Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are wrong, the BLS has defined part-time the same as they always have, less than 35 hours a week, so it would include everyone who might have had their hours cut to under 30 as a result of Obamacare.
And the far left lies and propaganda continues.
A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines full-time work as averaging only 30 hours per week. Which is why so many companies cut their part-time employees down to 25 to 28 hours a week, to comply with the laws that Obamacare changed.
So either you are lying to protect your dear leader or really do not underrated anything beyond your far left programming.
Don't like it then don't vote far left..
Which has nothing to do with BLS statistics...
You don't know what you are talking about. There aren't 100 million unemployed because a large number of that 100 million aren't looking for a job. You don't count someone as unemployed if they don't want to be employed.
Well, that depends upon what the meaning of "want" is. There are plenty of people who "want" a job, but have give up actively looking.
Such people used to be counted in the U6 definition of unemployment as long term discouraged workers. The government conveniently changed the definition in 1994.
Shadowstats calculates U6 according to the old definition, and it's an ugly picture: 23% under and unemployed.
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Alternate Unemployment Charts
I understand that the BLS definitions changed in 1994. The U6 still counts those who would like and are able to work but have not looked recently. You must be thinking that they were previously included in the U3 stats.
Sorry if I'm not buying what shadowstats is saying about the unemployment rate. They have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Well, that depends upon what the meaning of "want" is. There are plenty of people who "want" a job, but have give up actively looking.
Such people used to be counted in the U6 definition of unemployment as long term discouraged workers. The government conveniently changed the definition in 1994.
Shadowstats calculates U6 according to the old definition, and it's an ugly picture: 23% under and unemployed.
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Alternate Unemployment Charts
I understand that the BLS definitions changed in 1994. The U6 still counts those who would like and are able to work but have not looked recently. You must be thinking that they were previously included in the U3 stats.
Sorry if I'm not buying what shadowstats is saying about the unemployment rate. They have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Congratulations on your commitment to staying ignorant.
Your point is irrelevant. If there are 100 million unemployed and they aren't being counted because they have dropped off UI, the numbers are going to look great.
You don't know what you are talking about. There aren't 100 million unemployed because a large number of that 100 million aren't looking for a job. You don't count someone as unemployed if they don't want to be employed.
Well, that depends upon what the meaning of "want" is. There are plenty of people who "want" a job, but have give up actively looking.
Such people used to be counted in the U6 definition of unemployment as long term discouraged workers. The government conveniently changed the definition in 1994.
Shadowstats calculates U6 according to the old definition, and it's an ugly picture: 23% under and unemployed.
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Alternate Unemployment Charts
And the far left lies and propaganda continues.
A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines full-time work as averaging only 30 hours per week. Which is why so many companies cut their part-time employees down to 25 to 28 hours a week, to comply with the laws that Obamacare changed.
So either you are lying to protect your dear leader or really do not underrated anything beyond your far left programming.
Don't like it then don't vote far left..
Which has nothing to do with BLS statistics...
Has everything to deal with it, just like how Clinton and the far left changed how we count unemployment in this US since 1993.
This can change numbers and for one person to work at three jobs to make a living and thus skew the statistics and the numbers.
So the labor shows that more jobs are being taken, but is that one job per person or three jobs per person.
Never mind the 100 million out of work. I see the OP is mining in a thin seam once again.
Yup, there are preschoolers and 80 year olds out of work. Doesn't stop you from padding the statistics
Never mind the 100 million out of work. I see the OP is mining in a thin seam once again.
The Facts
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does show that there are nearly 92 million Americans out of the workforce. But dig into the numbers and it is clear that its silly to say all of these people are on the sidelines and need action from the president and the Congress.
This BLS document shows that the civilian noninstitutional populationessentially, people over the age of 16is nearly 247 million. The civil labor force is 155 million, with a participation rate of 62.8 percent. So that leaves nearly 92 million not in the labor force. What does that mean?
Essentially, it means everyone above the age of 16 who is not working. The BLS breaks it down even further, and it quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of these people are retired or simply are not interested in working, such as stay-at-home parents.
6 million want a job now but cannot find one.
2.4 million did not actively search for work.
1.5 million did not search for work because they are students or left the job market for family reasons, illness or some other factor.
900,000 are discouraged and think no job is available.
Add that up, along with the 10.3 million who are unemployed, and then maybe you could say there are 21 million people who are on the sidelines of the job market. But the other 80 million people have permanently left the work force.
Never mind the 100 million out of work. I see the OP is mining in a thin seam once again.
Only the simple minded buy that crap. Try some facts.
From the Washington Post. (I can hear you squealing now about the messenger but it's a better source than yours, which must have been your ass.).
The Facts
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does show that there are nearly 92 million Americans out of the workforce. But dig into the numbers and it is clear that its silly to say all of these people are on the sidelines and need action from the president and the Congress.
This BLS document shows that the civilian noninstitutional populationessentially, people over the age of 16is nearly 247 million. The civil labor force is 155 million, with a participation rate of 62.8 percent. So that leaves nearly 92 million not in the labor force. What does that mean?
Essentially, it means everyone above the age of 16 who is not working. The BLS breaks it down even further, and it quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of these people are retired or simply are not interested in working, such as stay-at-home parents.
6 million want a job now but cannot find one.
2.4 million did not actively search for work.
1.5 million did not search for work because they are students or left the job market for family reasons, illness or some other factor.
900,000 are discouraged and think no job is available.
Add that up, along with the 10.3 million who are unemployed, and then maybe you could say there are 21 million people who are on the sidelines of the job market. But the other 80 million people have permanently left the work force.
FROM: wp.com
Yep, we just hate lies and misleading stats. Dimwit idea of progress.I love to see the haters..
Great news, RW!
This must mean that we can now raise interest rates above inflation and end QE.....Yippee!!!
If 200,000 jobs are created and 200,000 people file for UE benefits.
How is this such great news?
If 200,000 jobs are created and 200,000 people file for UE benefits.
How is this such great news?
Because the 200,000 created is a NET after deducting those who lost jobs.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the current administration re-define what "part time" is?
You are wrong, the BLS has defined part-time the same as they always have, less than 35 hours a week, so it would include everyone who might have had their hours cut to under 30 as a result of Obamacare.
And the far left lies and propaganda continues.
A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines full-time work as averaging only 30 hours per week. Which is why so many companies cut their part-time employees down to 25 to 28 hours a week, to comply with the laws that Obamacare changed.
So either you are lying to protect your dear leader or really do not underrated anything beyond your far left programming.
Don't like it then don't vote far left..
If 200,000 jobs are created and 200,000 people file for UE benefits.
How is this such great news?
You are wrong, the BLS has defined part-time the same as they always have, less than 35 hours a week, so it would include everyone who might have had their hours cut to under 30 as a result of Obamacare.
And the far left lies and propaganda continues.
A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines full-time work as averaging only 30 hours per week. Which is why so many companies cut their part-time employees down to 25 to 28 hours a week, to comply with the laws that Obamacare changed.
So either you are lying to protect your dear leader or really do not underrated anything beyond your far left programming.
Don't like it then don't vote far left..
It redefined it for health care purposes. It did NOT redefine it for Labor Force Statistics purposes. The BLS definition of full time is 35 or more hours a week and Obamacare definitions have nothing to do with that.
If 200,000 jobs are created and 200,000 people file for UE benefits.
How is this such great news?
Because the 200,000 created is a NET after deducting those who lost jobs.
So are you saying that 400,000+ jobs were created?
Economic good news
Jobless claims drop to 284,000, lowest since 2006
The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits fell last week to its lowest level in eight years.
The Labor Department says weekly applications for unemployment aid dropped 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 284,000. That's the lowest reading since February 2006, nearly two years before the Great Recession began.
The four-week average, a less volatile measure, declined 7,250 to 302,000. Claims for jobless aid have been falling for the past three months.
Applications are a proxy for layoffs. When businesses hold onto staff, increased hiring and stronger economic growth often follows.
Hiring is at its healthiest clip since the late 1990s and the 6.1 percent unemployment rate is at a 5 1/2-year low. Employers added 288,000 jobs in June, the fifth straight month of job gains above 200,000.
Given up, or stopped? There's a difference. If you stop looking for work because you have to look after your sick old mother and can't take a job, is that "giving up?"Your point is irrelevant. If there are 100 million unemployed and they aren't being counted because they have dropped off UI, the numbers are going to look great.
You don't know what you are talking about. There aren't 100 million unemployed because a large number of that 100 million aren't looking for a job. You don't count someone as unemployed if they don't want to be employed.
Well, that depends upon what the meaning of "want" is. There are plenty of people who "want" a job, but have give up actively looking.
Before 1994, there was no equivalent of the current U6. Marginally attached to the labor force wasn't even calculated at the time.Such people used to be counted in the U6 definition of unemployment as long term discouraged workers.
Because those who haven't looked for work in over 6 months are no more likely than those who say they don't want a job to start looking.The government conveniently changed the definition in 1994.
The old U6 was people looking for full time work plus half the people looking for part time work plus half the people working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force minus half the part time labor force.Shadowstats calculates U6 according to the old definition, and it's an ugly picture: 23% under and unemployed.
