http://business.time.com/2012/10/16...gged-but-its-not-accurate-either/?hpt=hp_bn16 jack welch screamed that the prez jimmed the unemployment rate from 8.1 to 7.8. well we all know better but the bigger issue is how they come up with the numbers and should we be more concerned
How to Calculate Unemployment? This should be a good link to help everyone understand how unemployment information is calculated. There are numerous factors to include, but you still have your deniers who would think it's all based on simple math. What's even sadder that people who deny this are just creating more headaches for themselves.
Where I live, the unemployment crisis went up a little bit, but not significantly. Now, things have drastically improved. 7.8% looks about right to me. In some major U.S. cities, the unemployment rate was a whoppin' 20%!!!
The unemployment drop is based on the Household Survey which is not reliable. There is no way that over 800,000 jobs all of a sudden appeared when that number has been relatively unchanged for months. The unemployment number will magically be revised upward of 8% after the election in a few weeks.
Perhaps Welch could get away with this sort of temper tantrum nonsense when he was running one of the biggest companies in the world, but he will only get ridicule pushing this line in policy debates. Either Welch doesn't have any clue about how the unemployment data are collected, or he is just a liar. It is important to understand the way the data for the survey are compiled and published. The survey involves hundreds of people at various stages in the process of collecting and compiling the data. Even if Galvin or some other top official in the bureau wanted to lie about the numbers, they couldn't possibly do it alone. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/baker-welch-unemployment/index.html
Jack Welch is just bringing up what everybody else is thinking. 800,000 jobs were magically created weeks before the election. If that doesn't raise suspicion, I don't know what will. Plus, Warren Buffett feels the need to comment on politics. He's worth 100 times what Mitt Romney is worth. He will always be rich. He knows he's two minutes from death and wants to be viewed as a nice guy.
I have no problem with Welch expressing his opinion, he is just clueless on the issue. In order to successfully manipulate the data, it would be necessary to change hundreds of numbers that get reported each month. This would require the cooperation of dozens of top people at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Maybe in Welch's world, it is possible to go around with a big wad of money and buy off people at the drop of a hat, but the idea that someone from the Obama administration wandered through the top echelons of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to buy their cooperation in fixing the unemployment numbers is absurd on its face. Perhaps someone could be found who would be willing to be bought, but the rest would be singing their story on the national news.
No, it is based off the Household Survey which is unreliable. You need to look at the Payroll Survey for a more accurate count. Any economist will tell you a jump like that doesn't happen without any major structural changes in policies. I don't think anyone was bought.
No, the other problem with Welch's charge is that he obviously has no knowledge of the unemployment series itself. In fact, it is common for the numbers to jump around. He found it incredible that the unemployment rate fell by 0.5 percentage points over two months when the economy appears to be growing slowly. How about when it fell by 0.7 percentage points from November 2010 to January 2011, when growth was also very weak? Was this political manipulation of the data? On the other side, the unemployment rate jumped by 0.2 percentage points in the summer of 1996, when the economy was growing at a 7.1% annual rate. If Welch knew the data at all or bothered to talk to someone who knew the data before he made his outlandish charges, he would realize that the unemployment rate is an erratic series. It moves around in unpredictable ways.
Wait Romney won't always be rich too? He may not be a billionaire but dude won't ever have to bag groceries lol
There's nothing wrong with a billionaire like Buffett saying he thinks there's something wrong with our tax policy when he pays less in federal income taxes than his secretary. If you think that statement is equally controversial on the level of what Jack Welsh said, you have a warped sense of what constitutes economic fairness in this country.
No, I think it's funny that someone who took advantage of the same tax policies and Wall Street his whole career to become worth $25 billion would now become some "man of equality". The fact is that Buffett will be rich regardless so it only serves to make him look good. Right now his legacy is more important than money. The strategy of raising taxes only on the wealthy will only fund government for roughly 8 days so it makes no sense. They're just playing off people's own insecurities & prejudice towards rich people.
