Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[The T]

The real numbers are teetering around 20% unemployment.

I'd love to see you try and supper that number. Even adding in everyone who says they want a job, regardless of ability to accept one, or not bothering to try to get a job in years doesn't even get close to 20%.

Isn't is grand when your own government uses Jdifferent standards, figure sets to use depending on the mood of the country, and refuse to be honest with those they are supposed to serve?

And your evidence for this is what?

UNDERemployment rate as of Feb 6 2012, is 18.70%. That's when people are forced to look to part-time work, or look to jobs where they are earning significantly less. Check the graph over the past year below, you will find it far above the 8.3% figure the media likes to simply throw around:

US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts


You need to dig a little deeper if you want to discover the overall picture of what this economy REALLY looks like.

It isn't good. Until the Gubmint downsizes, and gets off the back of employers that want to hire but can't because of the uncertainty of this regime?

We continue to be led off a cliff.

 

[pinqy]

The real numbers are teetering around 20% unemployment.

I'd love to see you try and supper that number. Even adding in everyone who says they want a job, regardless of ability to accept one, or not bothering to try to get a job in years doesn't even get close to 20%.

Isn't is grand when your own government uses Jdifferent standards, figure sets to use depending on the mood of the country, and refuse to be honest with those they are supposed to serve?

And your evidence for this is what?

UNDERemployment rate as of Feb 6 2012, is 18.70%. That's when people are forced to look to part-time work, or look to jobs where they are earning significantly less. Check the graph over the past year below, you will find it far above the 8.3% figure the media likes to simply throw around:

US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts


You need to dig a little deeper if you want to discover the overall picture of what this economy REALLY looks like.

The claim was unemployment, not underemployment.

I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.

 

[The T]

I'd love to see you try and supper that number. Even adding in everyone who says they want a job, regardless of ability to accept one, or not bothering to try to get a job in years doesn't even get close to 20%.


And your evidence for this is what?

UNDERemployment rate as of Feb 6 2012, is 18.70%. That's when people are forced to look to part-time work, or look to jobs where they are earning significantly less. Check the graph over the past year below, you will find it far above the 8.3% figure the media likes to simply throw around:

US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts


You need to dig a little deeper if you want to discover the overall picture of what this economy REALLY looks like.

The claim was unemployment, not underemployment.

I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.

Why has the government destroyed jobs? And HOW did they do it?

 

[pinqy]

UNDERemployment rate as of Feb 6 2012, is 18.70%. That's when people are forced to look to part-time work, or look to jobs where they are earning significantly less. Check the graph over the past year below, you will find it far above the 8.3% figure the media likes to simply throw around:

US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts


You need to dig a little deeper if you want to discover the overall picture of what this economy REALLY looks like.

The claim was unemployment, not underemployment.

I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.

Why has the government destroyed jobs? And HOW did they do it?

Interesting change of subject. I don't even know what "destroying jobs" is supposed to mean. It's not a Econ term

 

[The T]

The claim was unemployment, not underemployment.

I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.

Why has the government destroyed jobs? And HOW did they do it?

Interesting change of subject. I don't even know what "destroying jobs" is supposed to mean. It's not a Econ term

No change of subject at all. Obama has destroyed jobs. They aren't counted any longer.

Try again.

 

[pinqy]

Why has the government destroyed jobs? And HOW did they do it?

Interesting change of subject. I don't even know what "destroying jobs" is supposed to mean. It's not a Econ term

No change of subject at all. Obama has destroyed jobs. They aren't counted any longer.

Try again.

Sure it is. You can't support your made up number of 20% unemployment or the false claim that the govt changes the standards based on mood.

So yo ignore those and now you're talking about "destroyed jobs" without, of course, defining the term. You just like to assert things without backing them up, don't you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The "reported" rate was smoke and mirrors, so the people without jobs pretty much is the same when the number goes back up percentage again....it's a numbers game.

The reality is the rate will go up or stay the same high number with Obamination going after companies for health insurance, union wages, and carbon taxes....so we are just spinning our wheels.

It will be funny watching the media and libs try to tap dance around the REAL numbers popping up again, but I'm sure they'll be threatening people at the Dept of Labor to cook the books.

I don't find it funny Bezerk, it is a serious problem which has not and is not being addressed properly.

The real numbers are teetering around 20% unemployment.

Isn't is grand when your own government uses different standards, figure sets to use depending on the mood of the country, and refuse to be honest with those they are supposed to serve?

If the truth be known the numbers are way more higher than that. Think about it, why would obama's propaganda machine produce the actual true numbers during an election year?

 

[Big Fitz]

This thread....

has no more quality.

 

[saveliberty]

<sigh>

pingy's right, its closer to 15%.

I do stand by the 8.3% rate being the equivalent of the 8.9% number from the end of 2011. Between the new Census correction and the normal margin for error, no one can really dispute it.

 

[Chris]

It's fun to watch the Republican spin machine in progress.

Lies, lies, and more lies....

 

[Chris]

Getting back to reality....

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes


US trade deficit reaches six-month high

 

[Chris]

Yes


US trade deficit reaches six-month high

That's all you got?

No wonder you guys are going to lose.

 

[Neotrotsky]

No of course not

Speaking of

how sad that Papa Obama's lowest and best unemployment numbers are still from his first day he
took over from Bush

 

[Big Fitz]

It's fun to watch the Republican spin machine in progress.

Lies, lies, and more lies....

Getting back to reality....

Speaking of spin, lies and getting back to 'reality'. Lather rinse repeat yet again PissyChrissy. Pucker up for gawd.

 

[pinqy]

<sigh>

pingy's right, its closer to 15%.

I do stand by the 8.3% rate being the equivalent of the 8.9% number from the end of 2011. Between the new Census correction and the normal margin for error, no one can really dispute it.

The census adjustment ended up having no effect on the rate. And the margin if error is +- 0.2 percentage points. So clearly there was a statistically significant downward change.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No of course not Speaking of how sad that Papa Obama's lowest unemployment numbers are still from his first day he took over from Bush

Demonstrating without any sensible rebuttal just how bad the pub-dem mismanagement was in the many years before the first day of Obama's presidency.

 

[Neotrotsky]

oh yes the Great Diffuse, all part of the "plan" to get the GOP back in the White House




Speaking of mismanagement......

Of course the numbers increasing for the majority of Papa Obama's
administration even with the Pork Bill which was suppose to keep from going past 8

was not mismanagement on Obama's part


Again,
it does not speak well for Papa Obama that his best numbers
were from the last days of Bush

 

[JakeStarkey]

Po' po' far right extremists, like Neo.

The GOP is going to get the office back without being beholden to the likes of folks like you who fake concern for the Republic but would rather it fail than not get power again.

Yell all you want, but you guys no longer are in play.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I hear you


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pAwrbSlOH0]Mitt Romney In Interview "Obama has failed America" - YouTube[/ame]




No doubt Jake you are having a positive political effect
.
.
.
.
.

too bad it just helps the Democrats more


Funny how that works