Barack Obama - The Burger King

America was stunned Friday, October 5th, 2012 as the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that unemployment dropped to 7.8% from the prior level of 8.1% the month previous (which, correspondingly, 'surprisingly' dropped .2% from August's number). 

Listening to coverage of this BLS report on television, radio, and reading 'Breaking News' alerts online you would have thought aliens (from space) arrived Thursday evening and began taking Americans away in vast numbers.

Which, in reality, they DID. 

Space Aliens?  Yes.  Space Aliens...  (If you believe the BLS Unemployment Rate for September is 'real', you most likely believe in Space Aliens.  Just for future reference, it MIGHT HAVE BEEN a weather balloon...)

Let's spend a few moments reviewing the EXCELLENT Unemployment data as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the: "BS" - oops, dropped an "L". WHY do I keep doing that?):


FROM THE BLS 'GOOD NEWS REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER:

Number of Americans 'Participating in the Workforce':  63.6% (according to MoneyNews.com, this is the lowest 'participation rate' in the past 31 years!  It hasn't been this low since Jimmy Carter left Ronald Reagan with an economy in free fall...  Sound familiar?  Someone forward this post to Mitt Romney, just so he knows what he's up against next year...)

Meaning:  The BLS currently shows a SMALLER percentage of workers available to work in 2012 than it did when Ronald Reagan was President.

Reading between the lines: 
According to the US Census Bureau, the population in 1981 was 229 Million.  Applying the 63.6% participation rate means that roughly 83 Million Americans did not 'participate' in the workforce. 

Looking forward to 2012, the population is 313.85 Million.  Applying the same 63.6% participation rate means that just over 114.2 Million workers are not currently participating in the workforce. 

The 'Just for Giggles' Calculation:  In 2009, the Labor Participation Rate the Year Obama took office was 65.7%.

With 306 Million in the US Census, there were 111.4 Americans NOT participating in the workforce.  

So, between 2009 and 2012, an additional (114.2 million - 111.4 million =) 2.8 Million Americans disappeared from the work force (according to the BLS and US Census Bureau). 

The question then becomes, "Where did they go?"

   
Yes, you knew we'd get here sooner or later... 

Space Aliens.

Oh, no, there's a much more plausible answer.  Meet Hilda Lucia Solis, US Secretary of Labor, her department made these workers simply 'disappear' from the ranks of the US Work Force with a happy wave of her dry-eraser on a White Board in a alien-proof bunker somewhere deep beneath the White House.

Hilda "The Terminator" Solis, US Secretary of Labor

In any event, American workers continue to 'disappear' at an alarming rate during the Obama Administration.  Not since the year following James Earl Carter's departure from the White House have we seen numbers this 'interesting', this 'consistently'.

Let's see, have I covered everything?

Oops, I see that I have NOT covered everything I wanted to touch on this morning. 

The name of the post, as well as the 'Racially Insensitive' photo which begins it?  This, of course, is in reference to the fact that according to the BLS, the economy added 600,000 part-time (remember the term 'Burger Flipping' jobs from the Bush Administration's Media coverage?) jobs in the month of September.  Yes, as of yesterday 860,000 Americans have taken part-time, under-employment jobs as 'real jobs' are no longer available in a 'Transformed Obama Economy'. 

Shoot, you'd think that with almost 3 MILLION Americans disappearing in the dead-of-night over the past four years that there'd be high-paying jobs on every street corner?  I wonder where all those job opportunities went since their prior inhabitants no longer exist in the work force?  I wonder...

[Sigh]

Hey, but wait, there's more REALLY GREAT NEWS FROM THIS MONTH'S JOBS REPORT!!!

According to the Huffington Post:
The September job gains were led by the health care industry, which added 44,000 jobs - the most since February [Moos Note:  ObamaCare at work, lowering our health care costs by adding medical staff?  Huh???]. Transportation and warehousing also showed large gains.

The revisions also showed that federal, state and local governments added 63,000 jobs in July and August, compared with earlier estimates that showed losses. 

[Moos Note:  State, local, and Federal governments are Growing again - woohoo!!!]

Still, many of the jobs the economy added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million, the most since February 2009.

Yes, a lot has happened since 2009.  We've had a President referred to as the 'Food Stamp President' by Newt Gingrich.  Gingrich, of course, was condemned for this 'Racist' statement by the Media.  And as EVERYONE knows that if someone calls you the 'Food Stamp President' they are speaking about your RACE rather than your RECORD (because, according to Liberal Democrats, only Blacks get Food Stamps?  Weird, but that sounds like a really radically Racist assumption on their part...). 

The statement Gingrich made, however, IS factually correct, as President Obama has put a LOT more people on Food Stamps than his predecessors have during their equivalent time in office.

Check out the following chart which tracks the increases in Food Stamp benefits between the Bush and Obama Administrations (click on chart to enlarge): 

    

IF we were still using the 'Burger Flipping' terminology of the Reagan / Bush Years to describe an economy in which people are working 'below their prior employment level', I feel pretty good in referring to President Obama as 'The Burger King'.  

You get to have Health Care, Contraception, Employment, Business, Taxes... "His Way".

Please do not confuse the President with the actual 'Burger King', as they are NOT the same person and I cannot afford to defend myself against any alleged copyright infringements.

To confirm this, I offer you the fact-based photographic evidence that they are NOT the same guy:

The man loves to bow...

   

And please do not read any racial motivation into the following photo in which the President of the United States bows yet again...


To Colonel Harland David Sanders (The Kentucky Fried Chicken King):

"Uh, can I stand up now?"

 
Come on, that's funny, you know it is...

Have a nice weekend folks.

How To Calculate US Unemployment - Revisited for 2012!!!

I wrote the following way back on February 19th, 2010.  I believe it was snowing that day - actually, living in Central New York in February, it's a lot easier to remember the days when it is NOT snowing.  There are approximately four of these days between January and March. 

The only exception is if it's Leap Year, in which case it pretty much snows every day.  

"Why?", you ask.

"Mother Earth is NOT amused with us adding that extra 1/4 of a day in every year.  Mother Earth, or 'Gaia', is not happy when we mess with her / its 'Cycle'." 

And when Gaia's not happy, nobody (on Earth) is happy." 

'Gaia' Photo from Apollo 17
Wow, remember when we had a space program?
Wasn't THAT cool?!?!

Shoot, but here I go 'Digressing' again - let's get busy with the topic of today's post!  Whatever that is... 

"Hey, Bossie, do you remember what the topic of today's post is?"

"Loooooooower unemployment, Moos...", says my big girl in her most sonorous voice. 

"Ahem, yes, that's it, let's talk about the most recent Unemployment Numbers as provided to us by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, henceforth, and forevermore known as, "BLS"!  Let's get busy!"


How to Calculate U.S. Unemployment - 2012!

When the most recent unemployment rate was announced on Friday, September 6th, 2012 (dropping the Unemployment from 8.3% to 8.1% with very little real job growth) you may have wondered:

"How can this BE?  How could the economy be adding fewer jobs than it is losing and the unemployment rate goes DOWN???" 

Well, it's a 'Math Thing' again.  [NOTE TO SELF:  I hate 'Math Things'] 

It works like this:

EXAMPLE A:  Assume that you have 1,000 jobs available in the economy (not as hard to imagine as it once was, but what the heck, it's an easy number to work with).

If you have 900 people employed, your unemployment rate is 10%.


EXAMPLE B:  Now assume that the number of 'total jobs' available DROPS to 925.

If you have 850 people employed, your unemployment rate is 8.1%


So, even though you have FEWER people working, your unemployment rate goes DOWN.

This, and the following, accounts for our most recent reduction in the percentage of unemployed.  Welcome to the BLS - where logic goes to die.

Confused yet?  Oh, you will be.

You will be.  And there's more. 

Much, much moo-re... 

Richard Dawson says, "I asked you how the US Government caluclates the number of Unemployed workers in the United States. 

You said, "By counting changes in the number of payroll receipts monthly."

"Survey says!!!...  YOU are wrong."

At the end of a post about the celebration in the Media over the success of the 2009 Stimulus Program (yes, as I update this in 2012 - I really miss those EXCELLENT economic times) I said I would touch on the issue of how the Bureau of Labor and Statistics comes up with their numbers of the employed, the unemployed, the under-employed, and people playing Scrabble, at your expense. 

Rather than drone on (as I normally do, like, um, here...), I'll have the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) speak, or more appropriately, 'type' for themselves. 

Without further adieu, I give you the United States BLS! 
(Hey, who put that extra letter in there?!?!)     

Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed persons in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics of such persons. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate—which tells you the percent of the labor force that is unemployed—receive wide coverage in the media. 

[BLS, thanks for talking to us like we're 10 years old.]


Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

[Ah, yes, QUITE clearly, why would anyone believe that the number of unemployed would be based upon those receiving unemployment benefits, or others, in general NOT working?]


Other people think that the Government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker come to their homes every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities. 

[Oh not so! We've come to LOVE government intrusion into our lives!  Without it, what would we talk about in 'hushed voices' over our Kraft macaroni and cheese dinners at the dinner table (by candlelight)?]


Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.

[Hold on, did you just say that the BLS 'Polls' citizens to see who's working?]

The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. For instance, beginning in 1994, the CPS estimates reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey. (For more information on the CPS redesign,see Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods.) 

[The BLS DID just say that Unemployment is based on a random sample poll again, right?  Did anyone out there know this?  Please excuse my disbelief, I had no idea that the Unemployment Numbers were this 'scientific' .  I thought it had something to do with a 'Magic Feather'...]


There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units).

[Uh-huh...]

The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia [I smell the 'magic feather' coming!]. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State. (For a detailed explanation of CPS sampling methodology, see Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods.)

[Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods really ROCKs!  It's quoted all over the place...]

Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed more than 4 consecutive months. This practice avoids placing too heavy a burden on the households selected for the sample. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months, and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good.

This procedure results in approximately 75 percent of the sample remaining the same from month to month and 50 percent from year to year.

[Uh-huh]


Each person is classified according to the activities he or she engaged in during the reference week. Then, the total numbers are "weighted," or adjusted to independent population estimates (based on updated decennial census results). The weighting takes into account the age, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and State of residence of the person, so that these characteristics are reflected in the proper proportions in the final estimates.

[Uh-huh]


A sample is not a total count, and the survey may not produce the same results that would be obtained from interviewing the entire population. But the chances are 90 out of 100 that the monthly estimate of unemployment from the sample is within about 290,000 of the figure obtainable from a total census. Since monthly unemployment totals have ranged between about 7 and 11 million in recent years, the possible error resulting from sampling is not large enough to distort the total unemployment picture.

[Okay, so based upon I just read, 'Unemployment in the U.S.' is based on 60,000 Americans, from which we calculated that we have lost a 'couple of million' jobs (and workers) in the past year?  This would mean that each of these 60,000 has lost their jobs 33.342 times in the past year.  This, I can actually believe...  Nah, just kidding - wanted to see if you were still paying attention.]


The complete answer, of course, is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 'polling' a sample group to determine the employment, or unemployment rate in the country on a monthly cycle.

They are using secretive scientific algorithms to decode rates of unemployment as well as the location of Atlantis (in their spare time).

Bottom line is, well, that they SCIENTIFICALLY GUESS how many people are working and NOT working. 

Hmm, I wonder how many people are employed by the BLS?  I'd better GOOGLE that one... 

Well, I couldn't find the number of folks working for BLS, but I did find the total headcount for the number of people working for the Department of Labor. 

That number?  16,000.

So, if we have each of these 16,000 Department of Labor employees contact 3.75 people per month, we could do away with the 'Current Population Survey' group all together.  That could save us something like $1 BILLION in overhead costs!  I guess it could be less, but at the rate we're burning cash, it might as well be a BILLION dollars.

So if YOU were wondering how Administrations' have been coming up with Unemployment Numbers since 1940, well, now you know.  They pretty much 'Make it up'... 

I don't feel better knowing this, but I guess if you learn something new every day you're better prepared for the stuff you DON'T know about yet.  For example, what do we do when China sells the rest of our Bonds back to the Federal Reserve? 

Just between you and me, isn't the Federal Reserve buying our own National Debt (without have the cash) a lot like ME writing checks with ZERO cash in the bank?

Wouldn't I go to jail for that?

Geez, I'd hate to go to Jail.  Maybe I should go into politics? 

Politicians almost never go to Jail. 

But I hear the teaching jobs at the Ivy League schools and Lobbying Firms they retire to have excellent benefits...