Skip to comments.Jobs Report Overstated by 123k Because Of Lockheed "Delay" Thanks to Obama Rigging the Report
Posted on 11/03/2012 9:47:31 AM PDT by whitedog57
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate rose from 7.8% to 7.9% for October.
The number of unemployed in the US rose from 12,088,000 in September to 12,258,000 in October. An increase of 170,000. The good news is that non farm payrolls increased by +171,000.
Bear in mind that these numbers are misleading because Lockheed announced layoffs of 123,000, but was asked by the Obama Administration to delay the layoffs until after the election. So, add 123,000 to the number of unemployed and deduct 123,000 from the NFP jobs created of 171,000. So, the actual increase in NFP jobs was only 48,000.
And the duration of unemployment 27 weeks and over rose to 40.6%.
The employment to population ratio rose in October to 58.8, but still remains at a level near the beginning of the Reagan Recovery.
Since recovery summer of 2010, 262,000 more people have gone on disability than have dropped off unemployment. And 5.4 million more people are on food stamps (SNAP).
Food stamps grew 75x faster than job creation.
The unemployment rate among blacks/African Americans rose to 14.30%. There will be no joy in the Black/African American community over this pitiful unemployment rate.
On the wage front, changes in hourly earnings rose 1.6% (Year over Year), far below the Bush years. In fact, the rate fell in 2009 and has remained in the doldrums since.
This is the WORST recovery from a financial crisis since 1882.
(Excerpt) Read more at confoundedinterest.wordpress.com ...
I didn't hear about this.. D anyone have a source? I call BS otherwise.
Sure, but it doesn't matter. Reagan added 400,000 a month with an unemployed rate below 6%. No matter what anyone tries to tell you, 8% and 150,000 jobs added per month is not "normal." Real people are living the 0bama's regime disaster.
Is this correct that the net increase in employment during the Obama presidency is something like 176,000? But wait. With this new revelation it would be less than 176,000.
I think the 123,000 number is false. That is the total number of Lockheed employees. It could be that they would need to send out a notice to every employee, but the layoff number would be much lower.
You are half-right, but in principle I agree, Obama is a scumbag.
Lockheed was asked NOT to send possible layoff notices to all 123,000 employees by Obama in early october because those notices would have gone out just a few days before the election. You are required to give 60 days notice.
In return for not doing so, Obama offered to “pay all severance costs”, or attorney fees if they actually do have sequestration (which Obama said in a debate would NOT happen, next day to Des Moines Register, he said it would...sigh) and people sue Lockheed for not giving proper 60 day notice.
So, he said the taxpayers in essence would pick up the attorney fees in order for Lockheed not to freak people out about layoffs just before the election. But he said it isnt politically motivated! Are you kidding me? What a scumbag.
You are only half-right because no way would all 123,000 jobs been lost, so the net jobs report would not have gone down by 123,000, but that jobs report is B.S. anyway, as it seasonally adjusted.... by 1 million jobs in october! Ridiculous. The numbers means jack. This whole presidency and its “transparency” is a crock. I am amazed the American people do not see that.
These folks are getting canned because of the military cut backs. In Elmira, NY, a helicopter factory is shutting down. My sis says about 500 (? her guess) employees. According to her, it's a small town. Remember this is just ONE small company associated with the military cut backs.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
How many times is this foolishness going to be put out there. Lockheed Martin only has 123,000 employees total. They are not got to layoff 100% of their work force. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
123,000 employees could in theory be notified of layoffs that potentially could effect them. That notification will generally tell them how many, type of employee, and sectors that are targeted for layoff. However, it’s not likely that all 123,000 would be notified if the layoffs are only targeted for a particular sector. In that case, only those employees in the targeted sector that could be effected would be notified.
That makes it even worse. This should be a massive scandal. Between Libya and this, alone, Obama should be ousted on his ear. Can you imagine if Bush had done this, it would the lead story on every news outlet, blaring headlines in every newspaper! Unbelievable!
You are right to call BS. This is poor analysis.
Lockheed is required to issue notices by law 90 days before a layoff event when the layoff is large numbers. Lockheed, when this matter was discussed, was anticipating the Sequester in January. 90 days would be 1 October, but the people would not leave their jobs until January. They would still be employed during the survey week of 12 October.
So this is poor analysis.
Lockheed Martin employs about 123,000 people worldwide.
It’s common knowledge, it hasn’t been buried. The mainstream media simply won’t run with it. It makes Obama look bad. Can’t have that.
If he is elected again (and I think it is at best 50/50 quite frankly, not 83% like Silver’s model predicts), this economy will quickly adjust in tone - unemployment will skyrocket based on the anti-business atmosphere that will continue to ensue.
If Romney is elected, you can bet that even before he is sworn in the economy will pick up, solely on the prediction that he will be robustly more pro-business.
I think the total number of defense contractor layoffs could be huge. There will be a big ripple effect through suppliers and through other businesses in the community.
Bad title. It should have read “Lockheed and other defense contractors” Lockheed only employs 123k, My bad. Not enough coffee.
It’s true but I believe the notices are required well ahead of the actual layoffs, so those future job losses wouldn’t show up in October employment figures.
How can we lose 360k every week to U/E while only 170K actually find employment in a month and then the Labor Board drops the U/E rate as a result .
MAGIC ,,,,, it’s magic I say . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.