Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployent Rate - Obama's Slight of Hand

[NYcarbineer]

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

They assume that volunteering to leave is because of one reason, but in fact, every case is different. Some are reaching retirement age. Some are applying for Social Security Disability. Some are unable to find work. Still, they're not working, and that's what matters.

U-4 is the official rate plus discouraged workers.

It's falling parallel to U-3:

U-4 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

 

[kaz]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Because they are employed. But how are you defining underemployed and how are you measuring them?

How many times do you have to be told that your question in this post is at the heart of the problem??

You can say it all you want. Doesn't make it true. Nor does it explain what problem you're referring to or why it's a problem.

Are you seriously asking why the labor force participation rate going down is a problem or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

They assume that volunteering to leave is because of one reason, but in fact, every case is different. Some are reaching retirement age. Some are applying for Social Security Disability. Some are unable to find work. Still, they're not working, and that's what matters.

U-4 is the official rate plus discouraged workers.

It's falling parallel to U-3:

U-4 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

Neither takes into account those that choose to collect entitlements rather than work. This is where the biggest increase comes from under Obama. The Whitehouse actually advertised for people to file for disability. First time I've ever seen that.

 

[kaz]

Neither takes into account those that choose to collect entitlements rather than work. This is where the biggest increase comes from under Obama. The Whitehouse actually advertised for people to file for disability. First time I've ever seen that.

They also advertised for people to apply for food stamps claiming you could have a house, car and job and still possibly qualify.

 

[pinqy]

Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest.

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

The facts li

Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest.

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

The facts li

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

 

[pinqy]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

 

[pinqy]

Gee, what have Republicans done to provide jobs? Did they pass the American Jobs Act?

Ahhhh, you're going to make a great tool for me on this thread.



So Obama's policies have nothing to do with the mess, huh?

Name the policies and we'll debate that.

Have already done that in many posts over many threads and you know it.

That's not what this thread is about. Go read my other threads and the long list of others' threads if you want to know policies.

Ok, let's talk about this thread. Your claim is that "Obama has used slight of hand....he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How has he done that? Are you saying that, under another President, the same survey results would have shown more unemployed but Obama has done something contrary to previous practice?

The survey is conducted. The answers are aggregated. What exactly do you think Obama has to do with that process?

He's come from the same Ivy League schools that have promulgated that bullshit!!!! He's too stupid, as are most liberal economists....to question the whole methodology![/QUOTE]
That's a non answer. What specifically are you claiming Obama has done that would constitute "sleight of hand," and what specifically are you claiming he has done to make the count of unemployed smaller?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

They assume that volunteering to leave is because of one reason, but in fact, every case is different. Some are reaching retirement age. Some are applying for Social Security Disability. Some are unable to find work. Still, they're not working, and that's what matters.

U-4 is the official rate plus discouraged workers.

It's falling parallel to U-3:

U-4 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

Neither takes into account those that choose to collect entitlements rather than work. This is where the biggest increase comes from under Obama. The Whitehouse actually advertised for people to file for disability. First time I've ever seen that.

You're blaming the wrong president, if you need to blame a president:

"However, contrary to various rumblings on the right, President Obama is not responsible for relaxing the eligibility criteria for Social Security disability payments. In fact, the sea change that has brought about what NPR calls the “disability-industrial complex” was signed into law by…Ronald Reagan."


How Americans Game the 200 Billion-a-Year Disability-Industrial Complex - Forbes

 

[pinqy]

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

The facts li

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

 

[EconChick]

Ahhhh, you're going to make a great tool for me on this thread.



So Obama's policies have nothing to do with the mess, huh?

Name the policies and we'll debate that.

Have already done that in many posts over many threads and you know it.

That's not what this thread is about. Go read my other threads and the long list of others' threads if you want to know policies.

Ok, let's talk about this thread. Your claim is that "Obama has used slight of hand....he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How has he done that? Are you saying that, under another President, the same survey results would have shown more unemployed but Obama has done something contrary to previous practice?

The survey is conducted. The answers are aggregated. What exactly do you think Obama has to do with that process?

He's come from the same Ivy League schools that have promulgated that bullshit!!!! He's too stupid, as are most liberal economists....to question the whole methodology!

That's a non answer. What specifically are you claiming Obama has done that would constitute "sleight of hand," and what specifically are you claiming he has done to make the count of unemployed smaller?[/QUOTE]

I've got to run but are you seriously asking me how Obama has mislead the public on the state of the economy and jobs???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The truth is hidden behind the U-3 numbers. The U-3 number is misleading!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He goes out and trumpets the misleading stat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good Lord.

 

[mudwhistle]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

Many choose not to work for less money than they made before. Incomes have been stagnant since Obama took office.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name the policies and we'll debate that.

Have already done that in many posts over many threads and you know it.

That's not what this thread is about. Go read my other threads and the long list of others' threads if you want to know policies.

Ok, let's talk about this thread. Your claim is that "Obama has used slight of hand....he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How has he done that? Are you saying that, under another President, the same survey results would have shown more unemployed but Obama has done something contrary to previous practice?

The survey is conducted. The answers are aggregated. What exactly do you think Obama has to do with that process?

He's come from the same Ivy League schools that have promulgated that bullshit!!!! He's too stupid, as are most liberal economists....to question the whole methodology!

That's a non answer. What specifically are you claiming Obama has done that would constitute "sleight of hand," and what specifically are you claiming he has done to make the count of unemployed smaller?

I've got to run but are you seriously asking me how Obama has mislead the public on the state of the economy and jobs???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The truth is hidden behind the U-3 numbers. The U-3 number is misleading!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He goes out and trumpets the misleading stat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good Lord.[/QUOTE]

What stat did Bush use?

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

Many choose not to work for less money than they made before. Incomes have been stagnant since Obama took office.

When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

The facts li

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

The rightwing propaganda machine started this scheme as soon as Obama became president. As soon as Obama became president they've been trying to convince people that we have to use a different UE number, which of course would be a higher one than U-3.

It's the same old rightwing bullshit. They'll shut up about it the moment a Republican is elected, if God forbid that ever happens again.

 

[kaz]

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

You know nothing about polling. People do not listen to questions and give technical answers to them. That isn't the way it works. They aren't telling a "lie" they just aren't looking for a job, so they say no, they don't want one. Others say yes, they do. When asked the same question, some say yes, some say no. Polling is an art, not a science. I'm a six sigma black belt, I'm an expert in this. It's the challenge, phrasing questions to get the right answer, it's very difficult because people interpret the same question so many different ways.

 

[Kosh]

Have already done that in many posts over many threads and you know it.

That's not what this thread is about. Go read my other threads and the long list of others' threads if you want to know policies.

Ok, let's talk about this thread. Your claim is that "Obama has used slight of hand....he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

How has he done that? Are you saying that, under another President, the same survey results would have shown more unemployed but Obama has done something contrary to previous practice?

The survey is conducted. The answers are aggregated. What exactly do you think Obama has to do with that process?

He's come from the same Ivy League schools that have promulgated that bullshit!!!! He's too stupid, as are most liberal economists....to question the whole methodology!

That's a non answer. What specifically are you claiming Obama has done that would constitute "sleight of hand," and what specifically are you claiming he has done to make the count of unemployed smaller?

I've got to run but are you seriously asking me how Obama has mislead the public on the state of the economy and jobs???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The truth is hidden behind the U-3 numbers. The U-3 number is misleading!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He goes out and trumpets the misleading stat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good Lord.

What stat did Bush use?[/QUOTE]

Boooooooooooossssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

And a lot of discouraged workers answer no to that question.

Then they're not discouraged...by definition. Discouraged means they want a job.
But why are you saying that someone who actually does want a job, and could accept one if offered, lie to the Census and say they don't really want a job?

Many choose not to work for less money than they made before. Incomes have been stagnant since Obama took office.

When Obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

I guess you have some stupid argument that that condition hasn't improved either.

No, that has changed.

Now explain which policies Obama signed that changed that?

From what I see he's done nothing but hold back the improvements and caused some factors to worsen, essentially giving us a slower recovery. Not of his own choice. What he had in mind was much worse.

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax increases combined with a higher cost of living has caused many to take government assistance rather than run a business or look for work. It's okay to be a layabout, non-producer.

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

The facts li

The old way of counting cheats. Now that a greater percentage of people aren't working than since the Depression, not counting them is highly selective math intended to paint a rosey picture when there is none.

Exactly, and I don't know how many other ways we can explain it to these libs. They're not interested in facts.

So you agree with Mudwhistle that the method of counting has changed? When did that occur? And you also agree that the percentage of people not working is higher than anytime since the Depression? Clearly not true.

You're lying.

I never said the method of counting changed, so basically you're full of bovine excrement.

I misread. I read "Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest." as meaning you thought there was an old way of counting and Obama changed it to "skate by." I see now that you're actually calling for a new way of counting.

The rightwing propaganda machine started this scheme as soon as Obama became president. As soon as Obama became president they've been trying to convince people that we have to use a different UE number, which of course would be a higher one than U-3.

It's the same old rightwing bullshit. They'll shut up about it the moment a Republican is elected, if God forbid that ever happens again.

So what makes sense now shouldn't even be considered?

Obama is very clever, or he has friends that are.

They see the flaws in the system and they take advantage of them.