Gallup unemployment falls to 8.4%, matching lowest level since Jan 2010

Bit of interesting data to contemplate. As of today, Gallup polls have unemployment at 8.4%. That matches the lowest level yet recorded by Gallup (which started polling unemployment data in early 2010).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

It is interesting, because it is happening at a time when confidence levels are at their 2009 recession levels. With this low level of confidence, you would expect people to be spending less, and businesses to be contracting their labor force causing more unemployment, not less.

It is interesting because it is a counter-trend from all the economic doom and gloom we've heard of the past couple month (more so than the regular shill we get from the "invested in failure for political reasons" crowd).

Nor does it appear to be an aberration. The number as fairly steadily trickled down from a 9.1% reading at the beggining of September.

The Gallup employment numbers are not adjusted for repetitive seasonal changes, so you cannot compare it on a month to month basis like you can the unemployment numbers the BLS puts out. But you can compare it year to year. On October 11, 2010, the number was 9.8%. That represents a fair significant 1.4 percentage point drop from last year in unemployment.

And last year during September, (though still not great) unemployment worsened going from 9.3% to 10.1%.

This year it has improved, from 9.1% to 8.7%.

I wonder what gives?

Underemployment has improved as well, though not to best levels (it falls most during the holiday season. The current rate of 17.8% compares to 18.5% a year ago.

Be interesting to see if these lower numbers translate into improved numbers from the BLS, or whether this trend will continue.

Also kind of interesting that Gallup hasn't put out a newsletter on it. They've published sever when unemployment was higher but don't seem to say much when the data is positive.

 

If it goes under 8%, even unemployed people will start to notice how bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy the GOP candidates are, and Obama will be a shoe in.

He'll probably win anyway given the outright lunacy of the GOP, but it would make things easier if unemployment showed a significant reduction.

Also, tomorrow's headlines "GOP KILLS JOBS BILLS", will also mean the likely demise of whatever strange candidate the GOP fields.

 

I agree. It's no secret that improvement on the employment front improves Obama's chances. I'm guessing that thought has crossed the mind of the coordinators of the great right wing conspiracy.

 

LOL, @ Gallup Unemployment. Could you do one next that shows us the number of folks on food stamps has decreased, too, so we can celebrate Obama's Recovery???

 

Feel free. But as unemployment comes down, so will food stamp recipients.

 

I have a theory that rightwing businessmen are not hiring specifically for that reason.

 

I thought unemployment in the US was steady at 9.1 % ??

 

Unemployment is 20% give or take, and there is nothing else to talk about. It's bad.

 

That is the current, seasonally adjusted number from the BLS (for September).

Gallup is an independent poll for unemployment. It has often been cited in this forum by conservatives when its figures are higher than those of the BLS as they periodically are, since Gallup's numbers are not seasonally adjusted.

 

Based on a number you made up?

 

even the government's own numbers say the U6 unemployment number is about 15%

 

U6 does not measure unemployment. But 15% is not 20%.

 

sure it does as it is including people that have stopped looking for work. If you keep looking for a job with no luck eventually you stop looking, thats normal.

And even the U6 numbers are distorted I am sure! 20% is closer to the correct numbers I am willing to bet!

 

Did gallup conduct these surveys by calling people at their business location?

 

I don't know but doubt it. That wouldn't give a very accurate sample.

 

So, if the economy is recovering, then I guess Obama should shut up about the new stimulus bill and stop talking about taxing ONLY the rich more.

 

U-6 includes people who are working part time and therefore not unemployed.

 

so let me get this straight. What if somebody that had a full time job lost his job and all he can find is part time work, and is still looking for full time work.....is that fair to consider that person employed?

 

Sure they are employed. Unemployed means they are not working.

If a person is working .... is it fair to consider that person unemployed?

 

if he is under-employed do you think it fair to consider him employed?

Uhmmmm.....you do realize that in the 1982 recession part timers were not considered employed right?

 

Of course, he's employed.

Wrong.

 

I am pretty sure I am correct

 

Maybe others find you say-so persuasive.

 

then perhaps a link to say I am wrong?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#1994_CPS_Revisions

As a result of research that started in 1986, a complete overhaul of how the CPS was administered and what type of questions were asked occurred.[8] Prior to 1994, the alternate measures of unemployment had different names because the BLS drastically revised the questions in the CPS and renamed the measures: U3 and U4 were eliminated; the official rate U5 remained the same measure but was renamed U3; U6 and U7 were revised and renamed U5 and U6.[9]