LSM ignores another “Unexpectedly” bad news jobs report (UPDATED)

Conveniently for the left, which spent its time doing the manu-weasel dance with a modified jig dance the whole time they could pretend America was shut, where the Obama administration pissed away $24 billion to inconvenience people – only in Obama’s new America does a government shutdown cost more than actually keeping the bloated Leviathan running, and nobody feels Americans are getting screwed – so they could blame republicans, many newsworthy things have gone unreported. With the shutdown over, the left has tried real hard to put a positive spin on the whole abysmal Obamacare signup experience, and done a terrible job of it. The website is a disaster, and the they first tried to pretend the problem was so many people were signing up that it was unable to handle it, but then we found out the problem was just that the whole site was a $625 million dollar pile of garbage. Now they are looking for help to cover their asses. They then told people to use the phone to register, but that’s working just as good as the website, and that’s if people trying to sign up can get through.

But the Obamacare rollout disaster –and remember, these are the people that will have the monopoly on running our healthcare too – is not the only story that got cover from first all the shutdown propaganda, and now, from the Obamacare rollout debacle. There was a revision of our September job numbers that as usual, was downward from the predicted 166,000 and the expected/reported numbers. So they expected 180K jobs, predicted 166K, but got 148K. There is a pattern over the last 5 years of this over estimation followed by a downward correction constantly being the case, with so few exceptions that they can be dropped as statistical noise, and that’s not by accident. The left is desperate to pretend that Black Jesus’ administration is doing something to fix the economy. Reality is quite the opposite, as the real numbers show. I would love to know how many of those jobs were also part time ones. That’s the new trend due to Obamacare, which we can also see is showing how healthcare in America will be for those of us unable to exclude ourselves from that crap, based on the current experiences with the program. Maybe we will get lucky, and this display of stupidity, ineptitude, arrogance, and inability to face the reality of how onerous and broken this monstrous takeover of healthcare is, will finally push enough people into fighting this cancer foisted on us by the left.

UPDATE: Not surprised to find out that a record 90,609,000 Americans are not participating in our labor force. Now just in case you thought that in a country of 300 million that almost amounts to 1 in 3 so they have to be counting kids or something, check this out:

(CNSNews.com) – The number of Americans who are 16 years or older and who have decided not to participate in the nation’s labor force has climbed to a record 90,609,000 in September, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The BLS counts a person as participating in the labor force if they are 16 years or older and either have a job or have actively sought a job in the last four weeks. A person is not participating in the labor force if they are 16 or older and have not sought a job in the last four weeks.

GOOD TIMES BABY! This is the left’s economy. The economic doldrum of the Carter years was not an accident. Neither is this one. People more focused on perpetual government jobs that utilize class warfare, race huckstering, and cronyism to assure that, are not going to produce a vibrant, let alone viable, economy. As long as the left gets to push the policies that make people in dependant serfs, expect the economy to be pathetic. Of course, the connected rich are also raking it in, so some people are winning big. Pays to be a democrat.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    Oddly enough, we still have higher unemployment than the “worst case” scenario they presented showing how unlimited spending was going to shorten the recession.

    And forget comparisons to Carter, who was only an ineffective cowardly little turd, Obama/Jarrett is now being compared to FDR, and not in the revisionist way that progressives like to trot him out as, but more in light of his Stalinist tendencies and how he managed to extend the great depression for years after it should have been over by engaging in Keynesian policies that were flat-out criminal.

    Thumb up 2

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Doing a data analysis on the “unexpectedly low” jobs numbers involves starting with the assumption that there will be no change from one month to another outside of random variation, unless there is cause for the trend to go up or down.

    For five years the Obama/Jarrett administration has engaged only in a very few actions for the economy:

    1) Unrivaled deficit spending
    2) Implementation of the AFA (too many economy-killing results to actually count)
    3) Increased business regulation
    4) Hamstringing of energy projects when possible (unless the are PC “green energy”)
    5) Crony capitalism (see “green energy”)
    6) Union payoffs

    None of these actions encourage an economy to grow, and businesses that can are hoarding capital against the future. “Unexpectedly low” jobs numbers will continue until something different actually occurs. Of course, with the current administration, it will most likely just make things worse.

    Thumb up 3

  3. Hal_10000

    Actually, August was revised upward to 193,000 from 169,000. Still, that means 185,000 per month over the last year. That … ain’t a recovery.

    Thumb up 2

  4. AlexInCT *

    Actually, August was revised upward to 193,000 from 169,000. Still, that means 185,000 per month over the last year. That … ain’t a recovery.

    There have been a few statistical blips here & there in the last five years. Quite often because the feds hired a bunch of people to do work (census?). I would be very curious to see the data behind that August bump, because I suspect it was artificial at best. That’s why it is not repeating itself.

    And you are 100% on the money when you say this is not a recovery, Hal. The problem is they don’t care for one – that’s based on their priorities and the policies and actions of the last 5 years and the foreseeable future – but want us to not just believe that they do, but that all is well. Can you imagine the stories being written if these economic conditions existed during a republican prez? I still remember constant media sob stories, like the one about all the poor people that only had Ketchup soup to eat, during the Reagan boom years. They doubled down by pretending that Reagan had actually told these people to go eat said soup. Narrative uber alles.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Seattle Outcast

    I would be very curious to see the data behind that August bump, because I suspect it was artificial at best.

    Random variation. You can take one look at the data and not see anything that can’t be explained with a simple average and standard deviation approach.

    It goes up, it goes down, the suck remains essentially unchanged.

    Thumb up 1

  6. AlexInCT *

    Alex your linking and ‘update’ appear to be at ObamaCare website quality.

    CM, that comment just won you the internets. Do you want what’s behind door number 1, 2 or 3?

    And yes, I just showed I was qualified to work for the people rewriting that code…

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    Door 2a, subdoor B43J, using door-handle SH7-87, in operating room 34-PL, under the supervision of death panel 139-REW-45. If that’s not available I’ll just stay on-hold please.

    Thumb up 2

  8. Seattle Outcast

    Door 2a, subdoor B43J, using door-handle SH7-87, in operating room 34-PL, under the supervision of death panel 139-REW-45. If that’s not available I’ll just stay on-hold please.

    That reads like an old military manual. Nobody could figure out what they meant either.

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    Businesses expand and hire only if they have more customers. Yet American consumers, who account for 70 percent of all economic activity, can’t spend more. The median household is poorer now than it was in 2009. Over 95 percent of all the gains since then have gone to the top 1 percent. And, of course, most Americans can no longer borrow as they did before the Great Recession, to make up for flat or declining wages.
    So the underlying economic problem is surging inequality. An economy cannot grow if 95% of all gains go to a very few people, who are already very very rich.

    I’m yet to see a decent argument against this.

    Thumb up 2

  10. Seattle Outcast

    This how we know you don’t know what the hell you are talking about – and it has been explained to you in extensive detail numerous times why you are wrong, but you’re apparently either incapable of actually understanding it or so brainwashed that you are incapable of accepting a new dynamic that rips your old one to shreds.

    Consider that the most inequality occurs when the most barriers to free economic trade exist. Remove the barriers to free trade and activity, and hoarded money suddenly frees itself. You keep pointing to the result of moronic Keynesian activities and keep claiming it’s the cause that needs to be cured (with more Keynesian “thinking”).

    Correlation is NOT causation.

    Thumb up 2

  11. CM

    This how we know you don’t know what the hell you are talking about – and it has been explained to you in extensive detail numerous times why you are wrong, but you’re apparently either incapable of actually understanding it or so brainwashed that you are incapable of accepting a new dynamic that rips your old one to shreds.

    Ideological theory is what I get. Or “we’ve already told you”.

    Consider that the most inequality occurs when the most barriers to free economic trade exist.

    Not true. As China has become more free the levels of inequality have become greater. Similarly the US had greater trade protections between WW2 and 1980 and yet that was a period of much lower inequality.

    Remove the barriers to free trade and activity, and hoarded money suddenly frees itself.

    How/why would that happen if the vast majority of the population has no money to spend? Why on earth would those with hoarded money create jobs if there is no increase in demand for their goods and services? Unless people go into debt to do so, which was what underpinned the last ‘boom’.
    What are these “barriers to free trade and activity” that have a greater effect than consumers simply not increasing demand for goods and services? Presumably those with the ‘hoarded money made it because “barriers to free trade and activity” didn’t stop them.
    How does demand increase if you FURTHER REDUCE the amount of money at the bottom of the economy?

    You keep pointing to the result of moronic Keynesian activities and keep claiming it’s the cause that needs to be cured (with more Keynesian “thinking”).

    For some reason you don’t seem to have noticed that I spend far more time discussing the issue, rather than advocating for Keynesian measures. But that would be the brainwashing you mentioned earlier I suspect. You can only ever seem to respond in an abusive and aggressive manner.

    Correlation is NOT causation.

    Of course. But the same can be said for Alex’s argument too.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Poosh

    There are multiple ways I’m sure but off the top of my head at 3:34am

    If that is indeed the case, then companies and corporations etc have to compete and eh what’s the word for oh innovate, they have to innovate (make their prices cheaper, produce more et al) in order to supply the masses. In order to get super rich you have to supply the masses (obviously), that increase in production in turn raises the buying power of the currency meaning the the money the “poor” had becomes worth more without actually increasing in number.

    A) The poor – and everyone – can get richer without actually acquiring more money. It’s the VALUE that matters.

    B) Businesses do not just sit in siege mode, even if people are “no longer able to buy stuff” (I don’t care what that statistic is, it’s bullshit, seen the same int he UK, people have plenty of surplus money here and across the pond.) – that just makes competition even more vicious, which benefits the poor. They also increase production where they can.

    If it was simply true that businesses etc do not expand when their costumers cannot, currently, afford to buy their products then there would have NEVER been a patient zero – capitalism would never take root anyway.

    “Equality” would be the BEST way to FUCK everyone and make everyone poor.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    If that is indeed the case, then companies and corporations etc have to compete and eh what’s the word for oh innovate, they have to innovate (make their prices cheaper, produce more et al) in order to supply the masses. In order to get super rich you have to supply the masses (obviously), that increase in production in turn raises the buying power of the currency meaning the the money the “poor” had becomes worth more without actually increasing in number.

    Except real wages have gone nowhere for ten years, and virtually nowhere for many more decades than that. At least when it comes to most people who take part in the economy. The last boom was possible only due to mountains of debt (people had no money, they just pretended they did).
    So where is the flaw in your theory?

    B) Businesses do not just sit in siege mode, even if people are “no longer able to buy stuff” (I don’t care what that statistic is, it’s bullshit, seen the same int he UK, people have plenty of surplus money here and across the pond.) – that just makes competition even more vicious, which benefits the poor. They also increase production where they can.

    You don’t care what the statistic is, it’s bullshit? That sounds like you’re explicitly admitting that ideology trumps reality.
    Where does this ‘surplus money’ come from if wages are stagnant and have been for 10 years or more, and why isn’t it reflected in an increase in sales of goods and services (increased demand, which means business owners can forecast and hire)? Both would indicate that the ‘bullshit stats’ are correct.

    If it was simply true that businesses etc do not expand when their costumers cannot, currently, afford to buy their products then there would have NEVER been a patient zero – capitalism would never take root anyway.

    All business owners take risks when they launch. But a new capitalist state (e.g. Eastern European countries in 1990) inherently has huge unmet demand in a whole lot of areas, and loads of people that want jobs. It’s keeping things going, constantly relying on growth, where the problem seems to be. So ‘patient zero’ isn’t what we’re talking about here. ‘Patient zero’ isn’t relevant.

    If there is no problem here and it’s sustainable for this long trend to continue, then great. But I’d like to see the explanation. Everything I get seems extremely unconvincing, or just abusive.

    “Equality” would be the BEST way to FUCK everyone and make everyone poor.

    Again, nowhere have I advocated for ‘equality’. What has happened in China is fantastic – market reforms have lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty.
    I am simply asking – how is the current state of western capitalism not all fucked up (the percentage of the population sharing in the expanding pie is reducing) and how is it sustainable? How will we not reach a stage where enough people will have had enough (when Occupy will seem like a picnic in the park)? All we seem to have are sticking plasters which mask the problem (more welfare to mask the greater inequalities in wealth as a result of more and more money remaining at one end of the economy).
    I’m not planning on marching in the streets about this, or even joining a political party (I’ve never belonged to one).

    Thumb up 0

  14. Poosh

    “You don’t care what the statistic is, it’s bullshit? That sounds like you’re explicitly admitting that ideology trumps reality.”

    It’s called statistics I’m fed vs what I see with my eyes. When I see crime, for example, go up in the area I live, I know any stat that says it’s going down in my area is a lie – just as I know the majority of people DO have surplus, and why would we? We’re in the West, like it or not, most of us, even the poor, are rich compared to most of the world. I don’t know a single person who doesn’t have surplus wage. If they’re buying anything above the base-line to live, they are in surplus. If wages are stagnant, it would different from country to country, but if they are stagnant that still means they probably DO have surplus – so it’s a question of what they spend that surplus on (OR they are sensible and SAVE). (unless we’re just using the word ‘surplus’ for different meanings)

    Also the previous state of most western countries, such as the US and the UK, have not existed within the scenario I spoke loosely above as they are borrowing and messing with the money supply etc.

    The market has to be allowed to grow NATURALLY without the government doing things that cause even bigger cluster fucks down the line. The market needs to readjust and correct itself over a painful period of time, hopefully with people SAVING.

    The rich get rich by supplying the masses with what they want at the cheapest, best prices. Governments are the only ones standing in the way. Take the money away from the rich, the poor will just have money that is worth little, because it’s production that creates value in the first place. The reason we keep having these recessions is because of governments interfering, and borrowing for their welfare states. They really have to stop and let us have our medicine. And let things slowly build up again.

    I find the notion that “increase in demand” has not increased to be very dubious. Anyone can just sit down and see the sheer increase and multiplicity of goods. Also, I don’t know how wages are calculated to make the claim “they have gone no where”, seeing as I can be paid £10 an hour in 2000 and £10 an hour in 2010 and be able to buy twice as much in 2010 than I did in 2000. Sounds like fishy Krugman statistics to me, sure others can throw some debunks at them.

    Sort of jumped away from US politics for a while.

    Thumb up 0