[MrChips]

Aren’t the numbers “revised” later, mid-month? I know it is wishful thinking in the face of a probable cooking the books, but maybe that household number was truly an abberation and the numbers could be revised to 7.9 or 8.0 when that is done. No?

[FredZarguna]

Well ... yes, but ... The error in the Household Survey numbers necessary to produce this result is way outside the statistical expectation for a 95% confidence interval. I haven't calculated it myself, and I could only get a rough idea of how large the error bars would have to be to include a result this crazy. Another FReeper claims the survey found almost 900,000 new jobs (actually that's public information) and estimated the error is +/-435,000. Inasmuch as -410,000 would increase the unemployment back to 8% you get closer, but you're really still off the actual number by 0.2%. In other words, almost all of the 900,000 has to be wrong, which is statistically about as close to impossible as you and me both being killed by meteors before I finish typing this sentence.

Still here, so ...

The big question is: why does the huge spike occur in the 20-24 age group? This is weird because the 0bama administration has already been getting an enormous fig-leaf from Baby Boomers who're leaving the workforce a few months or years early, but an increase in the 20-24 age group has a VERY HIGH stank-factor.

My suspicion is that they've changed the way they asked the question so that students looking for part-time work for the summer who have reported back to school are being dropped from the rolls -- and since temporary workers wouldn't have been ON the rolls in the first place ... Viola! 900,000 people who previously weren't really looking for work (and weren't counted) are now magically counted as not looking for work anymore.

All anybody needs to know about this is that we've had net jobs numbers in the mid to low 100,000's for several months, and there has been no real change to unemployment during those months. Suddenly, 114,000 new jobs takes the rate down by 0.3-0.4%! AND ... even more suspiciously, the UNDEREMPLOYMENT number has not moved -- it's still 14.7%. How is it even possible that we found almost 900,000 new jobs, but NONE of the people who want more work than they currently have were able to get more hours or more permanent positions?

It's a story that only someone credulous (read: gullible) enough to believe the original excuse for the Benghazi murders could possibly believe.