Unemployment Rate Really 10% ... says Sanders!

[FA_Q2]

this HTML class. Value is http://dailycaller.c

Liberals finally can't declare Conervatives & GOP are making up or manipulating the unemployment numbers! Bernie Sanders, one of the 2 DNC nominees/candidates for President, is tired of the Obama administration lies and Obama Spin machine, and he presents Americans with the current FACTS:

94,610,000 Americans are out of work.

10 % Unemployment

Black teen unemployment rate 30%, 6 times higher than Obama's false claim of 5.1%

Illegal job employment rate higher than rate for Americans...

Job creation rate in SEPT lowest since 1977, only 44% when 50% neeed to sustain level of critically needed yet dwindling Middle Class

There are different rates for different things. The unemployment rate is generally those able to claim benefits. We all know this, and it's important. However there's the rate of people out of work who should be working, ie, not rich retired people etc.

If that is what you know then you know incorrectly. The unemployment rates are very clearly defined. VERY clearly.

Are you making a point here...?

Yes. Unemployment rates are clearly defined and you are 100 percent incorrect in your assessment that it has anything whatsoever to do with those that are able to claim benefits.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wages have been outpaced by inflation for at least the past 30 years.

Not even the top one percent have kept up.

care to cite how you reached your conclusion? wages outpaced inflation during the lowest unemployment in thirty years, during a previous democrat administration.

Top one percent income in 1986: $232,581

Those peaks you see on the chart are stock market bubbles. The top one percent own 50 percent of the stock market and bonds. If you follow the trend line, you see their income reverted to the trend in 2009 when the last bubble burst.

Top one percent income in 2009: $343,927.


Here is an inflation calculator: CPI Inflation Calculator

You will find that $232,581 in 1986 dollars is equal to $455,266.70 in 2009 dollars.

So it is as I said, not even the top one percent have kept up with inflation. They are more than $100,000 away from where they should be just to keep up with inflation. Put another way, they are 25 percent poorer than they were 30 years ago.

Sounds like special pleading, to me.

Special pleading?

Those are the facts he presented.

Yes, just using Only those facts is special pleading.

Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, it is not. The facts presented are not trying to be exempt from anything - they simply show your statement to be flatly false. Parroting a fallacy is not an argument - particularly when you seem to be unwilling to explain why that fallacy even applies.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, if you look at the number of unemployed against the actual number of able bodied people of working age in the U.S., it's around 42%. This is the worst economy of my lifetime.

Why?

That number does not pertain to how bad the economy is. I fail to understand this idea that the number of people employed compared to the total number that CAN WORK (not those that want to) is a direct indication of anything whatsoever.

Lower labor force participation has been, in times past, a GOOD thing. That is right - good. I am not saying that is a definite and applies to this particular time frame but you are not applying an argument as to why that number marks this economy as so bad - you are simply tossing it out there and demanding that it does.

In times where people are so poor that the Mother, Father and any children above 16 MUST get a job or they will starve then the labor force participation is going to be through the roof. Is that good? Hell no. In an economy where most jobs pay really well and a single worker can supply a good income for a family of 6 then the labor participation rate is going to be rather poor. That is a GOOD thing in this example.

A FAR better indication in earnings - not labor force participation.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, if you look at the number of unemployed against the actual number of able bodied people of working age in the U.S., it's around 42%. This is the worst economy of my lifetime.

That's not unemployed, that's not working, completely and totally different.

Uhm, whatever... how can we sustain a society where 42% don't work? Tomato tomato....

We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.

IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.

That is even a rather poor indicator as I stated above. It would not take into account vital information around it.

 

[NightFox]

Actually, if you look at the number of unemployed against the actual number of able bodied people of working age in the U.S., it's around 42%. This is the worst economy of my lifetime.

That's not unemployed, that's not working, completely and totally different.

Uhm, whatever... how can we sustain a society where 42% don't work? Tomato tomato....

We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.

IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.

That is even a rather poor indicator as I stated above. It would not take into account vital information around it.

Doesn't seem to me to be a poor indicator for the purposes of historical comparison as long as the input variables used calculation remain constant, it's when the bureaucrats in government monkey with the formula over time to "refine" it that things go awry.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's not unemployed, that's not working, completely and totally different.

Uhm, whatever... how can we sustain a society where 42% don't work? Tomato tomato....

We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.

IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.

That is even a rather poor indicator as I stated above. It would not take into account vital information around it.

Doesn't seem to me to be a poor indicator for the purposes of historical comparison as long as the input variables used calculation remain constant, it's when the bureaucrats in government monkey with the formula over time to "refine" it that things go awry.

Read what I wrote above that statement. Such an 'indicator' does not take into account weather or not some of those people have any need to work at all or the overall productivity of each worker. It is a statistic devoid of the details which make it mean something.

 

[Zander]

The "official" unemployment rate known as U-3, - is an extremely narrow technical measure that leaves out a whole swath of out-of-work people who are willing and able to take a job but who do not fit the narrow BLS definition of "unemployed."

The U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate. That is the where Crackpot Sanders 10% comes from.....

Here's a link.....Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

 

[pinqy]

That's not unemployed, that's not working, completely and totally different.

Uhm, whatever... how can we sustain a society where 42% don't work? Tomato tomato....

We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.

IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.

That is even a rather poor indicator as I stated above. It would not take into account vital information around it.

Doesn't seem to me to be a poor indicator for the purposes of historical comparison as long as the input variables used calculation remain constant, it's when the bureaucrats in government monkey with the formula over time to "refine" it that things go awry.

When do you think that has happened?

 

[NightFox]

Uhm, whatever... how can we sustain a society where 42% don't work? Tomato tomato....

We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.

IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.

That is even a rather poor indicator as I stated above. It would not take into account vital information around it.

Doesn't seem to me to be a poor indicator for the purposes of historical comparison as long as the input variables used calculation remain constant, it's when the bureaucrats in government monkey with the formula over time to "refine" it that things go awry.

Read what I wrote above that statement. Such an 'indicator' does not take into account weather or not some of those people have any need to work at all or the overall productivity of each worker. It is a statistic devoid of the details which make it mean something.

I understand where you are coming from however is there any reason to believe that the "some people" who might no have any need to work at all as a proportion of the population varies drastically over time? As far as productivity goes wouldn't that be relative to the time period you're measuring with respect to labor since if it's increasing over time and the output of the economy is increasing over time at a commensurate pace then the relative share for each worker remains fairly constant, the major factor I can see in the last 40 years that would highly skew comparisons is globalization but even with that one can take it into account for high level comparisons.

I understand that this is an aggregate indicator and doesn't convey information below the macro level but for cursory comparisons of one time period to another it's not useless IMHO.

 

[pinqy]

The "official" unemployment rate known as U-3, - is an extremely narrow technical measure that leaves out a whole swath of out-of-work people who are willing and able to take a job but who do not fit the narrow BLS definition of "unemployed."

It's not that narrow: available to work and did something about

The U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate. That is the where Crackpot Sanders 10% comes from.....

Here's a link.....Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization[/QUOTE]

We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.

IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.

That is even a rather poor indicator as I stated above. It would not take into account vital information around it.

Doesn't seem to me to be a poor indicator for the purposes of historical comparison as long as the input variables used calculation remain constant, it's when the bureaucrats in government monkey with the formula over time to "refine" it that things go awry.

Read what I wrote above that statement. Such an 'indicator' does not take into account weather or not some of those people have any need to work at all or the overall productivity of each worker. It is a statistic devoid of the details which make it mean something.

I understand where you are coming from however is there any reason to believe that the "some people" who might no have any need to work at all as a proportion of the population varies drastically over time? As far as productivity goes wouldn't that be relative to the time period you're measuring with respect to labor since if it's increasing over time and the output of the economy is increasing over time at a commensurate pace then the relative share for each worker remains fairly constant, the major factor I can see in the last 40 years that would highly skew comparisons is globalization but even with that one can take it into account for high level comparisons.

I understand that this is an aggregate indicator and doesn't convey information below the macro level but for cursory comparisons of one time period to another it's not useless IMHO.

The problem with the participation rate is that it is affected by non-labor market factors. An aging population lowers the rate. Higher school attendance lowers the rate. Longer lifespan for disabled lowers the rate, more stay home spouses lower the rate (and, of course, the reverse for all those, too)

Our current participation rate is higher than any time before 1978. It is clearly untrue that our labor market is better than that whole time period.

 

[NightFox]

The problem with the participation rate is that it is affected by non-labor market factors. An aging population lowers the rate. Higher school attendance lowers the rate. Longer lifespan for disabled lowers the rate, more stay home spouses lower the rate (and, of course, the reverse for all those, too)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the age example you cite wouldn't be included (i.e. because the elderly drop off of the economically active component) in the calculation at all and the other factors (e.g. stay at home spouses) can be accounted for (by micro level statistics) when doing comparisons of X time period to Y time period, I do see your point regarding it's value as a stand alone comparison tool though.

Our current participation rate is higher than any time before 1978. It is clearly untrue that our labor market is better than that whole time period.

You have a point since I cannot believe that participation now is better than every year before 1978, however I'll admit I don't know that the way it's being calculated since 1978 is the same as the way it was calculated before then (in other words has the calculation remained constant). If it has remained constant though there is value in the comparison since it can demonstrate the impact of structural changes in the make up of the labor market (which then leads one to look at more micro level statistics for the specifics of what those changes were).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The "official" unemployment rate known as U-3, - is an extremely narrow technical measure that leaves out a whole swath of out-of-work people who are willing and able to take a job but who do not fit the narrow BLS definition of "unemployed."

It's not that narrow: available to work and did something about

The U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate. That is the where Crackpot Sanders 10% comes from.....

Here's a link.....Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.

That is even a rather poor indicator as I stated above. It would not take into account vital information around it.

Doesn't seem to me to be a poor indicator for the purposes of historical comparison as long as the input variables used calculation remain constant, it's when the bureaucrats in government monkey with the formula over time to "refine" it that things go awry.

Read what I wrote above that statement. Such an 'indicator' does not take into account weather or not some of those people have any need to work at all or the overall productivity of each worker. It is a statistic devoid of the details which make it mean something.

I understand where you are coming from however is there any reason to believe that the "some people" who might no have any need to work at all as a proportion of the population varies drastically over time? As far as productivity goes wouldn't that be relative to the time period you're measuring with respect to labor since if it's increasing over time and the output of the economy is increasing over time at a commensurate pace then the relative share for each worker remains fairly constant, the major factor I can see in the last 40 years that would highly skew comparisons is globalization but even with that one can take it into account for high level comparisons.

I understand that this is an aggregate indicator and doesn't convey information below the macro level but for cursory comparisons of one time period to another it's not useless IMHO.

The problem with the participation rate is that it is affected by non-labor market factors. An aging population lowers the rate. Higher school attendance lowers the rate. Longer lifespan for disabled lowers the rate, more stay home spouses lower the rate (and, of course, the reverse for all those, too)

Our current participation rate is higher than any time before 1978. It is clearly untrue that our labor market is better than that whole time period.[/QUOTE]

True, but in the past, Senior Citizens and kids in school worked. Why aren't they now?

If you look at the chart, the labor participation rate for the elderly has increased while the labor participation rate for kids and younger adults have decreased:

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, if you look at the number of unemployed against the actual number of able bodied people of working age in the U.S., it's around 42%. This is the worst economy of my lifetime.

Why?

That number does not pertain to how bad the economy is. I fail to understand this idea that the number of people employed compared to the total number that CAN WORK (not those that want to) is a direct indication of anything whatsoever.

Lower labor force participation has been, in times past, a GOOD thing. That is right - good. I am not saying that is a definite and applies to this particular time frame but you are not applying an argument as to why that number marks this economy as so bad - you are simply tossing it out there and demanding that it does.

In times where people are so poor that the Mother, Father and any children above 16 MUST get a job or they will starve then the labor force participation is going to be through the roof. Is that good? Hell no. In an economy where most jobs pay really well and a single worker can supply a good income for a family of 6 then the labor participation rate is going to be rather poor. That is a GOOD thing in this example.

A FAR better indication in earnings - not labor force participation.

It could also be indicative of alternatives such as our social programs that have been more than generous since Obama took office. We also have record amounts of college graduates living at home with mom and dad as well. They can't find work.

 

[pinqy]

The problem with the participation rate is that it is affected by non-labor market factors. An aging population lowers the rate. Higher school attendance lowers the rate. Longer lifespan for disabled lowers the rate, more stay home spouses lower the rate (and, of course, the reverse for all those, too)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the age example you cite wouldn't be included (i.e. because the elderly drop off of the economically active component) in the calculation at all

Where did you get that idea? There is no maximum age for the civilian noninstitutional population in the U.S.

and the other factors (e.g. stay at home spouses) can be accounted for (by micro level statistics) when doing comparisons of X time period to Y time period, I do see your point regarding it's value as a stand alone comparison tool though.

except stay home spouses aren't a category that's co!elected. And the whole point of the rates is to have a quick look, not do in depth analysis.

Our current participation rate is higher than any time before 1978. It is clearly untrue that our labor market is better than that whole time period.

You have a point since I cannot believe that participation now is better than every year before 1978, however I'll admit I don't know that the way it's being calculated since 1978 is the same as the way it was calculated before then (in other words has the calculation remained constant). If it has remained constant though there is value in the comparison since it can demonstrate the impact of structural changes in the make up of the labor market (which then leads one to look at more micro level statistics for the specifics of what those changes were).

Women joined the labor force. Now retirees are leaving. Of course the survey has been changed a few times, but a broad figure like participation rate wouldn't be affected very much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't know what he's referring to. Out of work and unemployed are two different things.

Join the club, out of work MAY mean unemployed from an unemployment rate perspective or it may not which is why it's either an attempt to redefine the labor force calculation or it's intentionally deceptive politician speak, either way Bernie's claims regarding labor markets cannot be trusted until he clarifies what he means by 94 million "out of work" and why he included it in a discussion of unemployment statistics.

The point isn't to wow people with facts, the point is to get people on your side no matter what. Trump doesn't need facts. Or at least true facts. he needs things people will just agree to without knowing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know what he's referring to. Out of work and unemployed are two different things.

Join the club, out of work MAY mean unemployed from an unemployment rate perspective or it may not which is why it's either an attempt to redefine the labor force calculation or it's intentionally deceptive politician speak, either way Bernie's claims regarding labor markets cannot be trusted until he clarifies what he means by 94 million "out of work" and why he included it in a discussion of unemployment statistics.

The point isn't to wow people with facts, the point is to get people on your side no matter what. Trump doesn't need facts. Or at least true facts. he needs things people will just agree to without knowing.

Sort of like if you want your doctor--you can keep your doctor?

 

[guno]

Actually, if you look at the number of unemployed against the actual number of able bodied people of working age in the U.S., it's around 42%. This is the worst economy of my lifetime.

Why?

That number does not pertain to how bad the economy is. I fail to understand this idea that the number of people employed compared to the total number that CAN WORK (not those that want to) is a direct indication of anything whatsoever.

Lower labor force participation has been, in times past, a GOOD thing. That is right - good. I am not saying that is a definite and applies to this particular time frame but you are not applying an argument as to why that number marks this economy as so bad - you are simply tossing it out there and demanding that it does.

In times where people are so poor that the Mother, Father and any children above 16 MUST get a job or they will starve then the labor force participation is going to be through the roof. Is that good? Hell no. In an economy where most jobs pay really well and a single worker can supply a good income for a family of 6 then the labor participation rate is going to be rather poor. That is a GOOD thing in this example.

A FAR better indication in earnings - not labor force participation.

It could also be indicative of alternatives such as our social programs that have been more than generous since Obama took office. We also have record amounts of college graduates living at home with mom and dad as well. They can't find work.

ur social programs that have been more than generous since Obama took office.

Please name them and provide data

 

[danielpalos]

i believe we should simplify government to lower our tax burden.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, if you look at the number of unemployed against the actual number of able bodied people of working age in the U.S., it's around 42%. This is the worst economy of my lifetime.

Why?

That number does not pertain to how bad the economy is. I fail to understand this idea that the number of people employed compared to the total number that CAN WORK (not those that want to) is a direct indication of anything whatsoever.

Lower labor force participation has been, in times past, a GOOD thing. That is right - good. I am not saying that is a definite and applies to this particular time frame but you are not applying an argument as to why that number marks this economy as so bad - you are simply tossing it out there and demanding that it does.

In times where people are so poor that the Mother, Father and any children above 16 MUST get a job or they will starve then the labor force participation is going to be through the roof. Is that good? Hell no. In an economy where most jobs pay really well and a single worker can supply a good income for a family of 6 then the labor participation rate is going to be rather poor. That is a GOOD thing in this example.

A FAR better indication in earnings - not labor force participation.

It could also be indicative of alternatives such as our social programs that have been more than generous since Obama took office. We also have record amounts of college graduates living at home with mom and dad as well. They can't find work.

ur social programs that have been more than generous since Obama took office.

Please name them and provide data

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama’s presidency
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 18, 2012

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama’s presidency

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, if you look at the number of unemployed against the actual number of able bodied people of working age in the U.S., it's around 42%. This is the worst economy of my lifetime.

Why?

That number does not pertain to how bad the economy is. I fail to understand this idea that the number of people employed compared to the total number that CAN WORK (not those that want to) is a direct indication of anything whatsoever.

Lower labor force participation has been, in times past, a GOOD thing. That is right - good. I am not saying that is a definite and applies to this particular time frame but you are not applying an argument as to why that number marks this economy as so bad - you are simply tossing it out there and demanding that it does.

In times where people are so poor that the Mother, Father and any children above 16 MUST get a job or they will starve then the labor force participation is going to be through the roof. Is that good? Hell no. In an economy where most jobs pay really well and a single worker can supply a good income for a family of 6 then the labor participation rate is going to be rather poor. That is a GOOD thing in this example.

A FAR better indication in earnings - not labor force participation.

It could also be indicative of alternatives such as our social programs that have been more than generous since Obama took office. We also have record amounts of college graduates living at home with mom and dad as well. They can't find work.

ur social programs that have been more than generous since Obama took office.

Please name them and provide data

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama’s presidency
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 18, 2012

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama’s presidency

let's end the capital gains distinction to pay for it.