9.8 ...Unemployment

[Trajan]

It's even worse than that.

The real # is more like 22% un and under employment when adjusted for long term discouraged workers that the Feds do not count as unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

BLS publishes their methodology. Shadowstats' John Williams does not collect his own data (they use BLS data) and doesn't publish his methodology. To get his 22 percent he would have to include more people as unemployed than people who say they want to work (regardless of other factors/classifications). And that makes no sense at all.

okay, so what number would you stand by?

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

Please review the graph below:

Obama's Summit and the Myth of Republican Fiscal Responsibility | Crooks and Liars

Obama's Presidency is not included and if shown would look bad in the fiscal department. The reason is the economy was in freefall collapse starting a few months before he took office. It was already being called the Great Recession before he was elected. It could have turned in to another Great Depression. If you folks that don't like federal spending in that situation have a better idea of how to have prevented absolute meltdown I'd love to hear it. Even Republican, fiscally conservative economists say stimulus and spending had to be part of the equation to try to stifle the worst case scenario.

Historically, though both parties have been fiscally irresponsible, the Republicans have been worse. The worst of all was Ronald Reagan.

HERE'S THE CHART THAT TELLS THE WHOLE STORY:

The Maddow Blog - Chart: National debt, by president

 

[Toro]

Sorry to say but things are actually much worse than they're saying. Their Unemployment Numbers are lies. The real Unemployment Rate is well up into double figures. I don't buy their numbers anymore. If they're saying 9.8% than just think something like 18%. It's likely to be double what they're saying. They've been known to cook the books. It's very sad.

You and Neubarth keep saying this, and yet have never shown any evidence of lying or manipulation and no alternate surveys that show different answers. Well, except for the sooper-seekrit surveys Neubarth claims exist but can't produce.

And why do the Gallup Unemployment numbers always match up with BLS numbers? Why is Gallup lying?

Moron. Trying learning about how unemployment is measured. There are 6 different levels in the BLS stats.

U6, the broadest measure of labor force under utilization is 17% (although this is not fully reflective of such as it excludes long term discouraged workers).

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

 

[Cuyo]

That's not how I would classify underemployed. Underemployed is working materially below one's skill and knowledge level. If someone is unskilled and only able to earn a low wage, then that's the value of his abilities.

A reasonable paying low-skill job is either available, or isn't available. Most low-skill people (And some skilled, but unable to find appropriate work) wind up in retail, if employed at all. Wages are low and advancement opportunities few. Since manufacturing is gone, that's virtually all that's available, and corresponding wages have been driven down.

I'd describe such people as underemployed.

 

[boedicca]

You and Neubarth keep saying this, and yet have never shown any evidence of lying or manipulation and no alternate surveys that show different answers. Well, except for the sooper-seekrit surveys Neubarth claims exist but can't produce.

And why do the Gallup Unemployment numbers always match up with BLS numbers? Why is Gallup lying?

Moron. Trying learning about how unemployment is measured. There are 6 different levels in the BLS stats.

U6, the broadest measure of labor force under utilization is 17% (although this is not fully reflective of such as it excludes long term discouraged workers).

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

In 1994, the BLS eliminated Long Term Discouraged Workers from the UI stats.

Not counting people who have given up looking is a distortion of reality.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Moron. Trying learning about how unemployment is measured. There are 6 different levels in the BLS stats.

U6, the broadest measure of labor force under utilization is 17% (although this is not fully reflective of such as it excludes long term discouraged workers).

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

In 1994, the BLS eliminated Long Term Discouraged Workers from the UI stats.

Not counting people who have given up looking is a distortion of reality.

But it certainly looks better.

 

[Trajan]

You and Neubarth keep saying this, and yet have never shown any evidence of lying or manipulation and no alternate surveys that show different answers. Well, except for the sooper-seekrit surveys Neubarth claims exist but can't produce.

And why do the Gallup Unemployment numbers always match up with BLS numbers? Why is Gallup lying?

Moron. Trying learning about how unemployment is measured. There are 6 different levels in the BLS stats.

U6, the broadest measure of labor force under utilization is 17% (although this is not fully reflective of such as it excludes long term discouraged workers).

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

can you link to where he has explained this please?

 

[Toro]

Moron. Trying learning about how unemployment is measured. There are 6 different levels in the BLS stats.

U6, the broadest measure of labor force under utilization is 17% (although this is not fully reflective of such as it excludes long term discouraged workers).

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

In 1994, the BLS eliminated Long Term Discouraged Workers from the UI stats.

Not counting people who have given up looking is a distortion of reality.

That data is captured in the ratio of employed to the total employable population, the broadest measure of employment in the economy. That is published, if you care to look for it.

What you are referring to is a methodological determination of how to measure unemployment. People can reasonably disagree on what should be included where. But that's not what pinqy was referring to. Guys like Neubarth argue that the government is deliberately hiding and distorting the unemployment figures, i.e. Obama and Bush withheld the "real numbers" for political gain. When pinqy asks for evidence of it, they can never post any.

 

[boedicca]

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

In 1994, the BLS eliminated Long Term Discouraged Workers from the UI stats.

Not counting people who have given up looking is a distortion of reality.

That data is captured in the ratio of employed to the total employable population, the broadest measure of employment in the economy. That is published, if you care to look for it.

What you are referring to is a methodological determination of how to measure unemployment. People can reasonably disagree on what should be included where. But that's not what pinqy was referring to. Guys like Neubarth argue that the government is deliberately hiding and distorting the unemployment figures, i.e. Obama and Bush withheld the "real numbers" for political gain. When pinqy asks for evidence of it, they can never post any.

I know how it is calculated - and disagree with the statistical change of excluding long term discouraged workers from the calculation.

The government IS distorting the numbers with this gimmick.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

If they're saying it's 9.8%,you can bet things are actually much worse. They're Low-Balling for sure.

 

[Toro]

Moron. Trying learning about how unemployment is measured. There are 6 different levels in the BLS stats.

U6, the broadest measure of labor force under utilization is 17% (although this is not fully reflective of such as it excludes long term discouraged workers).

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

can you link to where he has explained this please?

Search through all of his posts. You will find it. Most of pinqy's posts are correcting people's misconceptions about how the economic numbers - usually unemployment - are calculated, at least what I've read.

 

[Toro]

In 1994, the BLS eliminated Long Term Discouraged Workers from the UI stats.

Not counting people who have given up looking is a distortion of reality.

That data is captured in the ratio of employed to the total employable population, the broadest measure of employment in the economy. That is published, if you care to look for it.

What you are referring to is a methodological determination of how to measure unemployment. People can reasonably disagree on what should be included where. But that's not what pinqy was referring to. Guys like Neubarth argue that the government is deliberately hiding and distorting the unemployment figures, i.e. Obama and Bush withheld the "real numbers" for political gain. When pinqy asks for evidence of it, they can never post any.

I know how it is calculated - and disagree with the statistical change of excluding long term discouraged workers from the calculation.

The government IS distorting the numbers with this gimmick.

It is a methodological determination, not a conspiracy of deliberate political manipulation, unless you can show evidence otherwise, which is what pinqy was asking.

 

[The T]

In 1994, the BLS eliminated Long Term Discouraged Workers from the UI stats.

Not counting people who have given up looking is a distortion of reality.

That data is captured in the ratio of employed to the total employable population, the broadest measure of employment in the economy. That is published, if you care to look for it.

What you are referring to is a methodological determination of how to measure unemployment. People can reasonably disagree on what should be included where. But that's not what pinqy was referring to. Guys like Neubarth argue that the government is deliberately hiding and distorting the unemployment figures, i.e. Obama and Bush withheld the "real numbers" for political gain. When pinqy asks for evidence of it, they can never post any.

I know how it is calculated - and disagree with the statistical change of excluding long term discouraged workers from the calculation.

The government IS distorting the numbers with this gimmick.

And for political gain.

 

[Toro]

That data is captured in the ratio of employed to the total employable population, the broadest measure of employment in the economy. That is published, if you care to look for it.

What you are referring to is a methodological determination of how to measure unemployment. People can reasonably disagree on what should be included where. But that's not what pinqy was referring to. Guys like Neubarth argue that the government is deliberately hiding and distorting the unemployment figures, i.e. Obama and Bush withheld the "real numbers" for political gain. When pinqy asks for evidence of it, they can never post any.

I know how it is calculated - and disagree with the statistical change of excluding long term discouraged workers from the calculation.

The government IS distorting the numbers with this gimmick.

And for political gain.

Post proof.

 

[boedicca]

I believe John Williams, who publishes under his real name, over pinqy.

You are perfectly free to make your own choice.

Walter J. “John” Williams was born in 1949. He received an A.B. in Economics, cum laude, from Dartmouth College in 1971, and was awarded a M.B.A. from Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck School of Business Administration in 1972, where he was named an Edward Tuck Scholar. During his career as a consulting economist, John has worked with individuals as well as Fortune 500 companies.

http://www.shadowstats.com/

 

[NYcarbineer]

Moron. Trying learning about how unemployment is measured. There are 6 different levels in the BLS stats.

U6, the broadest measure of labor force under utilization is 17% (although this is not fully reflective of such as it excludes long term discouraged workers).

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

In 1994, the BLS eliminated Long Term Discouraged Workers from the UI stats.

Not counting people who have given up looking is a distortion of reality.

So unemployment was really much higher during all those 'prosperous' Bush years than we were led to believe with the headline number?

Is that true? Can't anwer that I suppose.

 

[Trajan]

How is posting the different levels of unemployment calculated by the BLS - which pinqy has explained many times - evidence that the government is manipulating and lying about its data?

can you link to where he has explained this please?

Search through all of his posts. You will find it. Most of pinqy's posts are correcting people's misconceptions about how the economic numbers - usually unemployment - are calculated, at least what I've read.

well, you only get a one line read out from his profile stats search for posts by user, I was hoping for a bit less to work through....at 600 and change, I'll just have to live without it till next time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's even worse than that.

The real # is more like 22% un and under employment when adjusted for long term discouraged workers that the Feds do not count as unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

BLS publishes their methodology. Shadowstats' John Williams does not collect his own data (they use BLS data) and doesn't publish his methodology. To get his 22 percent he would have to include more people as unemployed than people who say they want to work (regardless of other factors/classifications). And that makes no sense at all.

okay, so what number would you stand by?

Here's U-6 from 1994:

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know how it is calculated - and disagree with the statistical change of excluding long term discouraged workers from the calculation.

The government IS distorting the numbers with this gimmick.

And for political gain.

Post proof.

He means that the Bush administration did it for 8 years to conceal the fact that unemployment never really got below 8% for almost the entire time of the Bush 'prosperity'.

 

[The T]

In 1994, the BLS eliminated Long Term Discouraged Workers from the UI stats.

Not counting people who have given up looking is a distortion of reality.

That data is captured in the ratio of employed to the total employable population, the broadest measure of employment in the economy. That is published, if you care to look for it.

What you are referring to is a methodological determination of how to measure unemployment. People can reasonably disagree on what should be included where. But that's not what pinqy was referring to. Guys like Neubarth argue that the government is deliberately hiding and distorting the unemployment figures, i.e. Obama and Bush withheld the "real numbers" for political gain. When pinqy asks for evidence of it, they can never post any.

I know how it is calculated - and disagree with the statistical change of excluding long term discouraged workers from the calculation.

The government IS distorting the numbers with this gimmick.

And if you look at the graphic representation? It's bad no matter what the symantics are. Very sharp rise.