Real Unemployment is 14.4%

[NYcarbineer]

You're welcome to prove yourself wrong at this link.

It is true that after Reid and Pelosi took over Congress and 66.6% of the political power employment and the economy took a decided turn to the devastated..

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

That proves me right.

Now the question is, if U-6 nearly doubled during the Bush presidency, and it's only up 2/10ths of a point during the Obama presidency,

which would be worse?

You are figuratively correct but reasonably unfair, you can hardly blame Bush with 33.3 % of the political power and consider that a fair assessment. It was 7.9 when Pelosi and Reid took over the purse strings after all.

Which means they took the U-6 unemployment from 7.9 to 14.2 in only 2 years with Bush taking 1/3rd of the responsibility at best.

They 'took' it there? And what specifically did they do? VERY specifically...

 

[Polk]

The media always published U3 regardless if a Democratic or Republican President is in charge. The idea that they switch over to U3 from U6 between a Republican administration and a Democratic administration is complete and utter hogwash.

However, we all know how Republicans think there is a grand liberal media conspiracy theory and that the BLS cooks the books.

Regardless, the trend is downward for both metrics.

The most ironic thing about this is that they blame Obama for austerity measurements while bitching and complaining about out of control spending.

There hasn't been this type of long term unemployment in over sixty years, that's the difference...

....and what austerity measurements are you referring too?

pure bullshit, I'm thinking...

You're not getting that information from the U6 figures. That data set only goes back to 1994, but looking at the relationship between U3 and U6 (which has held pretty steady over time), U6 would have been higher for large portions of the 1970s and 1980s. If you're referring to average unemployment duration (which is not the same thing as U6), it is indeed at historic highs, but it's that is also part of a longer-term trend in the data. Even during the "boom" portions of the last decade, the average duration of unemployment was higher than it had been at any time since the late 1940s (except for a few years in the early 1970s).

 

[Lumpy 1]

That proves me right.

Now the question is, if U-6 nearly doubled during the Bush presidency, and it's only up 2/10ths of a point during the Obama presidency,

which would be worse?

You are figuratively correct but reasonably unfair, you can hardly blame Bush with 33.3 % of the political power and consider that a fair assessment. It was 7.9 when Pelosi and Reid took over the purse strings after all.

Which means they took the U-6 unemployment from 7.9 to 14.2 in only 2 years with Bush taking 1/3rd of the responsibility at best.

They 'took' it there? And what specifically did they do? VERY specifically...

They had the responsibility of oversight and the obligation to react for the American people... specifically what did they do to, Very specifically... you tell me..

...and why is it that Democrats naturally expect others to do their work for them while they sit on their asses and do nothing...?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are figuratively correct but reasonably unfair, you can hardly blame Bush with 33.3 % of the political power and consider that a fair assessment. It was 7.9 when Pelosi and Reid took over the purse strings after all.

Which means they took the U-6 unemployment from 7.9 to 14.2 in only 2 years with Bush taking 1/3rd of the responsibility at best.

They 'took' it there? And what specifically did they do? VERY specifically...

They had the responsibility of oversight and the obligation to react for the American people... specifically what did they do to, Very specifically... you tell me..

...and why is it that Democrats naturally expect others to do their work for them while they sit on their asses and do nothing...?

In other words you can't name a single thing.

Shut up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are figuratively correct but reasonably unfair, you can hardly blame Bush with 33.3 % of the political power and consider that a fair assessment. It was 7.9 when Pelosi and Reid took over the purse strings after all.

Which means they took the U-6 unemployment from 7.9 to 14.2 in only 2 years with Bush taking 1/3rd of the responsibility at best.

They 'took' it there? And what specifically did they do? VERY specifically...

They had the responsibility of oversight and the obligation to react for the American people... specifically what did they do to, Very specifically... you tell me..

...and why is it that Democrats naturally expect others to do their work for them while they sit on their asses and do nothing...?

If your premise is true, then take into account that the housing bubble burst in 2005, 2 years before the Democrats won the Congress.

Based then on your own premise, that makes the Republican Congress that had been in the majority since 2002 - both houses - fully responsible for the real estate meltdown and, since all of the ensuing financial calamities can be linked to the housing boom and bust,

that makes the Republican Congress plus GW Bush fully responsible for the entire mess,

again, according your own premises and assumptions.

 

[rightwinger]

The media always published U3 regardless if a Democratic or Republican President is in charge. The idea that they switch over to U3 from U6 between a Republican administration and a Democratic administration is complete and utter hogwash.

However, we all know how Republicans think there is a grand liberal media conspiracy theory and that the BLS cooks the books.

Regardless, the trend is downward for both metrics.

The most ironic thing about this is that they blame Obama for austerity measurements while bitching and complaining about out of control spending.

There hasn't been this type of long term unemployment in over sixty years, that's the difference...

....and what austerity measurements are you referring too?

pure bullshit, I'm thinking...

There hasn't been a massive Republican recession like this one in over sixty years.

Also, no president has been asked to balance the budget and significantly raise employment at the same time

 

[edthecynic]

That proves me right.

Now the question is, if U-6 nearly doubled during the Bush presidency, and it's only up 2/10ths of a point during the Obama presidency,

which would be worse?

You are figuratively correct but reasonably unfair, you can hardly blame Bush with 33.3 % of the political power and consider that a fair assessment. It was 7.9 when Pelosi and Reid took over the purse strings after all.

Which means they took the U-6 unemployment from 7.9 to 14.2 in only 2 years with Bush taking 1/3rd of the responsibility at best.

They 'took' it there? And what specifically did they do? VERY specifically...

As demanded by Bush, the Dem Congress cut business taxes by $4.84 billion on May 24, 2007. Bush signed it the next day and the economy crashed by December.
OOPSIE!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

I do love your guys gusto in coming up with new "real" measures for unemployment.

That's because liberals want to blame others but accept no responsibility for anything the press will help them hide.

Unemployment means people cannot get work, and by ignoring reality and pretending lower unemployment that depression, Democrats can win elections based on the lies with which their paid-for media folk go along for lucrative interviews when their planned omissions results in seeming political wins because everyone is confused. It's chaotic, just the way liberals like it lately, until they community-organize (communize) America

Liberals can pass laws to rob the treasury and give it to liberal voters for free when they win.

Liberals don't see corruption as a ride on the road to perdition. they view it as an easy way to get something for nothing for themselves and their friends at the taxpayers' expense.

It's very clinical, really.

U6 includes people who are employed. So how are people with jobs unemployed again?

That's because the U-6 is not a measure of UNemployment. It is a measure of UNDERemployment.

 

[freedombecki]

I do love your guys gusto in coming up with new "real" measures for unemployment.

That's because liberals want to blame others but accept no responsibility for anything the press will help them hide.

Unemployment means people cannot get work, and by ignoring reality and pretending lower unemployment that depression, Democrats can win elections based on the lies with which their paid-for media folk go along for lucrative interviews when their planned omissions results in seeming political wins because everyone is confused. It's chaotic, just the way liberals like it lately, until they community-organize (communize) America

Liberals can pass laws to rob the treasury and give it to liberal voters for free when they win.

Liberals don't see corruption as a ride on the road to perdition. they view it as an easy way to get something for nothing for themselves and their friends at the taxpayers' expense.

It's very clinical, really.

No one is lying. The BLS has published a variety of unemployment metrics for decades. However, the media has only consistently published one those, which is U3.

There is no conspiracy here.

An error of omission is obfuscating selected information bites to produce a bubble in which those facts do not exist.

I'm right on target with noting misfiring communications presented as evidence that produces a clinical lie in its kindest light and a monetary screwing of American taxpayers when taken out into the sun, away from the bubble of obfuscations the press passes off as reality.

You can call obfuscated truth the truth if you care to, but when it justifies taking money from one taxpayer and giving it to the other, it's no different than putting a mask over your face and holding a gun to someone's head with instructions for them to empty their pockets so you can be rich and they can be poor.

 

[freedombecki]

I do love your guys gusto in coming up with new "real" measures for unemployment.

That's because liberals want to blame others but accept no responsibility for anything the press will help them hide.

Unemployment means people cannot get work, and by ignoring reality and pretending lower unemployment that depression, Democrats can win elections based on the lies with which their paid-for media folk go along for lucrative interviews when their planned omissions results in seeming political wins because everyone is confused. It's chaotic, just the way liberals like it lately, until they community-organize (communize) America

Liberals can pass laws to rob the treasury and give it to liberal voters for free when they win.

Liberals don't see corruption as a ride on the road to perdition. they view it as an easy way to get something for nothing for themselves and their friends at the taxpayers' expense.

It's very clinical, really.

We've always suspected your depression was clinical....after the <freudian stage 1 ad hominem omitted>-whuppin' you took, in November.

Hang-in-there! Everything's temporary....except the end of one more Republican throw-away candidate's political-career.

<use link to view pic above>

"Got any change?"​

It wasn't me who lost. I won. I voted one time for the best man. The worst man was elected because his friends voted several times apiece for him and taught others to do the same, destroying the American system. Some of them actually collect money from foundations for "getting out the vote," and not "disenfranchising conservative Americans of their wins on election day."

Criminal organization has crept into community organizing. Voting is now a criminal opportunistic venture for people who do not play by any given set of rules except to grab political power they do not deserve since they did not win it fairly, but took it corruptly using the old world cheating method known as omerta to escape punishment for lack of evidence in order to control events for the purpose of expropriating taxpayer assets to themselves for personal use and pleasure.

People like me who play fair and believe in playing fair are never losers. We're always winners, even when it doesn't look like it.

Sorry for you in having an apparition of winning that was based on disenfranchising taxpayers from having the say-so my ancestors died in the Revolutionary war to give them, but that people like corrupt politicians took away from them the very constitutional privileges they most vaccuously took from them by acquiring votes from people on lifesupport in rest homes and those who have died and are unable to come to a voting booth due to the disintegration of their dead bodies.

 

[Polk]

That's because liberals want to blame others but accept no responsibility for anything the press will help them hide.

Unemployment means people cannot get work, and by ignoring reality and pretending lower unemployment that depression, Democrats can win elections based on the lies with which their paid-for media folk go along for lucrative interviews when their planned omissions results in seeming political wins because everyone is confused. It's chaotic, just the way liberals like it lately, until they community-organize (communize) America

Liberals can pass laws to rob the treasury and give it to liberal voters for free when they win.

Liberals don't see corruption as a ride on the road to perdition. they view it as an easy way to get something for nothing for themselves and their friends at the taxpayers' expense.

It's very clinical, really.

U6 includes people who are employed. So how are people with jobs unemployed again?

That's because the U-6 is not a measure of UNemployment. It is a measure of UNDERemployment.

I know this. Becki, it seems, does not.

 

[freedombecki]

U6 includes people who are employed. So how are people with jobs unemployed again?

That's because the U-6 is not a measure of UNemployment. It is a measure of UNDERemployment.

I know this. Becki, it seems, does not.

You expect me to approve of half-assed jobs that require people to have 4 of apiece to pay rent, who are always hurrying from one employment place to another with little time for their families they support?

Ain't-a gonna do it for all the pretty faces in Hollyweird who brought us to this point by teaching Democrats how to convincingly lie, convincingly cover up, and convincingly steal hard-working taxpayer money claiming it all came from rich people, and convincingly "prove" everything's gonna be all right. It's no all right to lie, cheat, and steal. Period.

I ain't-a gonna sign on to half-assed employment in America in any way, shape, or form, and I'm not going to support any politician who does.

 

[Pogo]

You expect me to approve of half-assed jobs that require people to have 4 of apiece to pay rent, who are always hurrying from one employment place to another with little time for their families they support?

"Approval" doesn't enter into it. The issue is that the OP tried to set up a fallacy by comparing apples and oranges and then pointing "oh look, the number of oranges went up from the number of apples". That's completely fallacious.

Now put the goalpost back... nice and slow...

 

[pinqy]

I do love your guys gusto in coming up with new "real" measures for unemployment.

That's because liberals want to blame others but accept no responsibility for anything the press will help them hide.

Unemployment means people cannot get work.

EXACTLY! Which is why the Official measure of U3 is used: it measures people who can' t get work. The U6 includes people who aren't trying to work and people who have work, just aren't working as much as they want.

If someone lost her job 10 months ago, and stopped looking for work after 2 months, how do we know whether or not she could get a job now?

The U6 is useful for measuring underuse: it shows people who are looking, who might start looking soon, and those who could be working more.

 

[Lumpy 1]

You expect me to approve of half-assed jobs that require people to have 4 of apiece to pay rent, who are always hurrying from one employment place to another with little time for their families they support?

"Approval" doesn't enter into it. The issue is that the OP tried to set up a fallacy by comparing apples and oranges and then pointing "oh look, the number of oranges went up from the number of apples". That's completely fallacious.

Now put the goalpost back... nice and slow...

Long term employment/under employment hasn't been this bad in over 60 years..

I can see why the Democrats much prefer to careless and not recognize the multitudes of average Americans that are indeed suffering the long term effects of Democrats/Obama liberal policies.

 

[pinqy]

huh, I just realized no one has pointed out that the U6 DROPPED from 14.6% in October to 14.4% in November.

 

[sealybobo]

Democrats have been, "Fooled Again" so many times by Obama, you do actually wonder if liberalism, really is, a mental disorder..


The real unemployment number is 14.4%, quit kidding yourselves...mmkay



Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Look what we were saying in 2006 about "real unemployment under Bush's watch.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now. Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term" or "discouraged" unemployed workers. And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans, many unable to find above-poverty-level work.

So don't try to pull this shit with us. This started on Bush's watch when he sent all those jobs overseas.

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting and left in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.