December 2, 2011

If you thought the last post was revolting II

I know, I know..

Well, I have been busy. I was tapped as the new squadron commander of the Long Beach USAF Auxiliary squadron and -- essentially --  my duties commence 1 JAN 2012 but the preparation effort commences almost immediately. (Office of the Squadron Commander-elect?)

And it's the usual drill at work: the black curtain of the all-engulfing proxy server forbids noontime posts to The War Planner just when my political juices are flowing at their best. That is, I have awakened, consumed my morning doughnut (no coffee), worked through my pre-noon bug-slaughtering effort, wolfed down my tuna sammich and Coke (no, the beverage) and Hoovered up all of the news on Drudge, Hot Air, Odie's site, and anyplace else where it's fit to print, begun formulating my daily opinions, rebuttals to the Obama regime propaganda machine (A.K.A., the MSM) and -- wham! -- no access to my site.

Work and life is so-o-o-o-o unfair.

So what's revolting about this post besides my pedestrian prose, you ask?

It's the fact that today the unemployment rate dropped from 9.1% to 8.6% and it is NOT due to the hiring out-of-work-people. It's principally because the city of Pittsburgh has left the work force and decided to stay home.


Well, that's 315,000 folks have been out of work so long that they've given up and are no longer considered to be worthy of denominator-hood status thereby making the number into which the people actually working are divided smaller.

You do the math.

For perspective and because I am lazy, Here are some interesting takes on this from Hot Air commenters:
Keep in mind the seasonal hiring that goes on at this time. I seen a lot of UPS ads for seasonal drivers as well as other job hiring places.
William Amos on December 2, 2011 at 10:08 AM
It's called seasonal employment. What will happen in January? Why, the rate should go up? Also there's this:
James Pethokoukis ran the numbers, and declared that if the participation rate were the same as last month, the unemployment rate would be 8.9%.
For a layman like me, that’s the maddening thing about “government statistics”. To me, your either employed or not. Doesn’t matter if you’ve “dropped out” of the workforce or not. Why don’t they just report the unemployed number and then give all of the “what if’s”.
BacaDog on December 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM
And this little gem:
From ABC News:
The unemployment rate fell in November to 8.6 percent as the economy added 120,000 new non-farm jobs. The economy must add about 400,000 jobs a month if the unemployment rate is to be reduced.
Care to explain the 280,000+ job discrepancy ABC? No? Well alright then.
forest on December 2, 2011 at 10:18 AM
But the real revolting figure is depicted by that chart way up above. Look at it closely and it says that the participation in the work force has trended down to WHERE IT IS FINALLY REACHED THE SAME NUMBER IT WAS IN 1984. (That, by the way boys and girls, was when me and Mrs War Planner spliced ourselves together.)

..and all this in a country whose population has grown to over 300 millions.

Boy, those folks in the BLS and the Pantload regime are going to have some fun playing with numbers on this one. It will make the Orwellian increase of the chocolate ration from 30 grams per week to 25 grams seem like Milo Minderbinder's buying eggs at 5 cents and selling them at 3 cents to make a profit seem like child's play.

Anyone for some Egyptian cotton dipped in chocolate? Are we still at war with Eastasia?



  1. They have to sugarcoat the numbers because, in reality, they are SO horrendous. From 9.1 to 8.6 my azz....All I have to do is walk down my street and SEE it ain't so!

  2. OH, and per your comment re: ABC...I've been watching and listening to all of the stations very closely lately, and at least ABC is trying to get the word out. They don't come right out and say things...they expect you to be able to go from A -> B, etc., but at least they're trying (within the confines of non-free speech, that is).