% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

American Capital Agency Corp. Message Board

  • munirqasim42 munirqasim42 Oct 6, 2012 9:16 AM Flag

    Politics but just curious.

    There are many intelectuals on this message board. I always heard for the last so many years about 114 k increase or decrease in employment raised or lowered the needle by 0.1 or did not change at all. I am at utter loss as many others are that this time this figure lowered the umployment rate by 0.3 from 8.1 to 7.8. Last evening CNN was making fun of Jack Welsch and coercing him to withdraw his staement on the twitter. I whole heartedly support Mr. Jack Welsch's assertion. Am I wrong? Any INTELLECTUAL please.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 92% of people working sounds pretty good to me.

    • Unfortunate coincidence for the Republicans.,,But not fixed.
      However, the headline number "the unemployment rate" is not a good indicator and every economist can tell you that.This is simply because when a person stops looking for work, like many have, they are no longer counted as unemployed. When else in history have so many just given up looking? We brokers look at "Change in non farm payrolls" this month up 114. But you need +200-250k per month just to keep up with the growing workforce. the average change over the last 4 years was 96k.

      • 3 Replies to onion1273
      • You support him but don't know how to spell his name? Welch was the head of GE which cooked its books for a decade, resulting in a fine of $50 million. Welch's twitter statement
        shows how little he knows about the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), and shows him as just
        another mindless, pompous loon in the GOP funny house. A .3% drop in the U3 (as opposed to the more accurate U6) is practically insignificant, unless you're one of those .3% ... but at least it's moving in the right direction. Welch doesn't deserve to be taken seriously! Fox is the right
        place for him.

        Sentiment: Buy

      • That is why the kids coming out of college are not getting work. Creating bubbles to get temporary normal levels of employment is not the solution. Bubbles come from the Fed. The solution is to get our jobs back that left the country. And I think that is going to start happening no matter what however it's just a matter of how fast.

        A proactive trade policy can speed it up or a do nothing trade policy can allow Chinese wage inflation to take its course but it will take longer. China can't keep buying our dollars forever in order to keep the value of the Yuan depressed because they know they will never get full value back in return for them. Also the infinite pool of Chinese workers is starting to become finite and they are demanding higher salaries and employers have had no choice but to pay them more in order to get all the workers they need.

        Jobs are starting to come back to the US because the Chinese labor cost advantage is no longer able to justify the shipping cost or shipping delay for heavier items that must be shipped over water. The higher cost of bunker fuel is also a factor in increasing shipping cost. Of course items like cell phones are not as impacted by shipping cost because they are small, light, and sell for a lot per lb. But a wash machine is. Some Chinese manufacturing companies are even moving to Mexico to save on shipping cost. That’s a good thing because it will create employment for Mexicans in their home country. That’s a very good thing.

        Obama has applied some tariffs on China but it was only on his favorite items like solar panels and the like because he's a green energy man and his green energy investments were going bankrupt which was creating a politically embarrassing situation for him. What we need is a board across the board trade policy that targets the value of the Yuan and thus helps everyone, not just a select few who happened to donate to your political campaign.

      • COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

        ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's about 8 percent.

        COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

        ABBOTT: No, that's 16 percent.

        COSTELLO: You just said 8 percent.

        ABBOTT: 8 percent unemployed.

        COSTELLO: Right 8 percent out of work.

        ABBOTT: No, that's 16 percent.

        COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16 percent unemployed.

        ABBOTT: No, that's around 8 percent...

        COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 8 percent or 16 percent?

        ABBOTT: 8 percent are unemployed. 16 percent are out of work.

        COSTELLO: If you are out of work aren't you unemployed?

        ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

        COSTELLO: But they are out of work!!!

        ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

        COSTELLO: What point?

        ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

        COSTELLO: To who?

        ABBOTT: The unemployed.

        COSTELLO: But they are all out of work.

        ABBOTT:No, the unemployed are actively looking for work ... Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

        COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

        ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

        COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

        ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 8 percent. Otherwise it would be 16 percent. You don't want to read about 16 percent unemployment do ya?

        COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

        ABBOTT: Absolutely.

        COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

        ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

        COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?


        COSTELLO:And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

        ABBOTT: Bingo.

        COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

        ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

        COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

        Abbott & Costello did a comedy routine about fictitious ball players called Who's On First? The absurd number of the real unemployed is not a joke.

    • Aren't you the same person who wanted regular contributors to stop discussing ETP because the discussion was OT and not related to AGNC? So it is OK for you to tell others what to do and not follow your own prescription? Do as I say, not as I do. What gives?

    • The unemployment rate is 7.8%. It was calculated the same way it has been since WWII. Don't invent misdeeds by Obama to explain it. ((After all, he's not a Republican.)) I have now officially lost all respect for J. Welsch.

      • 1 Reply to ray858945
      • Wait a minute. Do the math. There are 154 million workers in the US. An increase of 114,000 workers is a 0.074% increase which is one fourth of the 0.3% decrease in unemployment. They may have calculated it the same way but they have made no effort what so ever to explain why the unemployment rate has decreased by 4 times the amount of workers added. And this is one month before an election. You don’t see what they are doing?

        This is high school math. Not even algebra. How could anyone of average intelligence not realize what is going on?

        I get that there are other factors that go into explaining the unemployment number such as the number of people looking for work. If you are not looking for work then you are not considered unemployed. So obviously this has to be why the unemployment number dropped meaning that the number of people looking for work has dropped. Otherwise the math would not be correct. But don’t expect Obama’s people to explain that to you. They are perfectly fine with you coming to the wrong conclusion if you are mathematically challenged.

        But I can understand why the administration hasn’t offered any explanation as you have to be pretty discouraged to give up looking for work altogether and the implications of this are not good. This says a lot about the current state of the job market. I suspect that many of these people who gave up are members of two income families becoming single income families or how else would they survive. And you know this is true because I think I can safely say that the worst fear that anyone of us has right now is losing our job in the current job market unless your situation is unique. You cannot deny this. The job market today is pure hell and anyone currently out there looking for a job is living in hell. Can you imagine being a college graduate these days?

        There was a time when if I were to lose my job I would not be stressed out over the thought because I knew I could have another in a month. I seriously doubt that very many people feel this way today. Of course there are always a few rare situations but they don’t apply to most of us. Most of us would be screwed if we lost our jobs today. And if you are unemployed in all likelihood you are struggling compared to say 2007.

        I used to get several calls a month from head hunters wanting to talk me into leaving to go work for another local company. Not anymore. Occasionally I get a random hit on linkedIn but it is always to move out of state or to Northern California, 400 miles from where I live. Nothing I would seriously consider.

        The economy is still really bad and I think any of us can attest to this simply by asking if they find the prospects of being unemployed disconcerting. And the majority us would “yes, it is”. That is all you need to know going into this election as far as unemployment is concerned. Everything else is meaningless.

    • There was an additional 80,000+ added to the job numbers from revisions of previous month's estimates after all the final data arrived. I do not know if this was taken towards this month's unemployment rate in particular, but if it was, that might make some of the difference. What could be interesting is if this 80,000 did make the difference, where were these jobs created? Government? Private sector? I may have missed it, by I have not seen a breakdown of where these additional jobs originated from.

      I'm not accusing anyone of anything underhanded, just curious to a degree.

    • First, there are many people involved with calculating the unemployment rate, and most of them are career civil servants, not political appointees, so they have no reason to fake the numbers. Second, the President and his team has nothing to do with the numbers. Third, many people who have been involved with this process in previous Republican administrations have come out and said that there is no basis in reality for Welch's accusations. Welch should be ashamed of himself for this accusation, which is basically on a par with Kanye claiming that Bush hates black people. There are nutjobs on both sides of the aisle.

      • 1 Reply to russwm
      • Mr. Russwm: You have to be realistic. Meager 114 k increase in employment will drop whopping 0.3 % decrease in employment. If they call a few households for such an information and not the entire United States, this EMPLOYMENT information is all ambiguous at best. You should not blame Mr. Welsch, he is a man of integrity every body says that and I believe it. President Obama is a great man, the only complaint I have is that he failed in the most fundamental duty of the president by bringing both parties together and getting things done. We are all Americans. Republicans are not Chinese. Republicans and Democrats all cares for US citizens. Mr. Welsch is an intellectual.

    • Easy answer here. It is divergence. The report is made up of two other reports. One is a survey of businesses and they give estimates on how many jobs they added last month, and how many were lost, this is the +114k.

      Next they look at another report that surveys households and ask did you work last month, and if not did you find a job this month? The number of people that did not have a job in August and found work in September vs the number of people that didn't have a job and still do not was +873,000. That is what they use to calculate the percentage of unemployed.

      So in reality you could say 873,000 is the real number, those businesses just weren't surveyed.

19.82+0.37(+1.90%)Jun 30 4:00 PMEDT