Gallup unemployment continues to fall: New low of 7.3%.

Plus he is referring to BLS data and relating it to a drop in Gallup over different time periods. So he is comparing apples, oranges, bananas and strawberries.

 

Funny how you dont read the posts.

This is from my previous post, the source is the BLS:

This is the business birth/death adjustments, note the monthly adjustment is always up, meaning employment is up, and the annual revision is down reversing all the monthly adjustements. The monthly adjustments are based on a statistical model (i.e., its subjective) and the annual revision is based on measured data. Odd how the monthly adjustements almost always support the govt position of a recovery and are always removed in the annual revision.

 

There are too many numbers today which allows everyone to pick and choose data which best supports their positions. When we are talking about the crappy economy and recessions and unemployment, we should not be talking about government employees or farming payrolls (I'm a farmer and nothing ever changes here!).

If the unemployment issue can possibly be about government employees, then just spend a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of taxpayer dollars, or better yet debt money, and hire 5-10 million more government workers...problem solved!

But if we are interested in the true economy, true employment, then we need to look at non-farm payrolls...IMO...

 

They are my educated guesses in the example of focusing on employment instead of subjective and manipulated unemployment...

 

If you want to know the pulse of the true economy, then don't pay attention to government jobs.

I have always agreed that trickle every direction economics work just fine, so when spending is increased, no matter the reason for the increase, this energizes the economy.

The problem with government stimulus is it does NOTHING to deal with the root problem of a slow economy and any bump you get lasts only as long as the government teat is open...

 

Government jobs are down about 1/2 million thanks to job cuts in the Republican dominated states.

So maybe you are right. They should add another 500,000 into the employment number.

 

I see. You presented your "educated guesses" as if they were fact.

They did sound like bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to me.

 

I only care about the non-farm and non-government employment; this represents the true economy. If we get picky we should also consider the ~30 million Americans who are incarcerated because they are unemployed. So we have 30 million incarcerated, 23 million under-employed, 50-100 million not paying federal income taxes; no wonder we have such a huge burden on government...

 

You can care about anything you want.

That doesn't make other people not employed.

 

The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.

 

If you don't like the numbers then provide other numbers and your source for the numbers...

 

I have. And I don't make up numbers and represent them to be fact.

 

The 30 million Americans in jail are unemployed...do you want to count them as well??

The typical discussion is about the crappy economy, recession, etc. If this is correct, then why would we care how many employees the government might have? Wouldn't we care more about the employees who are actually trying to find work in the true economy?

 

Not in the workforce, so they are not counted.

Depends on what you are trying to show. If you are talking about the number of employed people, absolutely they are employed.

 

are they saying, that the same method that was used for previous presidents and administrations to calculate unemployment, are suddenly no good now?

 

Is who saying? OMOF?

From what I've read, most conservatives are just saying that any positive number is simply "fixed" as part of this giant left wing number fixing conspiracy involving several different department of the government and several different private companies.

Unless the number supports their position. Then its deemed to be reliable.

 

yea, that was what I was basically referring to.