The current unemployment rate isn't real

[SassyIrishLass]

It would be noteworthy if that unemployment rate went above 10%. It would mean that this entire country hasn't seen any kind of economic recovery.

I depends on for whom...
NYC and Nassau County are exploding with High End Residential and Commercial Construction whilst wages are plummeting.

Republican union killing war on the working class has been very successful .

If only they could get rid of the teacher's unions, we'd get the kids back on track

Teachers are the only ones who actually care . School administrators only care about $ .

Some teachers care...others have an agenda

 

[Hossfly]

Bernie said its 10%.

It's closer to 13%

But Pelosi sez welfare and food stamp recipients are vital to the economy because they are helping the community when they go on a spending spree. That has driven the unemployment rate down to 5%. Thank Gog for Free Shit!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bernie said its 10%.

It's closer to 13%

But Pelosi sez welfare and food stamp recipients are vital to the economy because they are helping the community when they go on a spending spree. That has driven the unemployment rate down to 5%. Thank Gog for Free Shit!

Piglosi is bat shit coo coo

 

[MisterBeale]

Bernie said its 10%.

It depends on one's definition of "employment."

Some want full time. Some realize there are no jobs out there for their skill set. There is always food to be picked in the fields. Etc.

The jobs aren't there. People are discouraged, and the underemployment is horrendous. If one looks, Walmart and McDonald's are always hiring.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Bernie said its 10%.

It's closer to 13%

But Pelosi sez welfare and food stamp recipients are vital to the economy because they are helping the community when they go on a spending spree. That has driven the unemployment rate down to 5%. Thank Gog for Free Shit!

Can you imagine if we were all on welfare. We would have zero percent unemployment.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It would be noteworthy if that unemployment rate went above 10%. It would mean that this entire country hasn't seen any kind of economic recovery.

You would like to use the current formula for the rate today.....but some other formula for the rate in 2008?

You are a wishful thinker of the finest variety.

Assume that is true. The years between 2001 and 2008 had lower unemployment than the years 2008 and now. It still wouldn't change the fact that a great deal of this country hadn't felt any kind of economic recovery.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It would be noteworthy if that unemployment rate went above 10%. It would mean that this entire country hasn't seen any kind of economic recovery.

You would like to use the current formula for the rate today.....but some other formula for the rate in 2008?

You are a wishful thinker of the finest variety.

Assume that is true. The years between 2001 and 2008 had lower unemployment than the years 2008 and now. It still wouldn't change the fact that a great deal of this country hadn't felt any kind of economic recovery.

That is not a fact. You've got ODS.

 

[gipper]

We need to import lots of Muslims and Mexicans...That should fix the job market and gets D's elected.

 

[pinqy]

i know the government is saying that unemlployment is at 5% but this number isn't a real gauge on how the country is doing as a whole. Once you remove a few states out of the statistics the average for the entire country changes. I really don't know how the statistics will be affected but it would be interesting to see how the stats will change once you remove a state like Texas from the data. I suspect t it would begin to shoot up quite dramatically.

You suspect wrongly. For November 2015, the seasonally adkusted Labor Force was 157,301,000 and the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed was 7,937,000. 7,937,000/157301,000 = 5.046%, rounded to a flat 5%. Texas had a Labor Force of 13,070,600 and unemployment of 598,400. Subtracting Texas, gives us unemployment of 7,338,600 and labor force of 144,230,400 so the UE rate without Texas would be 7,338,600/144,230,400 = 5.088%, rounded up to 5.1%.

In short, an insignificant change. National data State data

 

[konradv]

i know the government is saying that unemlployment is at 5% but this number isn't a real gauge on how the country is doing as a whole. Once you remove a few states out of the statistics the average for the entire country changes. I really don't know how the statistics will be affected but it would be interesting to see how the stats will change once you remove a state like Texas from the data. I suspect t it would begin to shoot up quite dramatically.

So..., if you FUDGE the numbers, you get totally different numbers. GOT IT.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

i know the government is saying that unemlployment is at 5% but this number isn't a real gauge on how the country is doing as a whole. Once you remove a few states out of the statistics the average for the entire country changes. I really don't know how the statistics will be affected but it would be interesting to see how the stats will change once you remove a state like Texas from the data. I suspect t it would begin to shoot up quite dramatically.

So..., if you FUDGE the numbers, you get totally different numbers. GOT IT.

Like you tried to do with the debate viewership numbers? LOL

 

[Wilbur Right]

Texas is part of the us . I'm not happy about it either .

If we dumped red states from our education stats the numbers would improve too.

Do liberals really think they are smarter than everyone else?

Interesting?

Maybe not smarter than EVERYBODY else. But every liberal I see posting on here is smarter than YOU.

You even set yourself up for that insult.
Why?

 

[GHook93]

Same formula we've used for decades.

Butthurt nutbags are funny.

Not true! The formula that took out people who "stopped" looking for a job (stopped looking for 1 month), the so called discouraged worker who left the workforce because they no longer need food, water, clothes, electricity or have to pay the mortgage, out of the unemployment rate (essentially artificially lowering the unemployment rate) was changed under the Clinton regime. W kept it for no other reason then changing it back who skyrocket the unemployment rate.

Get your facts right fucko!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Texas is part of the us . I'm not happy about it either .

If we dumped red states from our education stats the numbers would improve too.

Do liberals really think they are smarter than everyone else?

Interesting?

Maybe not smarter than EVERYBODY else. But every liberal I see posting on here is smarter than YOU.

You even set yourself up for that insult.
Why?

Tell me how I am wrong? I really think that if this economy was as good as Obama and the government is claiming then taking a few states out wouldn't effect the average at all. This is because every state is experiencing a positive economic boom. However, if the numbers are affected in a dramatic way and become more negative then it might tell us that the entire country may not be experiencing the decline in unemployment that the numbers seems to suggest.

I used big words. That seems to make the left happy. You may have to use a dictionary.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Same formula we've used for decades.

Butthurt nutbags are funny.

Not true! The formula that took out people who "stopped" looking for a job (stopped looking for 1 month), the so called discouraged worker who left the workforce because they no longer need food, water, clothes, electricity or have to pay the mortgage, out of the unemployment rate (essentially artificially lowering the unemployment rate) was changed under the Clinton regime. W kept it for no other reason then changing it back who skyrocket the unemployment rate.

Get your facts right fucko!

Link?

 

[edthecynic]

It would be noteworthy if that unemployment rate went above 10%. It would mean that this entire country hasn't seen any kind of economic recovery.

Why? You are assuming the numbers Bush reported were real. When Bush left the real rate was over 50%, so 10% is quite an improvement.

 

[edthecynic]

The years between 2001 and 2008 had lower unemployment than the years 2008 and now.

But, but, but those were not "REAL" UE rates!

 

[pinqy]

Same formula we've used for decades.

Butthurt nutbags are funny.

Not true! The formula that took out people who "stopped" looking for a job (stopped looking for 1 month), the so called discouraged worker who left the workforce because they no longer need food, water, clothes, electricity or have to pay the mortgage, out of the unemployment rate (essentially artificially lowering the unemployment rate) was changed under the Clinton regime. W kept it for no other reason then changing it back who skyrocket the unemployment rate.

Get your facts right fucko!

June 1982 - Employment and Earnings - FRASER - St. Louis Fed Page 134
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except fortemporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work,and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to anew wage or salary job within 30 days.

And the unemployment rate was calculated as unemployed divided by the labor force.

The current definition since 1994 is

Unemployed persons.All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, exceptfor temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

And the unemployment rate is still defined as unemployed divided by labor force.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

So where are you seeing discouraged included and then removed???

 

[sealybobo]

i know the government is saying that unemlployment is at 5% but this number isn't a real gauge on how the country is doing as a whole. Once you remove a few states out of the statistics the average for the entire country changes. I really don't know how the statistics will be affected but it would be interesting to see how the stats will change once you remove a state like Texas from the data. I suspect t it would begin to shoot up quite dramatically.

Did you learn this from Thom Hartmann when he pointed this out in 2006?

in 2006 he wrote: The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.

At the same time, there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.

- See more at: Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

 

[Skull Pilot]

The UE numbers are always cooked