Real Unemployment 11.4 percent, not the U6 number but the REAL unemployment number

[francoHFW]

Dittoheads!! This is Reagan's UE equation...

 

[Listening]

He makes the same moronic assumption that everyone who leaves the workforce is frustrated.
No Boomers ever retire, no one of working age goes back to school, gets married, gets sick or injured or decides to care for a family member who gets sick or injured, etc.
The only reason people leave the workforce is because they are discouraged.

From your link:

I think you are the one who is making the moron mistake.

Klein isn't going to post bad news unless he really thought there was a problem. He is one of BHO biggest apologists.

If Klein is too stupid to know Boomers are retiring in record numbers and people leave the workforce for a multitude of reasons, why should I even care about your mind-reading skills?

Oh, I expect you would not care...why should you.

After all, like Chris, you can't stand the fact that somehow a majority of people think President Obama is a failure and you needs some kind of comfort blanket to keep your brain from exploding.

 

[Listening]

Dittoheads!! This is Reagan's UE equation...

Ezra Klein does not equal Rush Limbaugh.

I don't listen to Rush.

Moron.

 

[Clementine]

Boy the lack of response from the left is just amazing.

No Obama rescues ?

Spinning takes time, but sure they'll be along eventually to defend their guy.

Obama and the liberal media are out there claiming that unemployment is below 9% and some recently bashed FOX news for reporting that it's actually not improved. The truth is that many people have either given up or don't qualify for unemployment benefits anymore, so they are no longer counted in the statistics. Just because they aren't counted doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't still suffering from the bad economy. But then counting them and reporting it honestly wouldn't make Obama look good.

*"But if all discouraged workers are included, the 8.6% figure rises. Including “marginally attached workers” – those who are discouraged – was 15.6% in November, according to government data. John Williams, a statistician and economist, says the real unemployment figure including all discouraged workers who stopped looking for work is closer to a staggering 22.6% — nearly a quarter of the potential workforce. Since 1994, the government data defines discouraged workers as those who have been looking for work within the last year. Williams includes all discouraged workers. “I know plenty of people who have been discouraged for more than a year,” he says."

Is the Real Unemployment Rate 22.6%?
Is the Real Unemployment Rate 22.6%? - Real-Time Advice - SmartMoney

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

How does Bozo expect to create jobs/expects to win when most small business will not hire until he loses the election?

 

[Clementine]

How does Bozo expect to create jobs/expects to win when most small business will not hire until he loses the election?

It's not government's responsibility to create jobs in the private sector. They are supposed to create fair rules and regulations that allow our free market capitalist Republic to function. They can only create more government jobs, which just taxes us poor working people even more.

With the passage of Obamacare, every employee is now a heavy burden for employers and they think twice before hiring. Obama's policies have scared them plenty and they have to ask if it's worth the risk. Many will wait till he's out or until Obamacare is repealed. It's a matter of survival for many businesses.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Boy the lack of response from the left is just amazing.

No Obama rescues ?

Spinning takes time, but sure they'll be along eventually to defend their guy.

Obama and the liberal media are out there claiming that unemployment is below 9% and some recently bashed FOX news for reporting that it's actually not improved. The truth is that many people have either given up or don't qualify for unemployment benefits anymore, so they are no longer counted in the statistics. Just because they aren't counted doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't still suffering from the bad economy. But then counting them and reporting it honestly wouldn't make Obama look good.

*"But if all discouraged workers are included, the 8.6% figure rises. Including “marginally attached workers” – those who are discouraged – was 15.6% in November, according to government data. John Williams, a statistician and economist, says the real unemployment figure including all discouraged workers who stopped looking for work is closer to a staggering 22.6% — nearly a quarter of the potential workforce. Since 1994, the government data defines discouraged workers as those who have been looking for work within the last year. Williams includes all discouraged workers. “I know plenty of people who have been discouraged for more than a year,” he says."

Is the Real Unemployment Rate 22.6%?
Is the Real Unemployment Rate 22.6%? - Real-Time Advice - SmartMoney

The U6 number (which includes "marginally attached") and the U3 (which does not, the 8.6 number) numbers are calculated using different metrics.

Neither is more "real" than the other, and the U6 is always higher, even when a republican is President.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wonkbook: The real unemployment rate is 11 percent - The Washington Post

When Ezra Klein, a partisan who has his lips welded to President Obama's ass, says it's 11%, you might want to reconsider what a Bob Schrum type comment you made looks like to others.

Idiot.

He makes the same moronic assumption that everyone who leaves the workforce is frustrated.
No Boomers ever retire, no one of working age goes back to school, gets married, gets sick or injured or decides to care for a family member who gets sick or injured, etc.
The only reason people leave the workforce is because they are discouraged.

From your link:

Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent. That's millions of workers leaving the workforce, and it's not because they've become sick or old or infirm. It's because they can't find a job, and so they've stopped trying. That's where Luce's calculation comes from.

I think you are the one who is making the moron mistake.

Klein isn't going to post bad news unless he really thought there was a problem. He is one of BHO biggest apologists.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

And all those blacks who voted for Obama either expected a lot more in handouts or high paying jobs, and instead Obama has created Flash Mobs that are raiding small businesses!

 

[jgarden]

What Is The Real Unemployment Rate? - Seeking Alpha

This provides another side of the story to the 8.6 percent unemployment rate we hear about. It's not without criticism but neither is the 8.6 percent number.

Conservatives are only interested in discussing the "REAL" unemployment rate when they're not in power and it fits into their political agenda!

Otherwise they could care less!

 

[pinqy]

First, 11.0% or 11.4% or whatever could only be the "real" UE rate IF AND ONLY IF whatever the baseline LF participation rate is the "real" one that should be used. Which is ridiculous. Whatever month is chosen is arbitrary. We could base it on Mar 2000 and get a current UE rate of 13.1%, we could base it on Jan, 1970 and get a current UE rate of 3.2% or even March, 1948 and have a current UE rate of 0.1%.

I think those last two well illustrate the problem. Using the baseline LF participation rate only works if the baseline is higher. If it's lower as it was in 1970 (60.4%) or 1948 (58.5%) the equations don't make much sense as you have to subtract people from the Unemployed category to match the LF ratio.

It IS good to look at the LF participation rate in conjunction with the UE rate, but the LF participation rate is hardly the proper baseline.

Discouragement is not the only reason people leave the labor force and it's not only from Unemploymed that people leave. Someone retiring or going back to school or deciding to stay home with the kids or joining the military or going to jail or leaving the country or dying are all negatives to the labor force.

And also people losing/leaving work and not starting to look for work yet. If you quit or get laid off, you're not unemployed until/unless you look for work.

 

[Listening]

First, 11.0% or 11.4% or whatever could only be the "real" UE rate IF AND ONLY IF whatever the baseline LF participation rate is the "real" one that should be used. Which is ridiculous. Whatever month is chosen is arbitrary. We could base it on Mar 2000 and get a current UE rate of 13.1%, we could base it on Jan, 1970 and get a current UE rate of 3.2% or even March, 1948 and have a current UE rate of 0.1%.

I think those last two well illustrate the problem. Using the baseline LF participation rate only works if the baseline is higher. If it's lower as it was in 1970 (60.4%) or 1948 (58.5%) the equations don't make much sense as you have to subtract people from the Unemployed category to match the LF ratio.

It IS good to look at the LF participation rate in conjunction with the UE rate, but the LF participation rate is hardly the proper baseline.

Discouragement is not the only reason people leave the labor force and it's not only from Unemploymed that people leave. Someone retiring or going back to school or deciding to stay home with the kids or joining the military or going to jail or leaving the country or dying are all negatives to the labor force.

And also people losing/leaving work and not starting to look for work yet. If you quit or get laid off, you're not unemployed until/unless you look for work.

It is all relative and any analysis is useful as long as the context is provided.

I think that was done in this case.

 

[pinqy]

First, 11.0% or 11.4% or whatever could only be the "real" UE rate IF AND ONLY IF whatever the baseline LF participation rate is the "real" one that should be used. Which is ridiculous. Whatever month is chosen is arbitrary. We could base it on Mar 2000 and get a current UE rate of 13.1%, we could base it on Jan, 1970 and get a current UE rate of 3.2% or even March, 1948 and have a current UE rate of 0.1%.

I think those last two well illustrate the problem. Using the baseline LF participation rate only works if the baseline is higher. If it's lower as it was in 1970 (60.4%) or 1948 (58.5%) the equations don't make much sense as you have to subtract people from the Unemployed category to match the LF ratio.

It IS good to look at the LF participation rate in conjunction with the UE rate, but the LF participation rate is hardly the proper baseline.

Discouragement is not the only reason people leave the labor force and it's not only from Unemploymed that people leave. Someone retiring or going back to school or deciding to stay home with the kids or joining the military or going to jail or leaving the country or dying are all negatives to the labor force.

And also people losing/leaving work and not starting to look for work yet. If you quit or get laid off, you're not unemployed until/unless you look for work.

It is all relative and any analysis is useful as long as the context is provided.

I think that was done in this case.

How do you figure? The month chosen was arbitrary. The assumption was made that all of the people in the difference between current LF participation and that of the arbitrary date should be counted as unemployed (no allowance for any other reason except discouragement).

The facts and logic don't back that up. The majority of the people exiting the Labor Force came from Employed, not Unemployed. Neither Discouraged nor Marginally Attached show changes consistant with all of the difference being discouragement. Even the change in "want a job now" (which includes people who are not actually available to work) does not support the claim that all of the drop in LF participation, which is not just people dropping out, but a lesser percentage of new population entering the LF, should be unemployed.

Yes it is true that IF all of the drop in LF participation (fewer in the labor force, fewer entering the labor force) were to be counted as Unemployed THEN the UE rate would be 11 whatever %. BUT there is no support for the idea that that is a valid operation.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Fine. Lets call it 11.4% instead of 8.6%. Has that created any jobs? No. Are we closer to creating jobs? No. Does it give you one more made up reason to attack Obama? Yes.

Maybe now you can see why the left isn't too concerned about the number.