Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

# What, exactly is the claim that the September unemployment numbers are falsified about, anyway?

Posted by   + Show Post

So it has been repeatedly stated in threads on this board that the report is somehow false, or misleading in some way.  What is behind this claim?  Do people really think that the numbers are false?  Do they think that the number is only down because of people who have dropped out of the workforce?   Are there really people who think Obama can influence the BLS to put out false numbers?

It seems to be the latest Republican talking point.

ETA Here is the link to the Sept report.  You can also read past reports and look up stats, even for the "real" unemployment number.  They will explain what each number means and who it will include, it is an interesting site. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

by on Oct. 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Replies (31-40):
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 6:55 PM
1 mom liked this

I certainly do have math skills.  No one said that the long term unemployed are counted in the main number (thank St. Ronnie for that, he changed it)

Your little dissertation is just repeating something we all already know.  My question is, with the long term unemployment number virtually unchanged, how is it that you are saying the current lowering of the number is related to that?  The report says differently.

Quoting asfriend:

Do you have any math skills?

A group has 100 people of those 90 people are working, 10 are looking for work. With 9 out of 10 working the unemployment rate is 10 %. Remember 90 people are working.
Same group a year later, the 10 unemployed have exhausted their unemployment compensation, they are taken out of the equation totally. In addition 5 more have lost their job. Now 85 of the 90 in the group are working, 5 are unemployed, the unemployment rate is now 6%. Unemployment has officially gone down although now only 85 of the original 100 actually have a job.
(note numbers are examples only)
Catch on?

Quoting stacymomof2:

I was in a post talking about it but didn't get a response to my posting the actual numbers.  People just kept repeating that "they aren't including the people who have dropped out of the workforce."  That is specifically why I posted this question.

So, I am doing it again to get a clear answer as to why people are ignoring that this report shows that the unemployment situation is looking better.

Quoting grandmab125:

This was already hashed over on another post.  So, why are you doing it again?

by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Quoting toomanypoodles:

by AllieCat on Oct. 7, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Quoting toomanypoodles:

Quoting FromAtoZ:

Quoting toomanypoodles:

Falsified numbers!?!?  GASP!  Say it isn't so!

Exactly how are the numbers falsified?  You do have an opinion on this, yes?

Nah...I'm waiting for FACTS.

The FACTS you are waiting for, who will deliver them?

"A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song." ~ Maya Angelou

by on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:01 PM
I don't think bush would fudge the numbers to show job losses at 700,000 a month. Unless he did it to justify the bailout for his cronies
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by Platinum Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:02 PM
1 mom liked this
They only believe the numbers when they are bad.
by Platinum Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:04 PM
1 mom liked this
Quoting FromAtoZ:

They would have to come from a republican. That's what seems to be the truth scale for the folks on the right around here.

by Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM
All I know is that if they are accepting temporary holiday work as reducing the unemployment rate it should not count because when they poll the numbers again after the holidays are done then of course the numbers are going to fluctuate. I heard some claim that people have been employed in the private sector. What is the "private sector"?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:23 PM
1 mom liked this
I have never looked closely enough togive you an decisive answer. Whay I am saying is what the Dems ob thos board have said for years in regards to thosr numbers. I can only assume if it was true in regards to a Repub Admin, it is not different now.

Quoting FromAtoZ:

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

The same exact things Dems pointed out is wrong when numbers were released during Bush years. The numbers donot reflect the millions unemoloyed but NOT on the unemployment rolls. So the problem is in not counting the millions who have run out of unemploment but who are still not working. Or so Dems insisted was the case 5 years ago.

I am not responding to this as a Dem, a Rep or otherwise.

I want to ensure I am clear as to what you are saying. :)

Those who no longer are eligible to collect unemployment are no longer calculated in to the numbers of those unemployed, yet many feel they are added in to the 'working' numbers when it is not clear if those people actually are.

Am I following you?

This has happened time and time again, the argument going back and forth.

I am not arguing that these numbers are absolutely correct.  I can't do that.  Nor can I state they are absolutely false.  Skewed, well, lets face it, every one does this at one time or another, especially during an election year.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM
3 moms liked this

Employment numbers typically are numbers that trail trends of the economy. ( good or bad )

The economy isn't really improving at a rate that justifies the bump in the employment numbers.

The up-tick in numbers don't fall in line with the flat econonomy and that has some folks scratching their heads over the their validity.

by Gold Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM
It started with two republicans tweeting this as a fact, and the rest ran with it. Now bunch of people including Romney supporters have repeatedly said that there is no way that they could have falsified these numbers and people still choose to run with it.