Well, since DOL numbers always come out at 8:30 am on Friday morning, of course these are not DOL numbers.  You do realize that there is a schedule when the DOL posts these reports every month, which usually falls on the first Friday of the month except in the case of March because February is a short month. 

Guess you don't follow the markets. Tune into CNBC tomorrow morning.

NittanySluggo wrote: The DOL numbers are not out yet. I just checked. Chalk this thread up to yet another propaganda posting.

BoulderLion wrote: Well, since DOL numbers always come out at 8:30 am on Friday morning, of course these are not DOL numbers.  You do realize that there is a schedule when the DOL posts these reports every month, which usually falls on the first Friday of the month except in the case of March because February is a short month. 

Guess you don't follow the markets. Tune into CNBC tomorrow morning.

NittanySluggo wrote: The DOL numbers are not out yet. I just checked. Chalk this thread up to yet another propaganda posting.

Kind of a dickish post, don't you think?

I just figured that most informed people know the difference between the Gallop numbers and the DOL numbers.  I should not have overestimated your knowledge. 

NittanySluggo wrote:

BoulderLion wrote: Well, since DOL numbers always come out at 8:30 am on Friday morning, of course these are not DOL numbers.  You do realize that there is a schedule when the DOL posts these reports every month, which usually falls on the first Friday of the month except in the case of March because February is a short month. 

Guess you don't follow the markets. Tune into CNBC tomorrow morning.

NittanySluggo wrote: The DOL numbers are not out yet. I just checked. Chalk this thread up to yet another propaganda posting.

Kind of a dickish post, don't you think?

BoulderLion wrote: I just figured that most informed people know the difference between the Gallop numbers and the DOL numbers.  I should not have overestimated your knowledge. 

NittanySluggo wrote:

BoulderLion wrote: Well, since DOL numbers always come out at 8:30 am on Friday morning, of course these are not DOL numbers.  You do realize that there is a schedule when the DOL posts these reports every month, which usually falls on the first Friday of the month except in the case of March because February is a short month. 

Guess you don't follow the markets. Tune into CNBC tomorrow morning.

NittanySluggo wrote: The DOL numbers are not out yet. I just checked. Chalk this thread up to yet another propaganda posting.

Kind of a dickish post, don't you think?

Even more dickishness. If anybody didn't know before, it's pretty clear now you're a lawyer.

Glad you learned the difference between the Gallup and DOL numbers today, as this Board can serve as a nice learning tool for the uninformed.  How is that for dickishness for ya?

NittanySluggo wrote:

BoulderLion wrote: I just figured that most informed people know the difference between the Gallop numbers and the DOL numbers.  I should not have overestimated your knowledge. 

NittanySluggo wrote:

BoulderLion wrote: Well, since DOL numbers always come out at 8:30 am on Friday morning, of course these are not DOL numbers.  You do realize that there is a schedule when the DOL posts these reports every month, which usually falls on the first Friday of the month except in the case of March because February is a short month. 

Guess you don't follow the markets. Tune into CNBC tomorrow morning.

NittanySluggo wrote: The DOL numbers are not out yet. I just checked. Chalk this thread up to yet another propaganda posting.

Kind of a dickish post, don't you think?

Even more dickishness. If anybody didn't know before, it's pretty clear now you're a lawyer.

Some of us have to work for a living.

Says the man with +11248 posts.  Waste much time for your employer?

You went to my post count? Representing 8 years? With over 7000 of your own? That is pretty petty. I will tell you this: My employer has not been cheated out of a single minute. How about you, lawyer? You have time to tune in to TV news about the economy. Maybe you just have your legal aide do your work while you bill yourself out at the higher rate for all the time you're on the internet.

BoulderLion wrote: I have not seen any comparisons of the DOL numbers vs. the Gallup numbers, but I do like your (and perhaps Lion70s') healthy scepticism for anything that the govnernnent tells us!

LaschRanger wrote:

BoulderLion wrote: You realize that the link was to the Gallup numbers and not DOL  . . .

 lion70 wrote: These numbers can't be trusted because they've been massaged by government cronies who are beholden to the current administration for their own jobs. Numbers supplied by the government are never to be believed.

That the numbers are not the Dept of Labor's is exactly why I believe that they are much closer to the truth. U.S. D of L has consistently overstated employment and then had to go back to lower them later. The same is true of the U.S. D o L ,GDP estimates which are consistently overstated.

perhaps lion70, lol, I'm sure his post was tongue in cheek.

And for the other poster, propoganda, wth planet are you on?

Anyhow, anytime anybody has a skeptical opinion of the government, even in terms of military progress, I respect their skepticism.

I tend to think GDP growth is a better predictor of where the job market is headed.
I have talked to a number of VP's and owners of mid - sized businesses over the last couple of years and they all say they have become very hesitant to expand and hire for three main reasons :
1) Obamacare
2)New regulations
3) New taxes

That's been my same take as well rufus.  I know of a local business that has hired a few when they have a large order over the last few years, but don't plan on keeping them for long and expect the worst.  That example I know of first hand, I'm friends with the owner and two assistants and my wife is his right hand woman who keeps things together in the office, but have heard of several other examples.

lion70 wrote: These numbers can't be trusted because they've been massaged by government cronies who are beholden to the current administration for their own jobs. Numbers supplied by the government are never to be believed.

Amen!

In this employment climate now, it is hard to really tell. Like you said, last month's numbers were probably manipulated up, but any improvement is downplayed by opponenets.

The only test I use is what is happening around me - along with my own prospects - and just now the job market really *****! I know many people out of work.....and many people under-employed. I went back to school to re-tool and as I start to look for work the job market is very soft in many sectors.

While I'm happy to see some of the big industries starting to hire, I don't see the small business growth there yet. My fear is that small business made the adjustments they needed to in the recession (reducing staff, making current employees do more with less, increasing efficiency, etc.). This doesn't bode well for many looking for work with smaller companies. I anticipate very slow job growth for many.

DOL rate held at 8.3%, with 227K jobs added (mostly private sector with some public sector shedding) and upward revisions to December and January.  We all know that no one seems to trust the DOL numbers (or some of you folks not understand the difference between the DOL numbers and the Gallup numbers), but the February report is actually stronger when viewed with the December and January revisions.  The top line number is still troubling, especially when taken in context of the underemployed and those who stopped looking.

BoulderLion wrote: DOL rate held at 8.3%, with 227K jobs added (mostly private sector with some public sector shedding) and upward revisions to December and January.  We all know that no one seems to trust the DOL numbers (or some of you folks not understand the difference between the DOL numbers and the Gallup numbers), but the February report is actually stronger when viewed with the December and January revisions.  The top line number is still troubling, especially when taken in context of the underemployed and those who stopped looking.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...-060614362.html

Regardless of all the data, these numbers are good for Obama heading into November, especially if the unemployment rate nudges under 8.0%.

Hopefully this is the start of a solid cycle whereby the small hiring increases allow consumer spending to nudge up which will in turn allow for an increase in future hirings.

This might be a stupid question, but how does the government determine when someone has given up looking for a job, and gets taken off the unemployment %?  How do they know if they start looking again?  Once they go off the unemployment % do they ever get put back into it?  Please respond if you know, and not just think you know.  Thanks

rody1 wrote: This might be a stupid question, but how does the government determine when someone has given up looking for a job, and gets taken off the unemployment %?  How do they know if they start looking again?  Once they go off the unemployment % do they ever get put back into it?  Please respond if you know, and not just think you know.  Thanks

Very simply - they are watching everything we do. That's what socialists and communists do. Every community organizer learns overt and covert spying thechniques which are part of the Saul Alinsky basic traing. They infiltrate neighborhoods and then lie in wait ready to pounce and bring into being the New Caliphate.

You are reading too many tea leaves into the improvement of reelection chances of Barry by the employment numbers; I note that the author of that article included a stupid opinion about relection when he or she should have just reported the facts.  As I mentioned in my post, the three month trend has improved but the top line number is still high, and the factors not refelcted in the top line number (i.e., those not seeking and underemployed) are very troubling.  This is likely going to be a very troubling economy for the incumbent to defend in a referendum election in November unless the numbers get quite a bit stronger.  The question remains whether Barry's opponent will be able to convince the electorate that his policies can change the economic situation, which should be the top issue in the 2012 elections. 

freakytj wrote:

BoulderLion wrote: DOL rate held at 8.3%, with 227K jobs added (mostly private sector with some public sector shedding) and upward revisions to December and January.  We all know that no one seems to trust the DOL numbers (or some of you folks not understand the difference between the DOL numbers and the Gallup numbers), but the February report is actually stronger when viewed with the December and January revisions.  The top line number is still troubling, especially when taken in context of the underemployed and those who stopped looking.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...-060614362.html

Regardless of all the data, these numbers are good for Obama heading into November, especially if the unemployment rate nudges under 8.0%.

Hopefully this is the start of a solid cycle whereby the small hiring increases allow consumer spending to nudge up which will in turn allow for an increase in future hirings.

rody1 wrote: This might be a stupid question, but how does the government determine when someone has given up looking for a job, and gets taken off the unemployment %?  How do they know if they start looking again?  Once they go off the unemployment % do they ever get put back into it?  Please respond if you know, and not just think you know.  Thanks

The Census Bureau sends out a monthly survey.

BoulderLion wrote: You are reading too many tea leaves into the improvement of reelection chances of Barry by the employment numbers; I note that the author of that article included a stupid opinion about relection when he or she should have just reported the facts.  As I mentioned in my post, the three month trend has improved but the top line number is still high, and the factors not refelcted in the top line number (i.e., those not seeking and underemployed) are very troubling.  This is likely going to be a very troubling economy for the incumbent to defend in a referendum election in November unless the numbers get quite a bit stronger.  The question remains whether Barry's opponent will be able to convince the electorate that his policies can change the economic situation, which should be the top issue in the 2012 elections. 

freakytj wrote:

BoulderLion wrote: DOL rate held at 8.3%, with 227K jobs added (mostly private sector with some public sector shedding) and upward revisions to December and January.  We all know that no one seems to trust the DOL numbers (or some of you folks not understand the difference between the DOL numbers and the Gallup numbers), but the February report is actually stronger when viewed with the December and January revisions.  The top line number is still troubling, especially when taken in context of the underemployed and those who stopped looking.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...-060614362.html

Regardless of all the data, these numbers are good for Obama heading into November, especially if the unemployment rate nudges under 8.0%.

Hopefully this is the start of a solid cycle whereby the small hiring increases allow consumer spending to nudge up which will in turn allow for an increase in future hirings.

Probably should have said "better for Obama" rather than "good for Obama"....while there's no doubt the economic situation is very fickle at the moment, the trend is definitely going in the right direction.

The trend may not be enough for some people, but if it continues, I would have a hard time seeing Obama defeated IMO.