<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jobless claims suddenly look great, once you discount California</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2012/10/11/jobless-claims-suddenly-look-great-once-you-discount-california/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2012/10/11/jobless-claims-suddenly-look-great-once-you-discount-california/</link>
	<description>The John Locke Foundation’s Statewide Issues Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 15:01:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pops</title>
		<link>http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2012/10/11/jobless-claims-suddenly-look-great-once-you-discount-california/#comment-382</link>
		<dc:creator>Pops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:44:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/?p=25081#comment-382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It amazes me how much emphasis is placed on jobs reports—and jobs numbers in general. From presidential campaigns to city council races, politicians always talk about jobs—whether it’s touting how many they are going to create, how many their opponent didn’t create, or how often their opponent didn’t say the word during a debate. It drives me batty.

This time around, for example, everyone is focused on the unemployment number as it relates to the presidential race.

If it’s a good number, then the GOP (for the most part) say it’s a faulty method of measuring. If the number is high, then it’s proof the president is not creating jobs.

The fact of the matter is the number is a terrible representation of what’s really happening in this country. How?

1)Those with bachelor’s degrees have a 4.5 unemployment rate—a perfectly respectable number. (Those snobbish college grads!!) Those with a high school diploma have a rate slightly higher, and those without a high school diploma have a rate of 11 percent. Is this the result of a president not creating jobs, or a result of a bad economy shedding manufacturing jobs that will never, ever come back?

2)Baby Boomers who lose their jobs aren’t looking for another job because they are about to retire in a few more years. That’s hardly a sign that the president is not creating jobs—more like a sign of time times. The 2008 crisis just accelerated what was already going to happen.

3)The true measure (and what ultimately predicts a prez victory) is not the nearly meaningless and overly complex unemployment number. Rather, it’s the stock market. That’s the number we need to be focused on. And oh, by the way: It’s solid. Very solid.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It amazes me how much emphasis is placed on jobs reports—and jobs numbers in general. From presidential campaigns to city council races, politicians always talk about jobs—whether it’s touting how many they are going to create, how many their opponent didn’t create, or how often their opponent didn’t say the word during a debate. It drives me batty.</p>
<p>This time around, for example, everyone is focused on the unemployment number as it relates to the presidential race.</p>
<p>If it’s a good number, then the GOP (for the most part) say it’s a faulty method of measuring. If the number is high, then it’s proof the president is not creating jobs.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is the number is a terrible representation of what’s really happening in this country. How?</p>
<p>1)Those with bachelor’s degrees have a 4.5 unemployment rate—a perfectly respectable number. (Those snobbish college grads!!) Those with a high school diploma have a rate slightly higher, and those without a high school diploma have a rate of 11 percent. Is this the result of a president not creating jobs, or a result of a bad economy shedding manufacturing jobs that will never, ever come back?</p>
<p>2)Baby Boomers who lose their jobs aren’t looking for another job because they are about to retire in a few more years. That’s hardly a sign that the president is not creating jobs—more like a sign of time times. The 2008 crisis just accelerated what was already going to happen.</p>
<p>3)The true measure (and what ultimately predicts a prez victory) is not the nearly meaningless and overly complex unemployment number. Rather, it’s the stock market. That’s the number we need to be focused on. And oh, by the way: It’s solid. Very solid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
