4.7%

[kaz]

You're probably right. It would be hard for Trump to match the hopelessness at finding a job that Obama managed to create to get enough people to give up and quit looking for a job that the libtard Obama accomplished

And Tramp claims that number is 96 million, and I absolutely guarantee that 96 million will go up every year of the Tramp Regime.

JAN. 11, 2017
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number. So, that’s the way it is. OK.

Wow, you guarantee it. That would mean something to me if say I fell off a two story building hitting my head on the concrete and became a mental deficient ... you know ... like you are

Care to bet your continued presence on this board?

No, I don't make stupid bets and I don't make bets with the stupid. My passing on your bet is a twofer

 

[edthecynic]

It is hard to get the unemployment rate lower than around 4.1%

Trump can not go down much farther. Any recessionary activity will shoot that rate up

Clinton had one month at 3.8% and 4 consecutive months at 3.9% and an average of 4.0% for a whole year, 2000.

The senate and house were under Republican control.

The Senate and House were under Republican control until 2007 and once Bush replaced Clinton they never got the same numbers, so it obviously was Clinton and not the GOP congress.

You never get anything right.

Congress Profiles | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
105th Congress (1997–1999)
Congressional Profile
Total Membership:

• 435 Representatives
• 4 Delegates
• 1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions:*

• 207 Democrats
• 226 Republicans
• 2 Independent

How does that refute the fact that the GOP held control of both houses of congress for the most part until 2007????

 

[edthecynic]

You're probably right. It would be hard for Trump to match the hopelessness at finding a job that Obama managed to create to get enough people to give up and quit looking for a job that the libtard Obama accomplished

And Tramp claims that number is 96 million, and I absolutely guarantee that 96 million will go up every year of the Tramp Regime.

JAN. 11, 2017
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number. So, that’s the way it is. OK.

Wow, you guarantee it. That would mean something to me if say I fell off a two story building hitting my head on the concrete and became a mental deficient ... you know ... like you are

Care to bet your continued presence on this board?

No, I don't make stupid bets and I don't make bets with the stupid. My passing on your bet is a twofer

You say it is a stupid bet because you know you will lose.
You won't bet because you know without a doubt that I am right.
You fool no one but yourself, CHICKEN!

 

[CowboyTed]

That number will increase at the beginning after all the useless government employees get fired whom Obama hired to skew his numbers. Then, it will come back down when Trump brings jobs back.

But Obama reduced the amount of Federal Employees....

And again tell which department you wish to target to get 320,000 out of the Federal government.

That's a load of horsehit there buddy.


President Obama will set a record for the size of the basic federal workforce, leaving office with more than 1.4 million people collecting government salaries in the civilian agencies in 2017, according to the budget he delivered to Congress on Tuesday.


Federal workers hit record number, but growth slows under Obama

The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers. The fact is that there is no month during President Obama’s term when the federal workforce was smaller than it was in the first month of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The president took over in January 2009. Every month after January 2009 has seen more federal workers than were employed in January 2009.

Has government employment really increased under Obama? - AEI

You are quoting a 2012 article... Get with the times...

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

Anyone who believes that 4.7% is the real number than the box of rocks is gaining on them.

Remember, these are the same people who came up with the numbers that 'predicted' Hillary would win in a 'landslide'.


(Hmmm, how long after Trump is sworn in before Libs begin to point out the REAL number?)

Pollsters are not the same people as government statisticians.

 

[Claudette]

It is hard to get the unemployment rate lower than around 4.1%

Trump can not go down much farther. Any recessionary activity will shoot that rate up

Clinton had one month at 3.8% and 4 consecutive months at 3.9% and an average of 4.0% for a whole year, 2000.

The senate and house were under Republican control.

The Senate and House were under Republican control until 2007 and once Bush replaced Clinton they never got the same numbers, so it obviously was Clinton and not the GOP congress.

You never get anything right.

Congress Profiles | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
105th Congress (1997–1999)
Congressional Profile
Total Membership:

• 435 Representatives
• 4 Delegates
• 1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions:*

• 207 Democrats
• 226 Republicans
• 2 Independent

How does that refute the fact that the GOP held control of both houses of congress for the most part until 2007????

WikiLeaks thinks you're full of shit there buddy.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.

 

[The Original Tree]

Hopefully the new Administration will get rid of The Cooked Books approach used to lie to The Public about how many people are unemployed.
There are 95 Million people out of work who had jobs and are looking for work again and cannot find work, and have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

That represents a 29% unemployment rate beyond the 4.7% promoted by the current administration.

Adding the two figures together to give you a rough percentage shows that we have a 34% Unemployment rate, of which only 4.7% are receiving unemployment benefits.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is hard to get the unemployment rate lower than around 4.1%

Trump can not go down much farther. Any recessionary activity will shoot that rate up

Clinton had one month at 3.8% and 4 consecutive months at 3.9% and an average of 4.0% for a whole year, 2000.

The senate and house were under Republican control.

The Senate and House were under Republican control until 2007 and once Bush replaced Clinton they never got the same numbers, so it obviously was Clinton and not the GOP congress.

You never get anything right.

Congress Profiles | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
105th Congress (1997–1999)
Congressional Profile
Total Membership:

• 435 Representatives
• 4 Delegates
• 1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions:*

• 207 Democrats
• 226 Republicans
• 2 Independent

How does that refute the fact that the GOP held control of both houses of congress for the most part until 2007????

Huh? I challenged your claim it was all Clinton's doing in 2000. WTF are you even babbling about?

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

Anybody think it will be that low on Trump's last day?

Want to bet?

With all the billionaire business criminals and Nazi dingbats he appointed to his cabinet, I'm sure the economy is going to be a shambles by the time he's through.

These corporate leaders all say regulations are "job killers." How come after 8 years of Obama's regulations the unemployment rate is only 4.7%? I don't think it has ever been that low in my lifetime.

The real reason they oppose regulations is because protecting workers, consumers, and the environment takes money out of their greedy hands.

Ironically, the working class white chumps who most strongly supported Trump will be the ones hurting the most in a few years.

Nobody cares what you think.

You responded. Proves that YOU care.

 

[pinqy]

Anyone who believes that 4.7% is the real number than the box of rocks is gaining on them.

Ok, BLS claims that the 4.7% means that there are 7,529,000 "persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week" (Unemployed)

And there are 152,111,000 "persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs." (Employed)

And that 7,529,000 divided by (152,111,000 + 7,529,000) = .047

Which part of that do you say is wrong?

That's what the unemployment rate says it measures. That's the definition used since 1967 (one minor change in 1994 regarding people waiting to start a job) and not much different from the pre-1967 definition. Note that people not trying to work have never ever been part of the definition of unemployed, although there was a small and inconsistent exception before 1967 that applied only to factory or mining towns.

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Here are the numbers and graph that tell the real story:

Here's the rest of the graph.

 

[Iceweasel]

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

Anybody think it will be that low on Trump's last day?

Want to bet?

With all the billionaire business criminals and Nazi dingbats he appointed to his cabinet, I'm sure the economy is going to be a shambles by the time he's through.

These corporate leaders all say regulations are "job killers." How come after 8 years of Obama's regulations the unemployment rate is only 4.7%? I don't think it has ever been that low in my lifetime.

The real reason they oppose regulations is because protecting workers, consumers, and the environment takes money out of their greedy hands.

Ironically, the working class white chumps who most strongly supported Trump will be the ones hurting the most in a few years.

Nobody cares what you think.

You responded. Proves that YOU care.

Nah, we make fun of fucksticks here all the time.

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

Hopefully the new Administration will get rid of The Cooked Books approach used to lie to The Public about how many people are unemployed.
There are 95 Million people out of work who had jobs and are looking for work again and cannot find work, and have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

That represents a 29% unemployment rate beyond the 4.7% promoted by the current administration.

Adding the two figures together to give you a rough percentage shows that we have a 34% Unemployment rate, of which only 4.7% are receiving unemployment benefits.

Those numbers were pulled straight out of your tukus.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Doesn't it make more sense that a bunch of billionaires would want an environment where there is low unemployment? I'm no economics genius, but it seems that the more people working to produce more goods and services makes those billionaires richer.

 

[pinqy]

Hopefully the new Administration will get rid of The Cooked Books approach used to lie to The Public about how many people are unemployed.
There are 95 Million people out of work who had jobs and are looking for work again and cannot find work, and have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

No, there are not. There are 95 million Not in the Labor Force. That means that NONE of them are looking for work. 90 million of them say they don't want a job now. We don't know how many once had jobs (17.7 million are age 16-24 and most of them likely never had a steady job, especially the 14 million who are full time students).

And unemployment benefits are not a consideration at all. The Current Population survey, source of all the labor force statistics, doesn't even ask about unemployment insurance.

 

[edthecynic]

Clinton had one month at 3.8% and 4 consecutive months at 3.9% and an average of 4.0% for a whole year, 2000.

The senate and house were under Republican control.

The Senate and House were under Republican control until 2007 and once Bush replaced Clinton they never got the same numbers, so it obviously was Clinton and not the GOP congress.

You never get anything right.

Congress Profiles | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
105th Congress (1997–1999)
Congressional Profile
Total Membership:

• 435 Representatives
• 4 Delegates
• 1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions:*

• 207 Democrats
• 226 Republicans
• 2 Independent

How does that refute the fact that the GOP held control of both houses of congress for the most part until 2007????

WikiLeaks thinks you're full of shit there buddy.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. No Democratic-held seats had fallen to the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.[2] Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House.[3] The House also received the first Muslim (Keith Ellison)[4][5] and Buddhist (Hank Johnson and Mazie Hirono)[6] members of Congress.

You prove my point, the GOP lost the 2006 elections and control went to the Dems in 2007 for the first time since 1995.

The Right are so stupid they can't even read a calendar, no wonder Tramp loves lying to them.

 

[kaz]

You're probably right. It would be hard for Trump to match the hopelessness at finding a job that Obama managed to create to get enough people to give up and quit looking for a job that the libtard Obama accomplished

And Tramp claims that number is 96 million, and I absolutely guarantee that 96 million will go up every year of the Tramp Regime.

JAN. 11, 2017
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number. So, that’s the way it is. OK.

Wow, you guarantee it. That would mean something to me if say I fell off a two story building hitting my head on the concrete and became a mental deficient ... you know ... like you are

Care to bet your continued presence on this board?

No, I don't make stupid bets and I don't make bets with the stupid. My passing on your bet is a twofer

You say it is a stupid bet because you know you will lose.
You won't bet because you know without a doubt that I am right.
You fool no one but yourself, CHICKEN!

1) I don't make that bet with anyone on any subject. It's a stupid bet. I make bets for things like sigs. Read Bodecea's sig right now

2) I would never make any bet with you on any subject because you're a liar and you would never deliver when you lose

Also you're stupid. My point wasn't that Trump will or won't succeed, it was about how every statement from you is that Republicans are evil and Democrat farts don't stink. You're a deluded sycophant of one party which is virtually identical to the one you think is evil

 

[The Original Tree]

Hopefully the new Administration will get rid of The Cooked Books approach used to lie to The Public about how many people are unemployed.
There are 95 Million people out of work who had jobs and are looking for work again and cannot find work, and have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

No, there are not. There are 95 million Not in the Labor Force. That means that NONE of them are looking for work. 90 million of them say they don't want a job now. We don't know how many once had jobs (17.7 million are age 16-24 and most of them likely never had a steady job, especially the 14 million who are full time students).

And unemployment benefits are not a consideration at all. The Current Population survey, source of all the labor force statistics, doesn't even ask about unemployment insurance.

The Department of Labor considers full time student an occupation. And the labor force is and the Labor Force Participation Rate is made up of all labor that is employed and unemployed. Students and The Retired are not counted.

Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force participation rate is the percentage of working age population that is part of the labor force. It is a measure of what proportion of a country's population is employed or actively looking for employment. Higher the labor force participation rate, more of the country's population is interested in working.

In US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines labor force participation rate as “the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.” Labor force is defined as: “all persons classified as employed or unemployed.” Employed persons are persons aged 16 years or older, who work for an employer or are self-employed, and excludes people who work as volunteers and people engaged in self-service/homemaking. Unemployed persons are those jobless persons who are aged 16 year or older, were available for job in last four weeks, and had made specific efforts to find a job at any time during that period.

The BLS provides a database of labor related data. You can extract numbers by submitting a customized query here.

Formula
Labor Force Participation Rate = Labor Force
Working Age non-institutionalized Population
Since labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed,

Labor Force Participation Rate = Employed + Unemployed
Working Age Non-institutionalized Population
Labor Force Participation Rate | Formula | Examples

 

[edthecynic]

Clinton had one month at 3.8% and 4 consecutive months at 3.9% and an average of 4.0% for a whole year, 2000.

The senate and house were under Republican control.

The Senate and House were under Republican control until 2007 and once Bush replaced Clinton they never got the same numbers, so it obviously was Clinton and not the GOP congress.

You never get anything right.

Congress Profiles | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
105th Congress (1997–1999)
Congressional Profile
Total Membership:

• 435 Representatives
• 4 Delegates
• 1 Resident Commissioner

Party Divisions:*

• 207 Democrats
• 226 Republicans
• 2 Independent

How does that refute the fact that the GOP held control of both houses of congress for the most part until 2007????

Huh? I challenged your claim it was all Clinton's doing in 2000. WTF are you even babbling about?

And I pointed out that the GOP had control AFTER Clinton left and once Bush replaced him with the same GOP control of both the house and Senate the UE rate went up and never went as low as Clintons 3.8% and never averaged 4.0% for a whole year. Congressional control did not change when the UE rate went up, only Clinton was changed for Bush. Congressional control was a constant, only the president changed.
Get it?

 

[Claudette]

The U6 is the actual unemployment and its double that 4.7

In the widely reported unemployment rate (U-3), the BLS only counts those who have looked for a job in the past four weeks as unemployed. They're included in the labor force because their jobless situation is only temporary.Once they haven't looked for a job in the past four weeks are no longer counted as unemployed or in the labor force. The BLS adds them to a group it calls the marginally attached. For more, see Labor Force Participation Rate.

Among them are the discouraged workers, who have given up looking for work altogether. Others have gone back to school, gotten pregnant, or have become disabled. They may or may not eventually return to the labor force, depending on their circumstances. Once they haven't looked for a job in 12 months, they're no longer counted as marginally attached.


(Source: "Definitions," Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

The BLS includes part-time workers in the employment numbers. It asks whether they would prefer a full-time job. Those people are considered underemployed.

The U-6, or real unemployment rate, includes everyone who wants a full-time job but doesn't have one.

Compare the Real Unemployment Rate
To put things in perspective here's the official unemployment rate compared to the real rate since 1995 (the first year the BLS collected data on U-6). The rates given are for January of each year.

You can quickly tell that the official rate is a little more than half the real rate. That remains true no matter how well the economy is doing. Even in 2000, when the official unemployment rate was at the natural unemployment rate of 4.0%, the real unemployment rate was just about double, at 7.1%. In 2010, when the unemployment rate was its highest at 9.8%, the real rate was still nearly double, at 16.7%


Does the Government Lie About Unemployment?

It counts the marginally attached (including discouraged workers) and the part-timers who would prefer a full-time job. As a result, the real or true unemployment rate is much higher.

Real Unemployment Rate Formula Using Current Statistics
In December, the real unemployment rate (U-6) was 9.2 percent. That's double the widely-reported unemployment rate (U-3) of 4.7 percent. Here's how to calculate both:

Step 1. Calculate the official unemployment rate:

U-3 = 7.529 million unemployed workers / 159.640 million in the labor force = 4.7 percent.

Step 2. Add in marginally attached workers: There were 1.684 million people who were marginally attached to the labor force. Add this to both the number of unemployed and the labor force.

U-5 = 9.213 million / 161.324 million = 5.7 percent.

Step 3. Add in part-time workers: There were 5.598 million people who were working part-time because they couldn't get full-time work, although they'd prefer it. Add them to the unemployed, they're already in the labor force.

U-6 = 14.811 million / 161.324 million = 9. 2percent. (Source: "Table A-15," Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

Compare the Real Unemployment Rate
To put things in perspective here's the official unemployment rate compared to the real rate since 1995

Does the Government Lie About Unemployment?