"REAL" Unemployment Much Higher...

[IGetItAlready]

I know these are numbers many don't even like to consider but they should.

Real Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless


"The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time."
_______________________________________________

"The numbers in some cases are startling.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.
Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009."

 

[Moonglow]

Like myself, I was on UE,it ran out and I got another job. But how would the people that do the UER know that?
Benton County Arkansas, has not only regained the amount of jobs lost, but has a positive job growth market.

 

[Nova78]

I am an idiot , but vote for me cause the private sector is doing fine....

 

[onecut39]

I know these are numbers many don't even like to consider but they should.

Real Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless


"The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time."
_______________________________________________

"The numbers in some cases are startling.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.
Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009."

Oh what a tangled web we weave......................................

Whenever people go looking for a fight on the economy, be they liberal or conservative, they suddenly find the U6 unemployment index. It has been around forever. It is not commonly used by either the democrats or republicans while they are in power. It is the broadest index for unemployment available. In essence it simply counts all those not working as unemployed.

Using this index, what is commonly considered full employment on our (U3) index would suddenly become a 10% unemployment rate.

Should Mitt be elected President the U6 would promptly be jettisoned from Getitalready's consciousness to be replaced with the common U3.

At this point the liberals would discover the U6 and begin pounding MItt.

The pointis the U6 is almost never used for the general public. Never has, Never will.

 

[IGetItAlready]

I know these are numbers many don't even like to consider but they should.

Real Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless


"The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time."
_______________________________________________

"The numbers in some cases are startling.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.
Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009."

Oh what a tangled web we weave......................................

Whenever people go looking for a fight on the economy, be they liberal or conservative, they suddenly find the U6 unemployment index. It has been around forever. It is not commonly used by either the democrats or republicans while they are in power. It is the broadest index for unemployment available. In essence it simply counts all those not working as unemployed.

Using this index, what is commonly considered full employment on our (U3) index would suddenly become a 10% unemployment rate.

Should Mitt be elected President the U6 would promptly be jettisoned from Getitalready's consciousness to be replaced with the common U3.

At this point the liberals would discover the U6 and begin pounding MItt.

The pointis the U6 is almost never used for the general public. Never has, Never will.

It's easy to ASSUME but I don't see why there is a U3 rating when what really matters is the U6. Left, Right or otherwise, sugar coating the numbers while working on that trite assumption that the people are stupid is offensive.

Just because most of us don't live and work in Washington doesn't mean we're not capable of handling or entitled to the truth.

And BTW, I didn't just FIND the U6...it's ALWAYS meant more to me than the edited for public consumption numbers.

 

[onecut39]

I know these are numbers many don't even like to consider but they should.

Real Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless


"The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time."
_______________________________________________

"The numbers in some cases are startling.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.
Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009."

Oh what a tangled web we weave......................................

Whenever people go looking for a fight on the economy, be they liberal or conservative, they suddenly find the U6 unemployment index. It has been around forever. It is not commonly used by either the democrats or republicans while they are in power. It is the broadest index for unemployment available. In essence it simply counts all those not working as unemployed.

Using this index, what is commonly considered full employment on our (U3) index would suddenly become a 10% unemployment rate.

Should Mitt be elected President the U6 would promptly be jettisoned from Getitalready's consciousness to be replaced with the common U3.

At this point the liberals would discover the U6 and begin pounding MItt.

The pointis the U6 is almost never used for the general public. Never has, Never will.

It's easy to ASSUME but I don't see why there is a U3 rating when what really matters is the U6. Left, Right or otherwise, sugar coating the numbers while working on that trite assumption that the people are stupid is offensive.

Just because most of us don't live and work in Washington doesn't mean we're not capable of handling or entitled to the truth.

And BTW, I didn't just FIND the U6...it's ALWAYS meant more to me than the edited for public consumption numbers.

Nice try. The U6 is not used because it does not paint an accurate picture of the unemployment. Why should you count as unemployed someone who does not want, or need work?

If you were honest you woud tell folks what I did. That the U6 would portray "full" employment as a 10% unemployment rate.

You are just peddling a line of political crap.

 

[IGetItAlready]

Oh what a tangled web we weave......................................

Whenever people go looking for a fight on the economy, be they liberal or conservative, they suddenly find the U6 unemployment index. It has been around forever. It is not commonly used by either the democrats or republicans while they are in power. It is the broadest index for unemployment available. In essence it simply counts all those not working as unemployed.

Using this index, what is commonly considered full employment on our (U3) index would suddenly become a 10% unemployment rate.

Should Mitt be elected President the U6 would promptly be jettisoned from Getitalready's consciousness to be replaced with the common U3.

At this point the liberals would discover the U6 and begin pounding MItt.

The pointis the U6 is almost never used for the general public. Never has, Never will.

It's easy to ASSUME but I don't see why there is a U3 rating when what really matters is the U6. Left, Right or otherwise, sugar coating the numbers while working on that trite assumption that the people are stupid is offensive.

Just because most of us don't live and work in Washington doesn't mean we're not capable of handling or entitled to the truth.

And BTW, I didn't just FIND the U6...it's ALWAYS meant more to me than the edited for public consumption numbers.

Nice try. The U6 is not used because it does not paint an accurate picture of the unemployment. Why should you count as unemployed someone who does not want, or need work?

If you were honest you woud tell folks what I did. That the U6 would portray "full" employment as a 10% unemployment rate.

You are just peddling a line of political crap.

Yap yap yap. Tell me who wants to work and who doesn't and I'll tell you who does and doesn't want healthcare.

Regardless enlightened one, I'm an adult. Set your arbitrary number for "zero" unemployment and then give me the truth.
Some of us are capable of handling it...while others seem scared to death of it.

 

[B. Kidd]

On this 'economics board', I've quoted econ. #'s from Cuba as well as the U.S..

For some strange reason, Cubas' #'s get questioned, but rarely the U.S. #'s.

Go figure???

 

[pinqy]

Like myself, I was on UE,it ran out and I got another job. But how would the people that do the UER know that?
Benton County Arkansas, has not only regained the amount of jobs lost, but has a positive job growth market.

It's called statistics...it's been around for a while. A full count every month is obviously just not possible, so every month a survey is done of approximately 60,000 households (yes, that is an adequate number). From the survey results, the total unemployment and employment for the country is estimated. We know that 95% of the time, the Employment level will be off by no more than about 0.4% and the Unemployment level off by no more than 2.9% and the UE rate off by no more than 0.24 percentage points.

So for June, we can by 95% certain that the "real" Employment level is between 142,592,043 and 143,811,957, the Unemployment level is between 12,802,121and 13,565,879 and the rate is between 8.2% and 8.7%

However, there are regualr, predictable, seasonal changes that add "noise" to the regression. Accounting for that in Seasonally Adjusted numbers (which show the real changes with less distortion from usual seasonal changes, the Employment level is between 141,604,812 and 142,835,188, Unemployment between 12,417,394 and 13,170,606, and the rate between 8.0% and 8.5%

 

[pinqy]

I know these are numbers many don't even like to consider but they should.

Real Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless


"The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time."

First, of course if you classify more people as uneployed the rate will be higher. The question is what would be the methodological reason for including more people?

Why would you want to classify people not trying to work as unemployed? Why would you want to include people who have jobs as unemployed?

For example, let's take two workers doing the same job for the same company. One works 35 hours/week, the other 30, both because that's how many hours they want to work. Due to slow business, the 35 hour/week worker has her hours cut down to 30 hours a week. So now, you would call one person working 30 hours a week Unemployed and the other Employed, based solely on what they want to do. Do you really think that makes sense?

It IS useful to track for "Underutilization." Someone who isn't working as many hours as they could. That's what the U6 measures: the percent of people who could be working more than they are (which means more than 0 for the Unemployed and Marginally attached). But it's NOT a measure of Unemployment.

 

[onecut39]

It's easy to ASSUME but I don't see why there is a U3 rating when what really matters is the U6. Left, Right or otherwise, sugar coating the numbers while working on that trite assumption that the people are stupid is offensive.

Just because most of us don't live and work in Washington doesn't mean we're not capable of handling or entitled to the truth.

And BTW, I didn't just FIND the U6...it's ALWAYS meant more to me than the edited for public consumption numbers.

Nice try. The U6 is not used because it does not paint an accurate picture of the unemployment. Why should you count as unemployed someone who does not want, or need work?

If you were honest you woud tell folks what I did. That the U6 would portray "full" employment as a 10% unemployment rate.

You are just peddling a line of political crap.

Yap yap yap. Tell me who wants to work and who doesn't and I'll tell you who does and doesn't want healthcare.

Regardless enlightened one, I'm an adult. Set your arbitrary number for "zero" unemployment and then give me the truth.
Some of us are capable of handling it...while others seem scared to death of it.

The rightwingnuts are always telling us who wants to work. Nobody.

We have agreed the the U6 is not used for public purposes. You have carefully avoided saying why. (chuckle)

In that you prefer an index that few people know, or care, about it would be honest if you explained just how that index compares with the familiar one. Honest, there is that hurtful word again.

Would it be too difficult to say the unemployment rate on the U6 will appear to be just about DOUBLE that of U3? You might go on to make the comparison that at what has been considered "full employment" (about 4%) the U6 would show to be an unemployment rate of 8 to 9%?

I think you know exactly what you are doing. Not pretty, your not even real good at it and you have little company but who knows maybe you will get an audience.

Look at Rush he has made millions peddling the same bullshit to the same people (and their offspring) for decades.

Talk to the Rush fans.

 

[sealybobo]

I know these are numbers many don't even like to consider but they should.

Real Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless


"The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time."
_______________________________________________

"The numbers in some cases are startling.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.
Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009."

What's the number today?

Unemployment numbers not 'phony' to Trump anymore - CNNPolitics.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's easy to ASSUME but I don't see why there is a U3 rating when what really matters is the U6. Left, Right or otherwise, sugar coating the numbers while working on that trite assumption that the people are stupid is offensive.

Just because most of us don't live and work in Washington doesn't mean we're not capable of handling or entitled to the truth.

And BTW, I didn't just FIND the U6...it's ALWAYS meant more to me than the edited for public consumption numbers.

Nice try. The U6 is not used because it does not paint an accurate picture of the unemployment. Why should you count as unemployed someone who does not want, or need work?

If you were honest you woud tell folks what I did. That the U6 would portray "full" employment as a 10% unemployment rate.

You are just peddling a line of political crap.

Yap yap yap. Tell me who wants to work and who doesn't and I'll tell you who does and doesn't want healthcare.

Regardless enlightened one, I'm an adult. Set your arbitrary number for "zero" unemployment and then give me the truth.
Some of us are capable of handling it...while others seem scared to death of it.

The rightwingnuts are always telling us who wants to work. Nobody.

We have agreed the the U6 is not used for public purposes. You have carefully avoided saying why. (chuckle)

In that you prefer an index that few people know, or care, about it would be honest if you explained just how that index compares with the familiar one. Honest, there is that hurtful word again.

Would it be too difficult to say the unemployment rate on the U6 will appear to be just about DOUBLE that of U3? You might go on to make the comparison that at what has been considered "full employment" (about 4%) the U6 would show to be an unemployment rate of 8 to 9%?

I think you know exactly what you are doing. Not pretty, your not even real good at it and you have little company but who knows maybe you will get an audience.

Look at Rush he has made millions peddling the same bullshit to the same people (and their offspring) for decades.

Talk to the Rush fans.

anyway you cut it unemployment is very low right now when you look at u six and u three. So what point are you trying to make??The problem with the economy now has much more to do with low wages for those who do work than with unemployment.

 

[Moonglow]

And what about those damn idle devil worshippers that are not in the workforce, such yuge numbers for such a dynamic employer like Trumpet...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And what about those damn idle devil worshippers that are not in the workforce, such yuge numbers for such a dynamic employer like Trumpet...

Liberal moron fool with his pants down making as much sense as usual

 

[itfitzme]

I know these are numbers many don't even like to consider but they should.

Real Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless


"The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time."
_______________________________________________

"The numbers in some cases are startling.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.
Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009."

Your link is a dead link.

There is no "real unemployment rate".

There are six measures of unemployment, U-1 through U-6. The measure, U-3 is the statistic that has the most history of measuring the US unemployment rate. It is the "official unemployment rate". It is the most useful statistic as it allows comparison of the unemployment rate over a longer period of US history. Other statistics, like U-6 are fairly new and have less meaning because it doesn't have the historical reference for comparison. The only meaning that a measure has is in terms of how it compares to the historical average. A century of data suggests that full employment is at about an unemployment rate of between 5 and 7% for U-3.

The definitions of the measures of unemployment are

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

U-3 is all people who say they are actively looking for work.
U-6 includes people who are not actively looking for a job. It includes everyone who would take a job if someone called them and said they had a job for them. It also includes people who have part time jobs and would take a full time if someone offered it to them. Understand that this is based on surveys of self reported intent. It isn't quite as useful as U-3 because it includes people who say, "Yeah, I want a job. Oh, but no, I'm not actually looking for one." It is not a measure of demand in the job market. It is exactly the same as someone saying, "Oh, sure, I'd love to have your product if you give it to me. But I'm not interested in buying it right now." This is not demand for a good.

So, it isn't correct to say, "The real unemployment rate is U-6". There is no "real unemployment rate" and U-5, 5 and 6 are not measure of demand in the job market. They also don't have the history with which to make a good comparison over time. And, when someone "really" wants to work, they "really" go out and apply for jobs. They "really" mean it. They are "really" unemployed.



.

 

[depotoo]

This thread was from 2012.

I know these are numbers many don't even like to consider but they should.

Real Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless


"The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time."
_______________________________________________

"The numbers in some cases are startling.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.
Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009."

Your link is a dead link.

There is no "real unemployment rate".

There are six measures of unemployment, U-1 through U-6. The measure, U-3 is the statistic that has the most history of measuring the US unemployment rate. It is the "official unemployment rate". It is the most useful statistic as it allows comparison of the unemployment rate over a longer period of US history. Other statistics, like U-6 are fairly new and have less meaning because it doesn't have the historical reference for comparison. The only meaning that a measure has is in terms of how it compares to the historical average. A century of data suggests that full employment is at about an unemployment rate of between 5 and 7% for U-3.

The definitions of the measures of unemployment are

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

U-3 is all people who say they are actively looking for work.
U-6 includes people who are not actively looking for a job. It includes everyone who would take a job if someone called them and said they had a job for them. It also includes people who have part time jobs and would take a full time if someone offered it to them. Understand that this is based on surveys of self reported intent. It isn't quite as useful as U-3 because it includes people who say, "Yeah, I want a job. Oh, but no, I'm not actually looking for one." It is not a measure of demand in the job market. It is exactly the same as someone saying, "Oh, sure, I'd love to have your product if you give it to me. But I'm not interested in buying it right now." This is not demand for a good.

So, it isn't correct to say, "The real unemployment rate is U-6". There is no "real unemployment rate" and U-5, 5 and 6 are not measure of demand in the job market. They also don't have the history with which to make a good comparison over time. And, when someone "really" wants to work, they "really" go out and apply for jobs. They "really" mean it. They are "really" unemployed.



.

 

[sealybobo]

It's easy to ASSUME but I don't see why there is a U3 rating when what really matters is the U6. Left, Right or otherwise, sugar coating the numbers while working on that trite assumption that the people are stupid is offensive.

Just because most of us don't live and work in Washington doesn't mean we're not capable of handling or entitled to the truth.

And BTW, I didn't just FIND the U6...it's ALWAYS meant more to me than the edited for public consumption numbers.

Nice try. The U6 is not used because it does not paint an accurate picture of the unemployment. Why should you count as unemployed someone who does not want, or need work?

If you were honest you woud tell folks what I did. That the U6 would portray "full" employment as a 10% unemployment rate.

You are just peddling a line of political crap.

Yap yap yap. Tell me who wants to work and who doesn't and I'll tell you who does and doesn't want healthcare.

Regardless enlightened one, I'm an adult. Set your arbitrary number for "zero" unemployment and then give me the truth.
Some of us are capable of handling it...while others seem scared to death of it.

The rightwingnuts are always telling us who wants to work. Nobody.

We have agreed the the U6 is not used for public purposes. You have carefully avoided saying why. (chuckle)

In that you prefer an index that few people know, or care, about it would be honest if you explained just how that index compares with the familiar one. Honest, there is that hurtful word again.

Would it be too difficult to say the unemployment rate on the U6 will appear to be just about DOUBLE that of U3? You might go on to make the comparison that at what has been considered "full employment" (about 4%) the U6 would show to be an unemployment rate of 8 to 9%?

I think you know exactly what you are doing. Not pretty, your not even real good at it and you have little company but who knows maybe you will get an audience.

Look at Rush he has made millions peddling the same bullshit to the same people (and their offspring) for decades.

Talk to the Rush fans.

anyway you cut it unemployment is very low right now when you look at u six and u three. So what point are you trying to make??The problem with the economy now has much more to do with low wages for those who do work than with unemployment.

Just giving Republicans the same shit they gave us. Obama had 4% unemployment Republicans said it wasn't real but now 3.9 is?

 

[depotoo]

Have you compared his other numbers? Look at the under utilization numbers. Look at the discouraged workers numbers (u numbers) u6 today is 8.4 vs 9.4 a year ago, same month

It's easy to ASSUME but I don't see why there is a U3 rating when what really matters is the U6. Left, Right or otherwise, sugar coating the numbers while working on that trite assumption that the people are stupid is offensive.

Just because most of us don't live and work in Washington doesn't mean we're not capable of handling or entitled to the truth.

And BTW, I didn't just FIND the U6...it's ALWAYS meant more to me than the edited for public consumption numbers.

Nice try. The U6 is not used because it does not paint an accurate picture of the unemployment. Why should you count as unemployed someone who does not want, or need work?

If you were honest you woud tell folks what I did. That the U6 would portray "full" employment as a 10% unemployment rate.

You are just peddling a line of political crap.

Yap yap yap. Tell me who wants to work and who doesn't and I'll tell you who does and doesn't want healthcare.

Regardless enlightened one, I'm an adult. Set your arbitrary number for "zero" unemployment and then give me the truth.
Some of us are capable of handling it...while others seem scared to death of it.

The rightwingnuts are always telling us who wants to work. Nobody.

We have agreed the the U6 is not used for public purposes. You have carefully avoided saying why. (chuckle)

In that you prefer an index that few people know, or care, about it would be honest if you explained just how that index compares with the familiar one. Honest, there is that hurtful word again.

Would it be too difficult to say the unemployment rate on the U6 will appear to be just about DOUBLE that of U3? You might go on to make the comparison that at what has been considered "full employment" (about 4%) the U6 would show to be an unemployment rate of 8 to 9%?

I think you know exactly what you are doing. Not pretty, your not even real good at it and you have little company but who knows maybe you will get an audience.

Look at Rush he has made millions peddling the same bullshit to the same people (and their offspring) for decades.

Talk to the Rush fans.

anyway you cut it unemployment is very low right now when you look at u six and u three. So what point are you trying to make??The problem with the economy now has much more to do with low wages for those who do work than with unemployment.

Just giving Republicans the same shit they gave us. Obama had 4% unemployment Republicans said it wasn't real but now 3.9 is?

 

[sealybobo]

Have you compared his other numbers? Look at the under utilization numbers. Look at the discouraged workers numbers (u numbers) u6 today is 8.4 vs 9.4 a year ago, same month

Nice try. The U6 is not used because it does not paint an accurate picture of the unemployment. Why should you count as unemployed someone who does not want, or need work?

If you were honest you woud tell folks what I did. That the U6 would portray "full" employment as a 10% unemployment rate.

You are just peddling a line of political crap.

Yap yap yap. Tell me who wants to work and who doesn't and I'll tell you who does and doesn't want healthcare.

Regardless enlightened one, I'm an adult. Set your arbitrary number for "zero" unemployment and then give me the truth.
Some of us are capable of handling it...while others seem scared to death of it.

The rightwingnuts are always telling us who wants to work. Nobody.

We have agreed the the U6 is not used for public purposes. You have carefully avoided saying why. (chuckle)

In that you prefer an index that few people know, or care, about it would be honest if you explained just how that index compares with the familiar one. Honest, there is that hurtful word again.

Would it be too difficult to say the unemployment rate on the U6 will appear to be just about DOUBLE that of U3? You might go on to make the comparison that at what has been considered "full employment" (about 4%) the U6 would show to be an unemployment rate of 8 to 9%?

I think you know exactly what you are doing. Not pretty, your not even real good at it and you have little company but who knows maybe you will get an audience.

Look at Rush he has made millions peddling the same bullshit to the same people (and their offspring) for decades.

Talk to the Rush fans.

anyway you cut it unemployment is very low right now when you look at u six and u three. So what point are you trying to make??The problem with the economy now has much more to do with low wages for those who do work than with unemployment.

Just giving Republicans the same shit they gave us. Obama had 4% unemployment Republicans said it wasn't real but now 3.9 is?

And Trump did that?