists/advisers who claimed that cooking the books on these figures would be impossible, are they liars(for Obama)?

Turns out that the 7.8% unemployment doesn't include state of CA's huge unemployment numbers since CA conveniently did not report.

It looks like my initial suspicions were correct.... The UE Rate is calculated by a household survey, not unemployment claims. Plus CA did report its UE claims. The labor department said that California's claims came in lower than expected and said that it is not unusual for a state to not get all of the claims processed meaning they are added to the next weeks instead(especially since they had to prep both a quarterly and weekly report.) This wouldn't have been that unusual if it happened which is why it makes not a lot of sense to focus too much on one week's first estimate. However CA has released a statement seeming to suggest that the claim they hadn't got all their claims processed was unsubstantiated.

Including CA in stats would push UE back above 8%.

California was included and the UEI claims HAVE NOTHING TO WITH THE RATE.

Also, not included are new welfare recipients moved from UE to welfare.

Again a factually incorrect claim on both surveys. Would you please spend 10 seconds Googling this info before posting.

Two months were conveniently revised after Workfare became Obamafare--albeit without including California's UE.

Every month's figures get revised, the initial reports are preliminary estimates. That the last two months got revised upwards is hardly a surprise. August came in below consensus while many other indicators of employment such as the ADP reports had came in above consensus. I would've been quite surprised if the ADP and industrial info. was producing strong reports above consensus and the payroll rate stayed significantly below consensus.

Seems to me if you are going to go to the trouble to revise the numbers, you should include all the numbers, especially the state with the largest unemployment number (CA accounts for 30% to 40% of all UE).

You have thus far made it through your entire post without getting an error free sentence, now repeating the same mistake you made earlier in the post....

You can't believe this administration on Syria or Libya; you can't believe them on unemployment; you just can't believe them period.

Judging by the accuracy of the claims made, it doesn't seem you would be the most objective observer to be addressing this issue.

[Tazman51]

Just an easy example of using simple numbers.

Un-employment is at ~ 8% with 1,000,000 people not working.
This month 50,000 people are forced into un-employment.
This month 15,000 people find a job.
Now 1,035,000 people are not working, but they say the un-employment rate is now 7.8%.
Is this the new Ebonics math?

[Alex McAlpine]

Just an easy example of using simple numbers.

Un-employment is at ~ 8% with 1,000,000 people not working.
This month 50,000 people are forced into un-employment.
This month 15,000 people find a job.
Now 1,035,000 people are not working, but they say the un-employment rate is now 7.8%.
Is this the new Ebonics math?

Ebonics is black English, it has nothing to do with math.

[Mr. Tempus]

Just an easy example of using simple numbers. Un-employment is at ~ 8% with 1,000,000 people not working. This month 50,000 people are forced into un-employment. This month 15,000 people find a job. Now 1,035,000 people are not working, but they say the un-employment rate is now 7.8%.

If 50k people lose their job and 15k gain it, the unemployment rate would go up, not down thus your comparison makes no sense and it is not comparable at all to what happened in this report.

Is this the new Ebonics math?

......

[pinqy]

Just an easy example of using simple numbers.

Un-employment is at ~ 8% with 1,000,000 people not working.
This month 50,000 people are forced into un-employment.
This month 15,000 people find a job.
Now 1,035,000 people are not working, but they say the un-employment rate is now 7.8%.
Is this the new Ebonics math?

Ah, simple numbers that have nothing to do with how the rate is actually calculated.

You have people joining and people leaving the population (16 and older not in military, prison, or an institution), and then there are 3 categories within the Population: Employed, Unemployed, and Not in the Labor Force.