Official 10% Unemployment Rate is Really Almost 22%

[Foxfyre]

I was watching an interview with an economist this morning. He was stating that the actual unemployment rate is now over 20%; but the government is keeping the official rate at about 10%. Further, they have changed the definition of a job. Now a job is counted if it has been authorized even though there is no funding for it. Or, if there is an intention to create new positions or somebody might be hiring, it is counted as a job the administration has created or saved. New jobs no longer mean that somebody who wasn't working before is now working or somebody started up a new business or expanded an existing one and actually hired more people.

So, I went looking for more information about that and found this:

Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9%
Friday, January 8th

It’s that time again. This morning, the Department of Labor released the official statistics for U.S. unemployment last month. And just as the Obama administration promised, things are getting better. Right?

Wrong.

Optimists were looking for the first signs of net job creation last month since 2007. At worst, they were hoping for the jobless rate to hold steady at 10.0%. And the worst is what is what they got.

The official unemployment rate for December remained unchanged at 10.0% at a time when the Obama administration really, really could have used some good news to offset all the bad news and screw-ups lately. No progress on the job front. Zip. The streak of monthly job losses is extended one more month to now total 24, with no sign things are getting better. And the only public event on the President’s calendar today is an afternoon statement to the press on joblessness.

It will be interesting to see if he again says, “the buck stops here.” For all too many Americans, the buck is stopping before it gets into their hands to pay the bills, buy food and pay for other necessities.

But before the spin hits the fan, here’s the really bleak news that you won’t hear the President talking about this afternoon. The real unemployment rate–the rate as it used to be calculated before the Clinton administration decided in 1994 that it all depended on what “unemployed” meant, actually crept upwards in December.

The more accurate unemployment rate, also released this morning by the Department of Labor, rose from 17.2% in November to 17.3% in December. And that is at a time when seasonal, temporary jobs for the holidays should have taken a lot of people off the unemployment rolls at least temporarily.

As I’ve reported before, the “official” unemployment rate bears about as much relationship to the true number of people who are unemployed in America as the Climate Research Unit’s fraudulent “global warming” data bears to the real average temperature people have been experiencing the last ten years. The unemployment numbers given out by the government are less than 50% of the actual number of people who are unemployed in this country.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a chart, courtesy of John Williams, of American Business Analytics and Research and Shadowstats.com and reproduced with his permission, that shows how bad unemployment in the land of Hope and Change® really is:

The lowest, red line on the chart is the official number the administration and the mainstream media will be talking about today. It is called the U3 rate. The middle, gray line is also an official government number–but one that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would just as soon you never knew about. That is the U6 rate. First, let me explain the difference between these two official government figures and why nearly everything you hear today on the news about unemployment is basically going to be a lie. I’ll talk about the highest, blue line afterward.

MORE HERE:
Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9% - malbis’s blog - RedState

 

[bodecea]

I was watching an interview with an economist this morning. He was stating that the actual unemployment rate is now over 20%; but the government is keeping the official rate at about 10%. Further, they have changed the definition of a job. Now a job is counted if it has been authorized even though there is no funding for it. Or, if there is an intention to create new positions or somebody might be hiring, it is counted as a job the administration has created or saved. New jobs no longer mean that somebody who wasn't working before is now working or somebody started up a new business or expanded an existing one and actually hired more people.

So, I went looking for more information about that and found this:

Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9%
Friday, January 8th

It’s that time again. This morning, the Department of Labor released the official statistics for U.S. unemployment last month. And just as the Obama administration promised, things are getting better. Right?

Wrong.

Optimists were looking for the first signs of net job creation last month since 2007. At worst, they were hoping for the jobless rate to hold steady at 10.0%. And the worst is what is what they got.

The official unemployment rate for December remained unchanged at 10.0% at a time when the Obama administration really, really could have used some good news to offset all the bad news and screw-ups lately. No progress on the job front. Zip. The streak of monthly job losses is extended one more month to now total 24, with no sign things are getting better. And the only public event on the President’s calendar today is an afternoon statement to the press on joblessness.

It will be interesting to see if he again says, “the buck stops here.” For all too many Americans, the buck is stopping before it gets into their hands to pay the bills, buy food and pay for other necessities.

But before the spin hits the fan, here’s the really bleak news that you won’t hear the President talking about this afternoon. The real unemployment rate–the rate as it used to be calculated before the Clinton administration decided in 1994 that it all depended on what “unemployed” meant, actually crept upwards in December.

The more accurate unemployment rate, also released this morning by the Department of Labor, rose from 17.2% in November to 17.3% in December. And that is at a time when seasonal, temporary jobs for the holidays should have taken a lot of people off the unemployment rolls at least temporarily.

As I’ve reported before, the “official” unemployment rate bears about as much relationship to the true number of people who are unemployed in America as the Climate Research Unit’s fraudulent “global warming” data bears to the real average temperature people have been experiencing the last ten years. The unemployment numbers given out by the government are less than 50% of the actual number of people who are unemployed in this country.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a chart, courtesy of John Williams, of American Business Analytics and Research and Shadowstats.com and reproduced with his permission, that shows how bad unemployment in the land of Hope and Change® really is:

The lowest, red line on the chart is the official number the administration and the mainstream media will be talking about today. It is called the U3 rate. The middle, gray line is also an official government number–but one that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would just as soon you never knew about. That is the U6 rate. First, let me explain the difference between these two official government figures and why nearly everything you hear today on the news about unemployment is basically going to be a lie. I’ll talk about the highest, blue line afterward.

MORE HERE:
Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9% - malbis’s blog - RedState

Wow! That's Great Depression numbers. Who knew we had that many people out of work and on the streets....even more since the population is greater today.

 

[Toro]

Wow! That's Great Depression numbers. Who knew we had that many people out of work and on the streets....even more since the population is greater today.

It is not Great Depression numbers.

The closest estimate of unemployment during the Great Depression most closely approximates the U-3 numbers, which is 10%. During the 1930s, it was 25%.

Michael Darda of MKM Partners estimates that using the U-6 numbers, which is 17% today, unemployment was 44%. And during the Depression, the participation was much lower than today since most women didn't work. Thus, if you were to adjust it for the participation rate, the 1930s would be even worse.

As for the U-6 reading, if someone is an engineer, has been laid off and is now working at Wal-Mart, he is included in the U-6 figure. It may be an accurate estimates of labor capacity but it is misleading for an estimate of unemployment. If you are employed, you are employed regardless of what your education and qualifications are. Working at Wal-Mart means you are not unemployed, even if you are an engineer.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I work between fifty to sixty hours a week at two part time jobs and am not really actively looking for a full time job right now since I am trying to get some school stuff straight for this fall or next. More than likely I would fall into that 21.9 percent of people who are unemployed though really I should just be considered "underemployed." But im 23 and get by and atleast I can say I get by, unlike a couple people who I know and graduated with in the spring 09 who dont even have a part time work.

 

[saveliberty]

Wow! That's Great Depression numbers. Who knew we had that many people out of work and on the streets....even more since the population is greater today.

It is not Great Depression numbers.

The closest estimate of unemployment during the Great Depression most closely approximates the U-3 numbers, which is 10%. During the 1930s, it was 25%.

Michael Darda of MKM Partners estimates that using the U-6 numbers, which is 17% today, unemployment was 44%. And during the Depression, the participation was much lower than today since most women didn't work. Thus, if you were to adjust it for the participation rate, the 1930s would be even worse.

As for the U-6 reading, if someone is an engineer, has been laid off and is now working at Wal-Mart, he is included in the U-6 figure. It may be an accurate estimates of labor capacity but it is misleading for an estimate of unemployment. If you are employed, you are employed regardless of what your education and qualifications are. Working at Wal-Mart means you are not unemployed, even if you are an engineer.

I respectfully disagree Toro. U6 counts those looking for work and those who had jobs, but have now stopped looking. In other words it is a full count of those who used to work and those looking. That is a more accurate number in relation to the Great Depression. Also, the Depression had a rate between 20 and 25% at its height.

 

[Conspiracist]

I was watching an interview with an economist this morning. He was stating that the actual unemployment rate is now over 20%; but the government is keeping the official rate at about 10%. Further, they have changed the definition of a job. Now a job is counted if it has been authorized even though there is no funding for it. Or, if there is an intention to create new positions or somebody might be hiring, it is counted as a job the administration has created or saved. New jobs no longer mean that somebody who wasn't working before is now working or somebody started up a new business or expanded an existing one and actually hired more people.

So, I went looking for more information about that and found this:

Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9%
Friday, January 8th

It’s that time again. This morning, the Department of Labor released the official statistics for U.S. unemployment last month. And just as the Obama administration promised, things are getting better. Right?

Wrong.

Optimists were looking for the first signs of net job creation last month since 2007. At worst, they were hoping for the jobless rate to hold steady at 10.0%. And the worst is what is what they got.

The official unemployment rate for December remained unchanged at 10.0% at a time when the Obama administration really, really could have used some good news to offset all the bad news and screw-ups lately. No progress on the job front. Zip. The streak of monthly job losses is extended one more month to now total 24, with no sign things are getting better. And the only public event on the President’s calendar today is an afternoon statement to the press on joblessness.

It will be interesting to see if he again says, “the buck stops here.” For all too many Americans, the buck is stopping before it gets into their hands to pay the bills, buy food and pay for other necessities.

But before the spin hits the fan, here’s the really bleak news that you won’t hear the President talking about this afternoon. The real unemployment rate–the rate as it used to be calculated before the Clinton administration decided in 1994 that it all depended on what “unemployed” meant, actually crept upwards in December.

The more accurate unemployment rate, also released this morning by the Department of Labor, rose from 17.2% in November to 17.3% in December. And that is at a time when seasonal, temporary jobs for the holidays should have taken a lot of people off the unemployment rolls at least temporarily.

As I’ve reported before, the “official” unemployment rate bears about as much relationship to the true number of people who are unemployed in America as the Climate Research Unit’s fraudulent “global warming” data bears to the real average temperature people have been experiencing the last ten years. The unemployment numbers given out by the government are less than 50% of the actual number of people who are unemployed in this country.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a chart, courtesy of John Williams, of American Business Analytics and Research and Shadowstats.com and reproduced with his permission, that shows how bad unemployment in the land of Hope and Change® really is:

The lowest, red line on the chart is the official number the administration and the mainstream media will be talking about today. It is called the U3 rate. The middle, gray line is also an official government number–but one that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would just as soon you never knew about. That is the U6 rate. First, let me explain the difference between these two official government figures and why nearly everything you hear today on the news about unemployment is basically going to be a lie. I’ll talk about the highest, blue line afterward.

MORE HERE:
Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9% - malbis’s blog - RedState

Thanks a lot for this post. I was unemployed for just over a year and it was fuckin scary. I repair industrial equipment for a living, all phases, electrical, hydraulics, mechanical etc... I never had trouble finding work until that point when I was laid off in July of 2008. Interviewing was intense. You would be up aginst at least 30 applicants for every job you interviewed for. When employers have this much choice in potential employees with high skill levels it then becomes a game of lottery imho. But my gut feeling was that unemployment HAD to be higher than what was being put across the TV screens.

I know too many that are unemployed or have taken reduced hours and loss of health benefits etc... just to keep working. I feel very lucky and blessed to have a job now and I have taken over 35% in pay cuts landing this job.

 

[Toro]

I respectfully disagree Toro. U6 counts those looking for work and those who had jobs, but have now stopped looking. In other words it is a full count of those who used to work and those looking. That is a more accurate number in relation to the Great Depression. Also, the Depression had a rate between 20 and 25% at its height.

U6 also includes those who are employed part-time.

U6 definition

* U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
* U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
* U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
* U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
* U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
* U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.

Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"At the business trough in 1933," Mr. Darda points out, "the unemployment rate stood at 25% (if there had been a 'U6' version of labor underutilization then, it likely would have been about 44% vs. 16.8% today. . . )

What's next? | The Economist

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching an interview with an economist this morning. He was stating that the actual unemployment rate is now over 20%; but the government is keeping the official rate at about 10%. Further, they have changed the definition of a job. Now a job is counted if it has been authorized even though there is no funding for it. Or, if there is an intention to create new positions or somebody might be hiring, it is counted as a job the administration has created or saved. New jobs no longer mean that somebody who wasn't working before is now working or somebody started up a new business or expanded an existing one and actually hired more people.

So, I went looking for more information about that and found this:

Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9%
Friday, January 8th

It’s that time again. This morning, the Department of Labor released the official statistics for U.S. unemployment last month. And just as the Obama administration promised, things are getting better. Right?

Wrong.

Optimists were looking for the first signs of net job creation last month since 2007. At worst, they were hoping for the jobless rate to hold steady at 10.0%. And the worst is what is what they got.

The official unemployment rate for December remained unchanged at 10.0% at a time when the Obama administration really, really could have used some good news to offset all the bad news and screw-ups lately. No progress on the job front. Zip. The streak of monthly job losses is extended one more month to now total 24, with no sign things are getting better. And the only public event on the President’s calendar today is an afternoon statement to the press on joblessness.

It will be interesting to see if he again says, “the buck stops here.” For all too many Americans, the buck is stopping before it gets into their hands to pay the bills, buy food and pay for other necessities.

But before the spin hits the fan, here’s the really bleak news that you won’t hear the President talking about this afternoon. The real unemployment rate–the rate as it used to be calculated before the Clinton administration decided in 1994 that it all depended on what “unemployed” meant, actually crept upwards in December.

The more accurate unemployment rate, also released this morning by the Department of Labor, rose from 17.2% in November to 17.3% in December. And that is at a time when seasonal, temporary jobs for the holidays should have taken a lot of people off the unemployment rolls at least temporarily.

As I’ve reported before, the “official” unemployment rate bears about as much relationship to the true number of people who are unemployed in America as the Climate Research Unit’s fraudulent “global warming” data bears to the real average temperature people have been experiencing the last ten years. The unemployment numbers given out by the government are less than 50% of the actual number of people who are unemployed in this country.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a chart, courtesy of John Williams, of American Business Analytics and Research and Shadowstats.com and reproduced with his permission, that shows how bad unemployment in the land of Hope and Change® really is:

The lowest, red line on the chart is the official number the administration and the mainstream media will be talking about today. It is called the U3 rate. The middle, gray line is also an official government number–but one that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would just as soon you never knew about. That is the U6 rate. First, let me explain the difference between these two official government figures and why nearly everything you hear today on the news about unemployment is basically going to be a lie. I’ll talk about the highest, blue line afterward.

MORE HERE:
Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9% - malbis’s blog - RedState

Thanks a lot for this post. I was unemployed for just over a year and it was fuckin scary. I repair industrial equipment for a living, all phases, electrical, hydraulics, mechanical etc... I never had trouble finding work until that point when I was laid off in July of 2008. Interviewing was intense. You would be up aginst at least 30 applicants for every job you interviewed for. When employers have this much choice in potential employees with high skill levels it then becomes a game of lottery imho. But my gut feeling was that unemployment HAD to be higher than what was being put across the TV screens.

I know too many that are unemployed or have taken reduced hours and loss of health benefits etc... just to keep working. I feel very lucky and blessed to have a job now and I have taken over 35% in pay cuts landing this job.

I hear you. When I advertised a part time position not long ago, it was a little job, didn't pay all that well for the amount of skill required, and came with minimal benefits and glamour. I expected the usual two or three nibbles and hoped one would be at least trainable and would take the job to get the flexible hours. I got more than 300 resumes! It's tough out there.

The disheartening thing is that our current fearless leaders may think they're doing all they can, but they are such socialists at heart that they can't bring themselves to do what really would jump start the economy and get the ball rolling in a positive directon again. So I don't know when we'll see a light at the end of this tunnel. Good for you for doing what you have to do though. Been there and done that. And that which does not kill us only makes us stronger and all that.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I was watching an interview with an economist this morning. He was stating that the actual unemployment rate is now over 20%; but the government is keeping the official rate at about 10%. Further, they have changed the definition of a job. Now a job is counted if it has been authorized even though there is no funding for it. Or, if there is an intention to create new positions or somebody might be hiring, it is counted as a job the administration has created or saved. New jobs no longer mean that somebody who wasn't working before is now working or somebody started up a new business or expanded an existing one and actually hired more people.

So, I went looking for more information about that and found this:

Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9%
Friday, January 8th

It’s that time again. This morning, the Department of Labor released the official statistics for U.S. unemployment last month. And just as the Obama administration promised, things are getting better. Right?

Wrong.

Optimists were looking for the first signs of net job creation last month since 2007. At worst, they were hoping for the jobless rate to hold steady at 10.0%. And the worst is what is what they got.

The official unemployment rate for December remained unchanged at 10.0% at a time when the Obama administration really, really could have used some good news to offset all the bad news and screw-ups lately. No progress on the job front. Zip. The streak of monthly job losses is extended one more month to now total 24, with no sign things are getting better. And the only public event on the President’s calendar today is an afternoon statement to the press on joblessness.

It will be interesting to see if he again says, “the buck stops here.” For all too many Americans, the buck is stopping before it gets into their hands to pay the bills, buy food and pay for other necessities.

But before the spin hits the fan, here’s the really bleak news that you won’t hear the President talking about this afternoon. The real unemployment rate–the rate as it used to be calculated before the Clinton administration decided in 1994 that it all depended on what “unemployed” meant, actually crept upwards in December.

The more accurate unemployment rate, also released this morning by the Department of Labor, rose from 17.2% in November to 17.3% in December. And that is at a time when seasonal, temporary jobs for the holidays should have taken a lot of people off the unemployment rolls at least temporarily.

As I’ve reported before, the “official” unemployment rate bears about as much relationship to the true number of people who are unemployed in America as the Climate Research Unit’s fraudulent “global warming” data bears to the real average temperature people have been experiencing the last ten years. The unemployment numbers given out by the government are less than 50% of the actual number of people who are unemployed in this country.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a chart, courtesy of John Williams, of American Business Analytics and Research and Shadowstats.com and reproduced with his permission, that shows how bad unemployment in the land of Hope and Change® really is:

The lowest, red line on the chart is the official number the administration and the mainstream media will be talking about today. It is called the U3 rate. The middle, gray line is also an official government number–but one that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would just as soon you never knew about. That is the U6 rate. First, let me explain the difference between these two official government figures and why nearly everything you hear today on the news about unemployment is basically going to be a lie. I’ll talk about the highest, blue line afterward.

MORE HERE:
Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9% - malbis’s blog - RedState

Wow Fox and from such an UNbiased source. You REALLY believe that MORE than 1 in 5 Americans are unemployed? I think you need to research your SOURCE more than the unemployment rate.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I was watching an interview with an economist this morning. He was stating that the actual unemployment rate is now over 20%; but the government is keeping the official rate at about 10%. Further, they have changed the definition of a job. Now a job is counted if it has been authorized even though there is no funding for it. Or, if there is an intention to create new positions or somebody might be hiring, it is counted as a job the administration has created or saved. New jobs no longer mean that somebody who wasn't working before is now working or somebody started up a new business or expanded an existing one and actually hired more people.

So, I went looking for more information about that and found this:

Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9%
Friday, January 8th

It’s that time again. This morning, the Department of Labor released the official statistics for U.S. unemployment last month. And just as the Obama administration promised, things are getting better. Right?

Wrong.

Optimists were looking for the first signs of net job creation last month since 2007. At worst, they were hoping for the jobless rate to hold steady at 10.0%. And the worst is what is what they got.

The official unemployment rate for December remained unchanged at 10.0% at a time when the Obama administration really, really could have used some good news to offset all the bad news and screw-ups lately. No progress on the job front. Zip. The streak of monthly job losses is extended one more month to now total 24, with no sign things are getting better. And the only public event on the President’s calendar today is an afternoon statement to the press on joblessness.

It will be interesting to see if he again says, “the buck stops here.” For all too many Americans, the buck is stopping before it gets into their hands to pay the bills, buy food and pay for other necessities.

But before the spin hits the fan, here’s the really bleak news that you won’t hear the President talking about this afternoon. The real unemployment rate–the rate as it used to be calculated before the Clinton administration decided in 1994 that it all depended on what “unemployed” meant, actually crept upwards in December.

The more accurate unemployment rate, also released this morning by the Department of Labor, rose from 17.2% in November to 17.3% in December. And that is at a time when seasonal, temporary jobs for the holidays should have taken a lot of people off the unemployment rolls at least temporarily.

As I’ve reported before, the “official” unemployment rate bears about as much relationship to the true number of people who are unemployed in America as the Climate Research Unit’s fraudulent “global warming” data bears to the real average temperature people have been experiencing the last ten years. The unemployment numbers given out by the government are less than 50% of the actual number of people who are unemployed in this country.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a chart, courtesy of John Williams, of American Business Analytics and Research and Shadowstats.com and reproduced with his permission, that shows how bad unemployment in the land of Hope and Change® really is:

The lowest, red line on the chart is the official number the administration and the mainstream media will be talking about today. It is called the U3 rate. The middle, gray line is also an official government number–but one that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would just as soon you never knew about. That is the U6 rate. First, let me explain the difference between these two official government figures and why nearly everything you hear today on the news about unemployment is basically going to be a lie. I’ll talk about the highest, blue line afterward.

MORE HERE:
Unemployment Officially At 10% … But It’s Really 21.9% - malbis’s blog - RedState

Thanks a lot for this post. I was unemployed for just over a year and it was fuckin scary. I repair industrial equipment for a living, all phases, electrical, hydraulics, mechanical etc... I never had trouble finding work until that point when I was laid off in July of 2008. Interviewing was intense. You would be up aginst at least 30 applicants for every job you interviewed for. When employers have this much choice in potential employees with high skill levels it then becomes a game of lottery imho. But my gut feeling was that unemployment HAD to be higher than what was being put across the TV screens.

I know too many that are unemployed or have taken reduced hours and loss of health benefits etc... just to keep working. I feel very lucky and blessed to have a job now and I have taken over 35% in pay cuts landing this job.

Wow July of '08 is that BEFORE or after Obama got elected?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Fox tell me you don't HATE Obama so much that you believe these MADE UP #s from an OBVIOUSLY biased source.

 

[Toro]

Fox tell me you don't HATE Obama so much that you believe these MADE UP #s from an OBVIOUSLY biased source.

The 22% number comes from Shadow Government Statistics, which is not a politically biased source.

There are many economists who have a problem with SGS, as do I, but being politically biased is not one of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox tell me you don't HATE Obama so much that you believe these MADE UP #s from an OBVIOUSLY biased source.

Redstate is absolutely a biased source, but biased is not synonymous with dishonest, inaccurate, or distorted. Once I have come to a conclusion about something, I can have a bias in favor of that something and still be 100% correct. If I am shown to be wrong, then I might change my particular bias and lean in another direction.

I went to the source I posted because it had numbers that fit perfectly with the economist discussing this on television earlier today and I couldn't very well post something I heard on TV.

Good information is good information no matter who provides it, and I have seen nothing from any source, left or right, that disputes the numbers in that graph.

P.S. I don't hate Obama or anybody else at all.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I wonder where this "economist" was during the Bush admin when we all praised unemployment under 5%?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Fox tell me you don't HATE Obama so much that you believe these MADE UP #s from an OBVIOUSLY biased source.

Redstate is absolutely a biased source, but biased is not synonymous with dishonest, inaccurate, or distorted. Once I have come to a conclusion about something, I can have a bias in favor of that something and still be 100% correct. If I am shown to be wrong, then I might change my particular bias and lean in another direction.

I went to the source I posted because it had numbers that fit perfectly with the economist discussing this on television earlier today and I couldn't very well post something I heard on TV.

Good information is good information no matter who provides it, and I have seen nothing from any source, left or right, that disputes the numbers in that graph.

So you REALLY believe that MORE than 1 in 5 Americans are out of work. That is what you are saying and you are STICKING to that BELIEF!!??

 

[Cold Fusion38]

"I went to the source I posted because it had numbers that fit perfectly with the economist discussing this on television earlier today and I couldn't very well post something I heard on TV."


Do you know how DIShonest this sounds? "I went to the source BECAUSE it had numbers that fit PERFECTLY!" emphasis added!

 

[Conspiracist]

I was watching an interview with an economist this morning. He was stating that the actual unemployment rate is now over 20%; but the government is keeping the official rate at about 10%. Further, they have changed the definition of a job. Now a job is counted if it has been authorized even though there is no funding for it. Or, if there is an intention to create new positions or somebody might be hiring, it is counted as a job the administration has created or saved. New jobs no longer mean that somebody who wasn't working before is now working or somebody started up a new business or expanded an existing one and actually hired more people.

So, I went looking for more information about that and found this:

Thanks a lot for this post. I was unemployed for just over a year and it was fuckin scary. I repair industrial equipment for a living, all phases, electrical, hydraulics, mechanical etc... I never had trouble finding work until that point when I was laid off in July of 2008. Interviewing was intense. You would be up aginst at least 30 applicants for every job you interviewed for. When employers have this much choice in potential employees with high skill levels it then becomes a game of lottery imho. But my gut feeling was that unemployment HAD to be higher than what was being put across the TV screens.

I know too many that are unemployed or have taken reduced hours and loss of health benefits etc... just to keep working. I feel very lucky and blessed to have a job now and I have taken over 35% in pay cuts landing this job.

Wow July of '08 is that BEFORE or after Obama got elected?

WTF does that have to do with anything asshole? It's about unemployment.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Fox isn't it AMAZING that you found #s that PERFECTLY fit? Tell me how many sites did you search before you found #s that PERFECTLY fit?

 

[garyd]

CF, It was a year and a half after Reid and Pelosi took control of congress. You know congress the people that hold the purse strings?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Thanks a lot for this post. I was unemployed for just over a year and it was fuckin scary. I repair industrial equipment for a living, all phases, electrical, hydraulics, mechanical etc... I never had trouble finding work until that point when I was laid off in July of 2008. Interviewing was intense. You would be up aginst at least 30 applicants for every job you interviewed for. When employers have this much choice in potential employees with high skill levels it then becomes a game of lottery imho. But my gut feeling was that unemployment HAD to be higher than what was being put across the TV screens.

I know too many that are unemployed or have taken reduced hours and loss of health benefits etc... just to keep working. I feel very lucky and blessed to have a job now and I have taken over 35% in pay cuts landing this job.

Wow July of '08 is that BEFORE or after Obama got elected?

WTF does that have to do with anything asshole? It's about unemployment.

Oh no it doesn't it has to do with THIS ADMIN and you KNOW IT! So you just told a story that has NOTHING to do with Obama. You just told a story of HOW BAD it really was under BUSH!!! 35% pay cut.......UNDER BUSH and Obama is trying to pick up the pieces of a HYPER-inflated housing market that Bush ALSO took credit for as giving more Americans the DREAM of home ownership.


So we have UNDER REPORTED unemployment under Bush AND Bush HAPPY to take credit for more home owners.