Trump's Magical Unemployment Rate

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%

Fail. Your link just says that we aren't counting the numbers which means we are counting the numbers under Trump either. We are counting the numbers the same way we've always counted them and your link says nothing about it being changed

/----/ There are plenty more articles out there if you're interested in the facts. See how it was counted in the 1960s Unemployment Rate | President : Lyndon Baines Johnson

You've failed again. That link doesn't say anything about changing how unemployment is calculated. We count the numbers the same way we've always counted them.

/---/ actually Obozo stopped calculating the numbers for those whose UE benefits ran out. That's how he kept the rate down. Now prove he didn't

Prove he did.

/----/ Here's some more inconvenient truth for ya Muffintop from Gallup:
There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

 

[nat4900]

According to your butt buddy antontoo, Obozo used corporate welfare and free money to improve the economy. How is Trump doing it with reduced regulations and consumer confidence?

You do like to pull lots of shit out of your sorry ass,don't you?

 

[Cellblock2429]

and what exactly did Obozo do to cause that increase in the Dow?

Exactly the same that the orange clown is "doing" now......and taking credit for.....LOL

/----/ According to your butt buddy antontoo, Obozo used corporate welfare and free money to improve the economy. How is Trump doing it with reduced regulations and consumer confidence?

Reduced regulations do little for the working person, sure do help the rich, am not seeing much consumer confidence, prices for every thing keep going up, wages stagnant for most working people.

/---/ Well economic experts say differently, Toadstool:
North Carolina State University – estimates that federal regulations have reduced economic growth by about 2 percent per year between 1949 and 2005. They find that if federal regulations were still at levels seen in the year 1949, current GDP would be $38.8 trillion higher. While that number seems extraordinarily high, a number of other studies have similarly concluded that regulatory accumulation slows down economic growth.

Part of the reason is that regulations act as a hidden tax on individuals. If the Department of Transportation sets a higher fuel efficiency mandate for cars, then cars become more expensive, just as if the government imposed a new tax on vehicle purchases.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...ions-cost-the-us-economy-trillions-of-dollars

 

[Cellblock2429]

According to your butt buddy antontoo, Obozo used corporate welfare and free money to improve the economy. How is Trump doing it with reduced regulations and consumer confidence?

You do like to pull lots of shit out of your sorry ass,don't you?

/----/ Well go argue with antontoo, she said it.

 

[Seawytch]

Fail. Your link just says that we aren't counting the numbers which means we are counting the numbers under Trump either. We are counting the numbers the same way we've always counted them and your link says nothing about it being changed

/----/ There are plenty more articles out there if you're interested in the facts. See how it was counted in the 1960s Unemployment Rate | President : Lyndon Baines Johnson

You've failed again. That link doesn't say anything about changing how unemployment is calculated. We count the numbers the same way we've always counted them.

/---/ actually Obozo stopped calculating the numbers for those whose UE benefits ran out. That's how he kept the rate down. Now prove he didn't

Prove he did.

/----/ Here's some more inconvenient truth for ya Muffintop from Gallup:
There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

But it's the same "lie" regardless of who the President is. We've not changed the way unemployment is calculated.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ There are plenty more articles out there if you're interested in the facts. See how it was counted in the 1960s Unemployment Rate | President : Lyndon Baines Johnson

You've failed again. That link doesn't say anything about changing how unemployment is calculated. We count the numbers the same way we've always counted them.

/---/ actually Obozo stopped calculating the numbers for those whose UE benefits ran out. That's how he kept the rate down. Now prove he didn't

Prove he did.

/----/ Here's some more inconvenient truth for ya Muffintop from Gallup:
There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

But it's the same "lie" regardless of who the President is. We've not changed the way unemployment is calculated.

/----/ Before Obozo the UE numbers were more accurate. I agree it must be changed.
If We Measure Unemployment the Way We Did in the 1930s, Today's Unemployment Would Be Worse Than Any Single Year During the Great Depression.
Over the years, how we define “unemployment” has been massaged and restricted in such a way that the term does not mean what most people think that it means—that is, people who would like to work who are out of work.


For instance, the long term unemployed are not counted in today’s unemployment statistics. Nor are the underemployed or those who have chosen to go on disability.

*There is debate as to whether those who fall off unemployment rolls (due to their benefits running out) are counted as unemployed or not. Regardless of this point, however, the statistic we are told represents the current state of joblessness in this country (the “unemployment rate), simply does not tell the whole story. Some would say it doesn’t even attempt to tell the correct story (and there is a distinction.)

 

[Issa]

Trump is just plain stupid. What a moron.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trump is just plain stupid. What a moron.

/----/ Imagine, all it took to defeat the smartest woman in the world was a guy who is just plain stupid. Doesn't say much for your side, does it? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Issa]

You just like him then. I didn't vote at all. But he was the worst for sure.

Trump is just plain stupid. What a moron.

/----/ Imagine, all it took to defeat the smartest woman in the world was a guy who is just plain stupid. Doesn't say much for your side, does it? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
View attachment 143277

 

[AntonToo]

It's been seven freaking months and lefties are still whining about the election while the DOW is consistently in record territory. Lefties used to dance in the streets when the DOW advanced five or ten points during the stagnant Obama years.

You do (or should) know that you're just a useless fuckhead, don't you?.......140% increase under Obama.

/---/ and what exactly did Obozo do to cause that increase in the Dow?

Bails, stimulus, quantitative easing, low interest rates - ANY OF THAT RING A BELL?

Trump? Mostly ran his mouth.

/----/ so corporate welfare and free money is the secret to a rising Dow. So why is the Fed raising rates? Why do libs demand an end to corporate welfare?

STABILITY is the secret to rising DOW.

Fed is raising rates to keep inflation in check and there is a huge mental component to it too - if the rates keep being near zero Fed will have no levers to pull in case of economic slow down.

 

[pinqy]

And yet you provide no evidence to support your claim. Link to the changes.

/----/ Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%

Fail. Your link just says that we aren't counting the numbers which means we are counting the numbers under Trump either. We are counting the numbers the same way we've always counted them and your link says nothing about it being changed

/----/ There are plenty more articles out there if you're interested in the facts. See how it was counted in the 1960s Unemployment Rate | President : Lyndon Baines Johnson

You've failed again. That link doesn't say anything about changing how unemployment is calculated. We count the numbers the same way we've always counted them.

/---/ actually Obozo stopped calculating the numbers for those whose UE benefits ran out. That's how he kept the rate down. Now prove he didn't

Easy.

And then of course here's the Current Population Survey questionnaire Questionnaires
No questions about benefits.

I already posted the definitions of unemployed, which ignore UI benefits.

Note that the definitions also don't support your claim that long term unemployed are dropped. It doesn't make any difference how long someone has been unemployed, just whether or not they were looking and available that month.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%

Fail. Your link just says that we aren't counting the numbers which means we are counting the numbers under Trump either. We are counting the numbers the same way we've always counted them and your link says nothing about it being changed

/----/ There are plenty more articles out there if you're interested in the facts. See how it was counted in the 1960s Unemployment Rate | President : Lyndon Baines Johnson

You've failed again. That link doesn't say anything about changing how unemployment is calculated. We count the numbers the same way we've always counted them.

/---/ actually Obozo stopped calculating the numbers for those whose UE benefits ran out. That's how he kept the rate down. Now prove he didn't

Easy.

And then of course here's the Current Population Survey questionnaire Questionnaires
No questions about benefits.

I already posted the definitions of unemployed, which ignore UI benefits.

Note that the definitions also don't support your claim that long term unemployed are dropped. It doesn't make any difference how long someone has been unemployed, just whether or not they were looking and available that month.

/----/ As stated earlier: Before Obozo the UE numbers were more accurate. I agree it must be changed.
If We Measure Unemployment the Way We Did in the 1930s, Today's Unemployment Would Be Worse Than Any Single Year During the Great Depression.
Over the years, how we define “unemployment” has been massaged and restricted in such a way that the term does not mean what most people think that it means—that is, people who would like to work who are out of work.


For instance, the long term unemployed are not counted in today’s unemployment statistics. Nor are the underemployed or those who have chosen to go on disability.

*There is debate as to whether those who fall off unemployment rolls (due to their benefits running out) are counted as unemployed or not. Regardless of this point, however, the statistic we are told represents the current state of joblessness in this country (the “unemployment rate), simply does not tell the whole story. Some would say it doesn’t even attempt to tell the correct story (and there is a distinction.)

And this tidbit: Well economic experts say differently, Toadstool:
North Carolina State University – estimates that federal regulations have reduced economic growth by about 2 percent per year between 1949 and 2005. They find that if federal regulations were still at levels seen in the year 1949, current GDP would be $38.8 trillion higher. While that number seems extraordinarily high, a number of other studies have similarly concluded that regulatory accumulation slows down economic growth.

Part of the reason is that regulations act as a hidden tax on individuals. If the Department of Transportation sets a higher fuel efficiency mandate for cars, then cars become more expensive, just as if the government imposed a new tax on vehicle purchases.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...ions-cost-the-us-economy-trillions-of-dollars

 

[pinqy]

Easy.

And then of course here's the Current Population Survey questionnaire Questionnaires
No questions about benefits.

I already posted the definitions of unemployed, which ignore UI benefits.

Note that the definitions also don't support your claim that long term unemployed are dropped. It doesn't make any difference how long someone has been unemployed, just whether or not they were looking and available that month.

/----/ As stated earlier: Before Obozo the UE numbers were more accurate. I agree it must be changed.

But you have not shown any changes to unemployment calculation under Obama.

If We Measure Unemployment the Way We Did in the 1930s, Today's Unemployment Would Be Worse Than Any Single Year During the Great Depression.
Over the years, how we define “unemployment” has been massaged and restricted in such a way that the term does not mean what most people think that it means—that is, people who would like to work who are out of work.

Let's start with your link. How did we actually measure unemployment in the 1930's? Let's read what Harry Hopkins, Administrator of the Works Progress Administration had to say in 1937: "At the present time all we have are estimates of unemployment in addition to our relief figures, which show how many unemployed are receiving public assistance. But we know that many, certainly millions, of other workers have no jobs and receive no public aid. How large this group is we don't know. We should find out.

I am convinced that we ought to find out by taking an unemployment census. A census will give us a pretty exact picture of our present unemployment problem—a much better picture than we have now. I realize there are a lot of difficulties in taking a census. It is no easy matter to de-fine unemployment for purposes of enumeration. The part-time workers, the self-employed, and others create census problems."
There were no real measures in the 1930's. A monthly survey was started in the early 1940's. I'm not going to repeat the definitions I've already pasted in my earlier post, but your claims of massaged and restricted are clearly false. Out of work and want to work, regardless of ability to work or job search, has never ever been a definition of unemployed.

For instance, the long term unemployed are not counted in today’s unemployment statistics. Nor are the underemployed or those who have chosen to go on disability.

There is no time limit. In fact, one of the changes under Obama was that before 2011, the longest duration unemployed accepted was 2 years (anything above 2 years was recorded as 2 years). In 2011 that was upped to 5. Now that didn't change the unemployment rate or the median duration, but it did change the mean duration.
Changes to data collected on unemployment duration

*There is debate as to whether those who fall off unemployment rolls (due to their benefits running out) are counted as unemployed or not.

There is no debate. The Current Population Survey does not ask about unemployment insurance benefits, the graph I posted clearly shows far more people classified as unemployed than receiving benefits. Benefits have never been a part of the official unemployment calculations.

Stop getting your information second and third hand. The actual big lie from Jim Clifton was his claim that nobody is told about the rate is calculated. All the technical documentation is publically available. Technical Documentation (CPS)