Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
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 Its Really 21.9%
Friday, January 8th
Its 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 Presidents 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, heres the really bleak news that you wont hear the President talking about this afternoon. The real unemployment ratethe 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 Ive 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 Units 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 heres 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 numberbut 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. Ill talk about the highest, blue line afterward.
MORE HERE:
Unemployment Officially At 10% But Its Really 21.9% - malbiss 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.
--while the thousands of lay-offs continue.
I kind of find it hard to stomache that we have to PAY OFF AMERICANS to employ fellow AMERICANS!!!!
First you don't inherit an economy from the president. Presidents can do nothing about the economy that is congress's doing and Congress under the democrats stonewalled any and all the Bush administrations attempts - beginning as early as 2003 - to head of the housing bubble. Bush didn't take credit for crap.
2nd this is neither Bush's nor Obama's economy it is Harry and Nancy's economy. Ignoramuses blame presidents for the economy. Smart and knowlegeable people look at those who hold the purse strings.
I kind of find it hard to stomache that we have to PAY OFF AMERICANS to employ fellow AMERICANS!!!!
I assume this is the tax credit that Harry Reid proposed--to give employers $3000 to get out there & hire somebody.
Don't worry--I am a small business employer--& I am not going to hire someone to sit around & twiddle their thumbs so I can get some kind of tax credit.
What's missing in this equation from this genius President--congress--& administration. What they don't seem to get? Employers need demand for their goods & services before they hire anyone. There is no DEMAND for goods & services & that is why this economy is in the tank.
I kind of find it hard to stomache that we have to PAY OFF AMERICANS to employ fellow AMERICANS!!!!
I assume this is the tax credit that Harry Reid proposed--to give employers $3000 to get out there & hire somebody.
Don't worry--I am a small business employer--& I am not going to hire someone to sit around & twiddle their thumbs so I can get some kind of tax credit.
What's missing in this equation from this genius President--congress--& administration. What they don't seem to get? Employers need demand for their goods & services before they hire anyone. There is no DEMAND for goods & services & that is why this economy is in the tank.
I guess Reid wants you to hire an illegal alien....then you pay them a salary of $3,000.00. They are the only ones I know who will work for $3000.00 a year. That way your net out of pocket expenses for the "new employee" are ZERO!
First you don't inherit an economy from the president. Presidents can do nothing about the economy that is congress's doing and Congress under the democrats stonewalled any and all the Bush administrations attempts - beginning as early as 2003 - to head of the housing bubble. Bush didn't take credit for crap.
2nd this is neither Bush's nor Obama's economy it is Harry and Nancy's economy. Ignoramuses blame presidents for the economy. Smart and knowlegeable people look at those who hold the purse strings.
You've got it 1/2 right. What you're missing is that it is the federal government that got us all into this mess in the 1st place.
AIG--Fannie/Freddie were deregulated in the 1990's under the Clinton administration. Whereby--our federal government banking boards thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--while lowering lending requirements--using sub-prime mortgages to loan money to people who could never re-pay the loan. Wall Street bought these mortgage backed securities up & started trading them in the black hole called the derivitives markets. Courtesy of the Federal Government they built a house of cards that collapsed--leaving the American tax payer holding the bag.
First you don't inherit an economy from the president. Presidents can do nothing about the economy that is congress's doing and Congress under the democrats stonewalled any and all the Bush administrations attempts - beginning as early as 2003 - to head of the housing bubble. Bush didn't take credit for crap.
2nd this is neither Bush's nor Obama's economy it is Harry and Nancy's economy. Ignoramuses blame presidents for the economy. Smart and knowlegeable people look at those who hold the purse strings.
You've got it 1/2 right. What you're missing is that it is the federal government that got us all into this mess in the 1st place.
AIG--Fannie/Freddie were deregulated in the 1990's under the Clinton administration. Whereby--our federal government banking boards thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--while lowering lending requirements--using sub-prime mortgages to loan money to people who could never re-pay the loan. Wall Street bought these mortgage backed securities up & started trading them in the black hole called the derivitives markets. Courtesy of the Federal Government they built a house of cards that collapsed--leaving the American tax payer holding the bag.
You know that's really funny cuz I bought my house in 2001 and I seem to recall a loan agent crawling UP MY ASS to verify EVERYTHING about my credit worthiness.
I kind of find it hard to stomache that we have to PAY OFF AMERICANS to employ fellow AMERICANS!!!!
I assume this is the tax credit that Harry Reid proposed--to give employers $3000 to get out there & hire somebody.
Don't worry--I am a small business employer--& I am not going to hire someone to sit around & twiddle their thumbs so I can get some kind of tax credit.
What's missing in this equation from this genius President--congress--& administration. What they don't seem to get? Employers need demand for their goods & services before they hire anyone. There is no DEMAND for goods & services & that is why this economy is in the tank.
Yes, I am also a small business owner. Not only do you need customers, but you need some kind of assurance that you will receive a return for capital investment and other expenses of doing business. You don't want to risk your last dollar or put your assets in jeopardy unless it is a reasonable risk. Doling out taxpayer money for selected projects does nothing to build confidence that prosperity can be sustained, does nothing to encourage you or me to hire somebody because we have confidence there will be work for him or her to do, etc.
When there wasn't enough work to go around, we pretty well mothballed our business because there were others who needed the very small amount of work available just so they could buy groceries and we didn't. The business though gives us opportunity to see a lot of business's P & L's, payroll, and gross sales, and I could see how much almost everybody has had to cut back. All those cut backs translate to people who did have jobs not having jobs.
Short term government spending such as the stimulus package or one time tax rebates or one time tax credits won't fix this and do nothing to build economic confidence that produces real prosperity. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent or extending them for another five to ten years, giving some capital gains relief, and easing some unnecessary punative regulations would.
You've got it 1/2 right. What you're missing is that it is the federal government that got us all into this mess in the 1st place.
AIG--Fannie/Freddie were deregulated in the 1990's under the Clinton administration. Whereby--our federal government banking boards thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--while lowering lending requirements--using sub-prime mortgages to loan money to people who could never re-pay the loan. Wall Street bought these mortgage backed securities up & started trading them in the black hole called the derivitives markets. Courtesy of the Federal Government they built a house of cards that collapsed--leaving the American tax payer holding the bag.
You know that's really funny cuz I bought my house in 2001 and I seem to recall a loan agent crawling UP MY ASS to verify EVERYTHING about my credit worthiness.
Was it a conventional mortgage or a sub prime from some fly by night company?
You know that's really funny cuz I bought my house in 2001 and I seem to recall a loan agent crawling UP MY ASS to verify EVERYTHING about my credit worthiness.
Was it a conventional mortgage or a sub prime from some fly by night company?
Zero down FHA loan.
Oh and can anyone tell me how lowering capital gains will make MORE CUSTOMERS!!?? The capital gains rate means NOTHING if there are no CUSTOMERS!!! Are you saying that you would invest in EXPANDING your business with NO customers if ONLY the cap gains tax was lower!!!??? That make NO SENSE what-so-ever!!
I assume this is the tax credit that Harry Reid proposed--to give employers $3000 to get out there & hire somebody.
Don't worry--I am a small business employer--& I am not going to hire someone to sit around & twiddle their thumbs so I can get some kind of tax credit.
What's missing in this equation from this genius President--congress--& administration. What they don't seem to get? Employers need demand for their goods & services before they hire anyone. There is no DEMAND for goods & services & that is why this economy is in the tank.
Yes, I am also a small business owner. Not only do you need customers, but you need some kind of assurance that you will receive a return for capital investment and other expenses of doing business. You don't want to risk your last dollar or put your assets in jeopardy unless it is a reasonable risk. Doling out taxpayer money for selected projects does nothing to build confidence that prosperity can be sustained, does nothing to encourage you or me to hire somebody because we have confidence there will be work for him or her to do, etc.
When there wasn't enough work to go around, we pretty well mothballed our business because there were others who needed the very small amount of work available just so they could buy groceries and we didn't. The business though gives us opportunity to see a lot of business's P & L's, payroll, and gross sales, and I could see how much almost everybody has had to cut back. All those cut backs translate to people who did have jobs not having jobs.
Short term government spending such as the stimulus package or one time tax rebates or one time tax credits won't fix this and do nothing to build economic confidence that produces real prosperity. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent or extending them for another five to ten years, giving some capital gains relief, and easing some unnecessary punative regulations would.
Well GOSH isn't that the REAL rub you CAN'T get customers if NOBODY has any money and you can't make JOBS without CUSTOMERS but there are no customers because no one has a JOB!!! So I guess if we make sure that RICH people have money that will create jobs?
I assume this is the tax credit that Harry Reid proposed--to give employers $3000 to get out there & hire somebody.
Don't worry--I am a small business employer--& I am not going to hire someone to sit around & twiddle their thumbs so I can get some kind of tax credit.
What's missing in this equation from this genius President--congress--& administration. What they don't seem to get? Employers need demand for their goods & services before they hire anyone. There is no DEMAND for goods & services & that is why this economy is in the tank.
Yes, I am also a small business owner. Not only do you need customers, but you need some kind of assurance that you will receive a return for capital investment and other expenses of doing business. You don't want to risk your last dollar or put your assets in jeopardy unless it is a reasonable risk. Doling out taxpayer money for selected projects does nothing to build confidence that prosperity can be sustained, does nothing to encourage you or me to hire somebody because we have confidence there will be work for him or her to do, etc.
When there wasn't enough work to go around, we pretty well mothballed our business because there were others who needed the very small amount of work available just so they could buy groceries and we didn't. The business though gives us opportunity to see a lot of business's P & L's, payroll, and gross sales, and I could see how much almost everybody has had to cut back. All those cut backs translate to people who did have jobs not having jobs.
Short term government spending such as the stimulus package or one time tax rebates or one time tax credits won't fix this and do nothing to build economic confidence that produces real prosperity. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent or extending them for another five to ten years, giving some capital gains relief, and easing some unnecessary punative regulations would.
Well GOSH isn't that the REAL rub you CAN'T get customers if NOBODY has any money and you can't make JOBS without CUSTOMERS but there are no customers because no one has a JOB!!! So I guess if we make sure that RICH people have money that will create jobs?
Yes, I am also a small business owner. Not only do you need customers, but you need some kind of assurance that you will receive a return for capital investment and other expenses of doing business. You don't want to risk your last dollar or put your assets in jeopardy unless it is a reasonable risk. Doling out taxpayer money for selected projects does nothing to build confidence that prosperity can be sustained, does nothing to encourage you or me to hire somebody because we have confidence there will be work for him or her to do, etc.
When there wasn't enough work to go around, we pretty well mothballed our business because there were others who needed the very small amount of work available just so they could buy groceries and we didn't. The business though gives us opportunity to see a lot of business's P & L's, payroll, and gross sales, and I could see how much almost everybody has had to cut back. All those cut backs translate to people who did have jobs not having jobs.
Short term government spending such as the stimulus package or one time tax rebates or one time tax credits won't fix this and do nothing to build economic confidence that produces real prosperity. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent or extending them for another five to ten years, giving some capital gains relief, and easing some unnecessary punative regulations would.
Well GOSH isn't that the REAL rub you CAN'T get customers if NOBODY has any money and you can't make JOBS without CUSTOMERS but there are no customers because no one has a JOB!!! So I guess if we make sure that RICH people have money that will create jobs?
I give up. Your continuous broken record here suggests that you have so bought into class envy and big government solutions that you are either unable or unwilling to even consider any other point of view, much less try to understand one.
It has been proven time and time and time again that more freedom, a free market, human rights, AND a tax and regulation policy favorable to business is the best prescription for sustained growth and prosperity for the largest number of people. There is no evidence of any kind that the government spending more and more money and/or more government meddling is good for sustained growth and prosperity, but deficit government spending and excessive manipulation and meddling with the market does create other problems.
It has also been demonstrated time and time and time again that government solutions too often create social dependencies that our counter productive to sustained growth and prosperity as well as create unsustainable entitlements that require more and more taxes that are also counter productive to sustained growth and prosperity.
Now you can either believe that or not, but I don't think you can provide any credible information from any credible source that will support your point of view.
Well GOSH isn't that the REAL rub you CAN'T get customers if NOBODY has any money and you can't make JOBS without CUSTOMERS but there are no customers because no one has a JOB!!! So I guess if we make sure that RICH people have money that will create jobs?
I give up. Your continuous broken record here suggests that you have so bought into class envy and big government solutions that you are either unable or unwilling to even consider any other point of view, much less try to understand one.
It has been proven time and time and time again that more freedom, a free market, human rights, AND a tax and regulation policy favorable to business is the best prescription for sustained growth and prosperity for the largest number of people. There is no evidence of any kind that the government spending more and more money and/or more government meddling is good for sustained growth and prosperity, but deficit government spending and excessive manipulation and meddling with the market does create other problems.
It has also been demonstrated time and time and time again that government solutions too often create social dependencies that our counter productive to sustained growth and prosperity as well as create unsustainable entitlements that require more and more taxes that are also counter productive to sustained growth and prosperity.
Now you can either believe that or not, but I don't think you can provide any credible information from any credible source that will support your point of view.
How about you answer the question!!!??? How do you get MORE customers when NOBODY HAS ANY MONEY!!! How do TAX CUTS make customers. You premise is total nonsense and I just PROVED that.
