Skip to comments.A tale of 2 employment surveys, at a glance
Posted on 05/08/2011 3:10:23 PM PDT by george76
The economy gained 244,000 net jobs in April - the third straight month of solid gains. Yet the unemployment rate rose from 8.8 percent to 9 percent. How did that happen? It's because the government relies on two surveys for those figures, and they can diverge sharply from time to time.
One is called the payroll survey. It asks companies and government agencies how many people they employ...
The other is called the household survey. Government workers ask households about the employment status of adults living there. Those without jobs are asked whether they're looking for one. If they're not, they're no longer considered part of the work force and aren't counted as unemployed. The household survey produces the unemployment rate each month.
In April, the household survey painted a gloomier picture than its counterpart. It showed that the number of people who say they have a job fell by nearly 200,000 last month, while the number of unemployed rose by a similar amount. That pushed the unemployment rate up.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Thats because the so called economists are either Keynsians or academic in Obamas pocket! I bet they are not the ones trying to find a job now!!
Of course, earlier, they said the opposite.
What could go wrong?
I know the media is really in the tank for the one so that is not a surprise, what is surprising is all the koolaid drinkers that actually believe it!!!
How absurd is that?
To state it a bit differently, they no longer exist. The main purpose of government statistics is to demagogue; to lie, to spin, to make things appear, if not "good," at least not as bad as they really are.
How about the CPI? Ya think that removing the most pressing family necessities from the "package" actually reflects the financial reality for most working and tax-paying people?
Yet we know if they look at the jobs being created under Obama are low wage jobs
Even though the unemployment numbers and lies about the WORST ECONOMY sense the Great Depression
Where was Obama under Carter , I know I am a racist for asking. Obama if he had Carter's unemployment, He does have the inflation but its changed the way it calculated.
“I know the media is really in the tank for the one so that is not a surprise, what is surprising is all the koolaid drinkers that actually believe it!!!”
There are a lot less Kool-aid drinkers than the Ministry of Propaganda would lead you to believe; NJ elected Chris Christie and Massachusetts elected Scott Brown a year after Obama carried both states (and a year before the mid-term “shellacking”). Whatever criticisms people have for these individuals, they are hardly “Obamunists”; those elections were rightly viewed as the first repudiations of Obama and his policies.
I had a girlfriend back around 2004 (before I met my wife, don’t spread rumors) who was a public screwl teacher and a lib. Yeah, I know...well that’s one of 40 reasons the relationship ended.
Anyway, she would rail about how the economy sucked so bad because of Bush...at a time when gas was UNDER $2/gal and unemployment was under 5%!
I asked her what she was smoking and she mumbled something about Bush cooking the numbers.
She was liberal, weird, wasn’t even particularly cute and she was kind of a bore. I can’t tell you why I ever dated her...but I digress...I guess I was bored.
Don’t feel back Rockin...we all have to cross the aisle when dating (most conservative chicks ain’t easy LOL!!)
Funny thing is, this one wasn’t either!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.