Morning Headlines:
- U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta thinks Israel could launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as early as spring of this year (CNN): http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/panetta-believes-israel-could-strike-iran-this-spring/?hpt=hp_t2
- President Obama is unveiling a veteran-specific jobs plan (CNN): http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/politics/veterans-employment/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
- The House of Representatives will consider a bill banning insider trading by members of Congress. This bill was passed 96-3 in the U.S. Senate (AP via Yahoo!): http://news.yahoo.com/house-ready-consider-insider-trading-ban-090320461.html
- North Korea has agreed to immediate talks with South Korea if the North's demands for the talks are met (AP via ABC News): http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nkorea-demands-preconditions-talks-resumption-15495262#.TyvVZcU7VWI
Updated at 8:50AM:
January Employment Information:- The U.S. economy added 243,000 new jobs in January, dropping the unemployment rate down to 8.3% (CNN Money): http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?iid=Lead
- Unemployment rate falls to 8.3% (Fox News): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/03/unemployment-rate-falls-to-83-percent-in-january-after-hiring-burst/
I'd love to know the logic/reasoning behind those that stood up against banning insider trading by members of Congress.
ReplyDeleteI actually recall someone very clearly, and loudly boo'ing when Obama brought up that kind of bill at the SOTU address. That kind of corruption is disgraceful.
Glad to see Congress take action in this, hopefully it makes a swift pass through the House.
The jobs news is good. Both dems and reps should be happy. My overall take:
ReplyDeleteIt's good, leave it at that. Republicans, don't make it negative. Be happy.
Democrats, it's only one month's worth of numbers. Keep in mind jobs have done well under the Republican congress. Be happy.
My point, everyone be happy and move forward together.
In the face of the euro crisis, this is a great jobs report. And government has cut jobs almost every month over the last 2 years. All this with the "smothering" regulation.
ReplyDeleteWhen will people wake up and see that these talking points are used against every democrat regardless of reality.
Twitter: @bourgeoiz
NoLuv - I agree with you. We should all just be happy and not bicker about who gets the credit (really, it's the businesses that get the credit). Some will be partisan and argue that this occurred in spite of Obama. I find this to be very encouraging though I'm still in wait and see mode - "The unemployment rate was down two ticks from last month and the lowest since an 8.3 percent reading in February 2009. It was also the fifth consecutive month that the rate has fallen, the first time that has happened since late 1994." [ from the article on foxnews.com - could be the same article but I didn't read both].
ReplyDeleteRKen - I too heard the booing at the SOTU and thought it disgraceful. I was hoping someone would call those folks out. I do wonder what kind of teeth the bill has though. It sounds good that it was passed but is it just a puff piece or is there substance to it. The devil is in the details on this one!
This Iran situation is getting bad. I hope the world coalesces to address this. Otherwise, I'd tell Israel they are on their own. They seem to be the only country that believes the 11th hour is upon us. That is not out battle, yet, and we should be clear with Israel on what our position is. We really need Russia to come around on this one!
Whatsamattausa..... I don't think that there is any credit to take. These numbers are a scam. The real truth of the matter is, the unemployment rate decreasing had a lot more to do with the 1.2 MILLION people that they simply don't count as unemployed any more. They didn't get jobs, they gave up on looking. (Not in labor force)
DeleteAs far as the 243,000 ALLEGED jobs created, wait and see if that number is not revised in the next two to three weeks, downward, of course.
"Now, these numbers will go up and down in the coming months, and there's still far too many Americans who need a job, or need a job that pays better than the one they have now," Obama said. (in a speech at a Fire station on 2/3/12)
How does 0bama know that the numbers will go up and down in the coming months? I think, from looking at the raw numbers on BLS's website (and outlined in my post below) our economy shed a ton of jobs, or someone at BLS entered some wrong numbers.
Also, if we are adding all of these jobs, why is it so imperative for 0bama to extend unemployment benefits? Why can't they just go get one of these abundant jobs that he is creating?
I like you, are in the wait and see mode too, I just don't find any encouragement in the numbers released yesterday. I mean IF we actually added 243,000 jobs, that's great but I don't know whether to believe them or not at this point.
I find it very hard to believe that one table on the BLS report showing a loss of over 2.5 million jobs (Table B.1 link in post below) in non-farm jobs, and then the Non-Seasonally adjusted numbers showing a loss 737,000 in the number of Employed (Table A.1 link also in post below) people, that you can do a seasonal adjustment and voila, we created 243,000 jobs. It seems fishy to me. Then the President himself says the numbers are going to go up and down in the coming months.
I think what he means is the numbers will go DOWN and UP. For instance this questionable report has the numbers down, in a few weeks they will be revised and the rate will go up. Then in March they'll put out another bogus report and correct it a few weeks later. The first report will be rosy and the media will sing 0bama's praises, then the correction will come and no one will report it, except maybe Fox.
Good morning to all so far. In all honesty, I think the poster NoLuv4GOPorDem sums it up the best for me (I would never rate someone's comments against another... he just feels what I feel).
ReplyDeleteFor the unemployment figures, this is good news. Let's be happy. Yes, it is good news, but it is good news for now. It's just one month. Let's be happy for now. If this trend continues, we will get happier. If not, we won't. Could job creation have happened quicker? Maybe, maybe not. Who gets credit? Who knows? Obama is the president, we have a majorly republican house. We have one month's jobs report and that's it. The sky isn't falling and the situation isn't anything to host a parade about. Whatsamattausa - you and I actually see eye-to-eye on this... I'm in a wait and see mode. To me, a month's numbers not a year's figures make.
To RKen - we are on the same page with regards to insider trading. I am all about investing and making passive income. But if a regular Joe can do time for trading based on "insider" knowledge, why can't the congress. This is good news.
@bourgeoiz - I'd say I disagree with you a little on the comment about talking points being used against every democrat. In my opinion, though there is no way to quantify it, the press is largely anti-GOP. It seems the constant headlines on CNN of "What's wrong with Romney" and "Romney's Problem" and numerous other ones. Either way, again it's hard to quantify.
And finally... whatsamattausa - how did I know you were going to say what you did about Iran? :-P
LME - You know how I feel about the Middle East in general. I believe we wouldn't have nearly the amount of domestic threats we currently have if not for our involvement in the Middle East. The Iran situation is very volatile, especially with Israel being the aggressor. If Israel attacks, the whole of Middle Eastern countries will likely attack Israel. At that point, there is no way the US sits on the sidelines. I just don't see this going down as Israel v Iran though I hope that, if it happens, that is exactly how it happens.
DeleteDoes anyone understand how this "Seasonally adjusted" stuff works? The BLS gave a link to an explanation (www.bls.gov/cps/cps12adj.pdf.) but it comes up bad.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at table B.1 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm) The NON-Seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll numbers in Dec were 132,952 and in Jan 2012 that number is 130,263. That is a DECREASE of 2.689 MILLION jobs, yet somehow, after the magical Seasonal Adjustment, we added 243,000 jobs.
If you look at table A.1 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm) and compare the Seasonally adjusted numbers and the Non-Seasonally adjusted number you will see:
NON-Seasonally Adjusted
........................Dec 2011.......Jan 2012.........Difference
Civilian Labor Force....153373.........153485...........+112
Employed................140681.........139944...........-737
Unemployed...............14937.........13541............+849
Not in Labor Force.......87212.........88784............+1572
This would give us an unemployment rate of 8.8%. BUT, if you look at the Seasonally Adjusted numbers they look like:
Seasonally Adjusted
........................Dec 2011.......Jan 2012.........Difference
Civilian Labor Force....153887.........154395...........+508
Employed................140790.........141637...........+847
Unemployed...............13097.........12758............-339
Not in Labor Force.......86697.........87874............+1177
These are the numbers they use to come up with an unemployment rate of 8.3%.
Notice in both the Seasonally adjusted and the NON-Seasonally adjusted numbers that the number of people "Not in the Labor Force" increased by over ONE MILLION people.
Why isn't the sycophant media promoting that Seasonally adjusted number of a gain of 847,000 jobs? Maybe they think even the most ardent 0bama supporter might say, "What?". Who knows?
Oh well, maybe the BLS will correct the link and I can see the explanation of how the Seasonal Adjustment works. If anyone knows, please explain it to me or if you have a correct link give me that.
Regardless of however they come to those numbers, I bet in about 3 weeks there will be a correction that revises the 243,000 DOWNWARD.
The link is NOW working for the explanation of Seasonal Adjustment.
Deletehttp://www.bls.gov/cps/cps12adj.pdf
32slim32 - Good evening! Just got done watching the coverage of the Nevada caucuses.
ReplyDeleteLet me get to brass tacks. I looked over your numbers, and, you know... you might be on to something, and unfortunately... the US population won't see this because it won't be published by the mainstream media.
Check out this information about an alleged record number (1.2 MILLION) people dropping out of the labor force: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-
Now, I say alleged because I need to find an additional source to help verify this (it will be tough, I'm sure no one on the left wants this to be seen) and I hope to shed some light on this if this is true. Let me know what you think.
Good Morning LME.
ReplyDeleteYes, I saw the story you linked to yesterday on the Drudge Report.
I am going to just go through all of the inconsistencies that I see in the latest "The Employment Situation" (link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf ). In no particular order:
1. Congressman Allen West (R-FL) asked: "Can someone tell me how employment in the black community has improved at a rate three times the national average in just a few months?" Very good question Congressman. According to page 16 of 42 in latest report the Unemployment Rate for Black or African American dropped from 15.8% in Dec 2011 down to 13.6% in January 2012, an increase of 477,000 jobs. How did African Americans gain 477,000 jobs while the ENTIRE non farm payroll only increased by a total of 243,000. That means that 12% of the population accounted for 196% of the jobs created. How does that work?
2. The Seasonal Adjustment explanation ( http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps12adj.pdf ) states:
"To gauge the impact on the labor force data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses special
tabulations of December data that incorporate the new population controls. When applied to
December 2011, the updated controls increased the estimated size of the civilian non-institutional
population 16 years and over by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by
216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. The total
unemployment rate was not affected."
OK, lets add those numbers to the December 2011 Seasonally Adjusted numbers:
Seasonally Adjusted (Numbers in Thousands)..............................Jan 2012
........................Dec 2011.......Updated Controls...Total.........Published Numbers
Civilian Labor Force....153887.........258................154145........154395
Employed................140790.........216................141006........141637
Unemployed...............13097.........042................13139.........12758
Not in Labor Force.......86697.........1252...............87949.........87874
Why do the numbers not add up and match the published number after adding the "Updated Controls"?
3. According to pages 16-18 of 42 in "The Employment Situation" the breakdown by race. All numbers will be the number of employed people per race.
(Numbers in Thousands).......Dec 2011.......Jan 2012...... Difference
White.........................115,254.......114,458....... -796
Black or African American.....15,248.........15,725....... +477
Asian.........................6,991..........7,608........ +617
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity..20,699.........21,513....... +814
................................................TOTAL......1,112
How did the number of Employed people (by race) INCREASE by 1,112,000 people with only 243,000 non farm jobs added?
4. Now scroll up to my previous post and look at the Seasonally Adjusted Numbers they published for January. Notice how the number of employed people shows an increase of 847,000. Why doesn't it show an increase of 1,112,000 people like the by race breakdown?
Delete5. Page 32 of 42 Total Non-Farm and Private jobs.
Numbers in Thousands
..................NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED................SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
..................Dec 2011..Jan 2012...Difference........Dec 2011...Jan 2012..Difference
Total Non-Farm....132,952...130,263... -2,689............132,166....132,409...+243
Total Private.....110,614...108,403... -2,211............110,179....110,436...+257
When the numbers are not Seasonally Adjusted, we lost 2,689,000 jobs (non farm) and lost 2,211,000 (private jobs). However, when we do the Seasonal Adjustment (and God only knows what else) we somehow gained 243,000 and 257,000 jobs respectively. Lookie there, 0bama just created 2,932,000 jobs out of thin air (non farm) with a "Seasonal Adjustment". He also miraculously created 2,468,000 private sector jobs out of thin air with that "Seasonal Adjustment".
CNN is laying the ground work already for the coming increase in unemployment. http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/erin-burnett-despite-jobs-report-unemployment-needs-to-go-up-again/?hpt=hp_t2
DeleteDespite strong jobs report, unemployment 'needs to go up again'
"The January jobs report–hiring surged, while unemployment fell–sent a spike through the markets on Friday, but CNN's Erin Burnett says there's a catch. "This is a really good jobs report," Burnett told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "It's been five months in a row that we've seen the unemployment rate drop. That is very, very significant." But for a full economic recovery, expect the unemployment rate to rise. "At some point before it recovers, it actually needs to go up again."
What? For a full recovery unemployment actually NEEDS to go up again? Oh, but it gets better.
'As Burnett explains, the jobs report only includes Americans who have been actively searching for a job in the last month–but there are many more who've quit looking out of frustration. "There's several million people who are truly disenfranchised," says Burnett. As the labor market improves, those people will start looking again–and that will cause the unemployment numbers to pop up. "Even though it's going down now, at some point...it actually needs to go up." '
Wow, that's funny, when 1.177 Million people fell off of the rolls this month alone they didn't mention that. They were elated to report that jobs increased by 243,000 and the rate dropped to 8.3%. No mention of over 1 million not being counted as unemployed any more.
We had to have lost somewhere between 737,000 and 2,689,000 jobs (hard to tell the way they have cooked the books) last month. He can't hide those numbers forever. Even he gave us a heads up on Friday of the upcoming increase in unemployment:
"Now, these numbers will go up and down in the coming months, and there's still far too many Americans who need a job, or need a job that pays better than the one they have now," Obama said.
It appears that Obama is willing to take credit for anything since February of 2010. So lets just tally the numbers up for that time period. Here's what the results show. Since February 2010:
Number of people Employed has Increased by 2,996,000
Number of Unemployed People has DECREASED by 2,113,000
Number of people Not in Work Force has Increased by 4,387,000
Number of Private Sector Jobs has Increased by 3,380,000
Since CNN tells us that the rate "has to go up for full recovery" because those that dropped out of the work force will be coming back. Let's just add them back in there now and get a rough idea of what the REAL unemployment rate is. The published number of Unemployed people for last month is 12,758,000 and we are going to add back the 4,387,000 that had quit looking for work (since 0bama's policies took effect). That gives us 17,145,000 Unemployed people or an unemployment rate of 11.1%.
Is it just me or was everyone super giddy about these numbers Friday? Who writes the stories on unemployment, the press or the White House? That's rhetorical.
32slim32 - Good morning! Happy Super Sunday!
DeleteYes, CNN will be doing whatever it can to make Obama look perfect and everyone else that's against him look bad. Just look at the front page of CNN.com
Zakaria: It's a new world, Mitt. (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/05/zakaria-its-a-new-world-mitt/?hpt=hp_t1)
Just looking at the headline (you know I can't stand media headlining), do you think that's positive or negative. I'll go with negative on this one. Of course, it's a scathing article. Do you think they would put something up that is positive? Nope.
Again, this isn't scientific analysis, and it's just what I see and feel. I will continue to watch more. Have a great day!
32slim32 - Good evening.
DeleteRemember how we were talking about "headlining?" A headline on the front page of CNN.com reads "Questions linger about Romney." Like I've always said, you don't have to read the article for it to have a subliminal effect on you. That's what I believe CNN is doing. You might be looking for another subject, but when you consistently see things like this... it sways your mind.