Romney=Obama

**WickedTribe** · 12-14-11, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

That looks more like a photoshop, or whatever graphics program they use for TV, creation more than a graphing program to me.

You're saying that you think that they hand-draw their charts in photoshop? Yeah, that seems likely.

**CivilWars** · 12-14-11, 10:43 PM

So using photoshop to doctor an image they made in a graphing program is much more likely? I am not saying one way or the other, just saying that first, many of you are quick to jump on anyone that has some hypothetical theory about how things in the world work, and second, most graphing programs aren't that "ornate" which leads me to believe it is more graphics than graphing.

**SpecOpsScott** · 12-14-11, 11:18 PM

The chart my be more accurate than you think. Explain to me how in July 117k jobs were added and unemployment fell by one tenth of a percent, yet in November 120K jobs were added and unemployment drops four tenths of a percent.

How is that possible?

**Alundil** · 12-15-11, 07:12 AM

Scott, it's due to how unemployment and the unemployed are counted. Without delving to far into the details, people that have stopped looking for work are not counted among the unemployed. I think it's silly to not count them but I think it's been done that way for a long time.

So, if 120k people took employment and another 100k stopped looking, to the unemployment numbers that effectively looks like a 220k+ gain. Though it really isn't because those 100k who stopped looking are still out of work.

**SpecOpsScott** · 12-15-11, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Alundil

Scott, it's due to how unemployment and the unemployed are counted. Without delving to far into the details, people that have stopped looking for work are not counted among the unemployed. I think it's silly to not count them but I think it's been done that way for a long time.

So, if 120k people took employment and another 100k stopped looking, to the unemployment numbers that effectively looks like a 220k+ gain. Though it really isn't because those 100k who stopped looking are still out of work.

Thanks Al, i understand about not counting those that are no longer seeking employment. But i would think that formula would apply to Julys number as well. And taking into account that the 120k is seasonally adjusted, a one tenth of one percent drop would be expected, but not .4%. Also, the overall pool of employed people has grown since July, reducing the overall impact that 120K jobs would have on the whole.

If that 8.6% is the result of changing the formula, than that makes sense. Either way a drop in unemployment is a good thing, and i cant think of a better time of year to release news that should bolster consumer confidence.

**WickedTribe** · 12-15-11, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So using photoshop to doctor an image they made in a graphing program is much more likely? I am not saying one way or the other, just saying that first, many of you are quick to jump on anyone that has some hypothetical theory about how things in the world work, and second, most graphing programs aren't that "ornate" which leads me to believe it is more graphics than graphing.

You could easily produce that graph in most presentation or graphing programs. Hell, you could probably do it in Excel. I'm sure that photoshop wasn't necessary, you can intentionally mess up graphs pretty easily, it's just kind of hard to do accidentally.

**WickedTribe** · 12-15-11, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

The chart my be more accurate than you think. Explain to me how in July 117k jobs were added and unemployment fell by one tenth of a percent, yet in November 120K jobs were added and unemployment drops four tenths of a percent.

How is that possible?

I don't know, but that doesn't explain their graph at all.