Shadowstats: Unemployment Rate is 22.5%

Mad Scientist

Feels Good!
Sep 15, 2008
24,196
5,431
270
From KingWorld News:
My Blog
John Williams, of Shadowstats, notes that manipulated government statistics are not changing the fact that the true SGS Unemployment Measure now sits at a staggering 22.5%. Williams can only use comparisons from the Great Depression to put things into proper perspective. Here is what Williams had to say: “The Economy Still Is Not Recovering".
An unemployment rate above 22% might raise questions in terms of a comparison with the purported peak unemployment in the Great Depression (1933) of 25%. The SGS level likely is about as bad as the peak unemployment seen in the 1973 to 1975 recession.
 
Shadowstats: Unemployment Rate is 22.5%

Yeah such things a FREE TRADE and the BANKSTER's MELTDOWN definitely do bad things to the employment situation.
 
BLS publishes this: BLS Handbook of Methods

They tell everybody exactly what methods and formulas they're using and also publish detailed disaggregated data. I've looked through the shadowstats website and can't find anything similar. How is anybody supposed to verify his results or check that his methods aren't flawed?
 
BLS publishes this: BLS Handbook of Methods

They tell everybody exactly what methods and formulas they're using and also publish detailed disaggregated data. I've looked through the shadowstats website and can't find anything similar. How is anybody supposed to verify his results or check that his methods aren't flawed?
And you believe that?

The DOJ walked weapons to Mexican drug cartel so they could undermine the 2nd Amendment.
Obama said he wouldn't sign NDAA right before he signed it.
The Supreme Court ruled that Corporations are People.

When are you gonna' pull your head out of your ass and realize the gov't will lie to you and screw you at every opportunity?

But you see, this is exactly why Obama needs the Internet Kill Switch. Gov't can't stay in power while this information is in circulation. They just can't.

"When the gov't fears the people, there is Liberty. When the people fear the gov't, there is tyranny".

Which do you think is the case today?
 
BLS publishes this: BLS Handbook of Methods

They tell everybody exactly what methods and formulas they're using and also publish detailed disaggregated data. I've looked through the shadowstats website and can't find anything similar. How is anybody supposed to verify his results or check that his methods aren't flawed?
And you believe that?

The DOJ walked weapons to Mexican drug cartel so they could undermine the 2nd Amendment.
Obama said he wouldn't sign NDAA right before he signed it.
The Supreme Court ruled that Corporations are People.

When are you gonna' pull your head out of your ass and realize the gov't will lie to you and screw you at every opportunity?

But you see, this is exactly why Obama needs the Internet Kill Switch. Gov't can't stay in power while this information is in circulation. They just can't.

"When the gov't fears the people, there is Liberty. When the people fear the gov't, there is tyranny".

Which do you think is the case today?

The point is I have to trust shadowstats more than I do BLS. I can actually see the methodology BLS is using and personally double check it. I can't do any such thing with shadowstats. For all I know this guy is just making up the numbers.

And now you've gone and started sounding crazy, which leads me to believe you don't actually care about accurate statistical methods and more just want to criticise the government. If you want to criticise the government, go for it. But don't dress it up in bullshit.
 
The point is I have to trust shadowstats more than I do BLS. I can actually see the methodology BLS is using and personally double check it. I can't do any such thing with shadowstats. For all I know this guy is just making up the numbers.

Yeah I had a look at Shawdowstats myself and reviewed their numbers and couldn't find their methodology (which is vital to establish legitimacy). That being said most other agencies place real unemployment between 11% and 15% once you add back in all the people that gave up looking for work and/or are underemployed.

So I don't particularly trust Shadowstats conclusion here but I can tell you that unemployment is a hell of a lot higher than 8.3.
 
The point is I have to trust shadowstats more than I do BLS. I can actually see the methodology BLS is using and personally double check it. I can't do any such thing with shadowstats. For all I know this guy is just making up the numbers.

Yeah I had a look at Shawdowstats myself and reviewed their numbers and couldn't find their methodology (which is vital to establish legitimacy). That being said most other agencies place real unemployment between 11% and 15% once you add back in all the people that gave up looking for work and/or are underemployed.

So I don't particularly trust Shadowstats conclusion here but I can tell you that unemployment is a hell of a lot higher than 8.3.

Depends how you define "unemployment". With the typical definition it's 8.3, but then the typical definition doesn't seem to apply so much during a prolonged downturn when people leave the labour force. So I look at this instead:

fredgraph.png


When the employment-population ratio starts consistently climbing maybe then I'll get excited about a recovery.
 
From KingWorld News:
My Blog
John Williams, of Shadowstats, notes that manipulated government statistics are not changing the fact that the true SGS Unemployment Measure now sits at a staggering 22.5%. Williams can only use comparisons from the Great Depression to put things into proper perspective. Here is what Williams had to say: “The Economy Still Is Not Recovering".
An unemployment rate above 22% might raise questions in terms of a comparison with the purported peak unemployment in the Great Depression (1933) of 25%. The SGS level likely is about as bad as the peak unemployment seen in the 1973 to 1975 recession.
So Bush took UE from 10% to 20% and Obama only took it from 20% to 22.5%. Obama has quite a ways to go before he's as bad as Bush! :lol:
 
So I don't particularly trust Shadowstats conclusion here but I can tell you that unemployment is a hell of a lot higher than 8.3.

No. You can't. Not unless you want to start just making shit up like Shadowstats did.

Sigh. The stats the BLS is using is what is called the U3. That ignores anyone who stops looking for work because they simply gave up trying. In January 1.2 million people did that.

"But January's surprise gains weren't without a few dark spots. Chronic unemployment in the U.S. has left many Americans pessimistic about ever returning to the workforce, and that's skewing the numbers.

A record 1.2 million Americans gave up looking for work in January, dropping the participation rate in the workforce to a 30-year low." (U.S. cranks out jobs - Windsor - CBC News)


The U6 takes those people into account. The BLS calculates the U6 but only releases the U3 in the media. Doesn't that seem a little strange to you?

Observe:


image.html



Gallery - Category: Graphs, Stats and Charts - Image: U3-U6 Unemployment Situation | NoJobSurvivor.com


What is Unemployment? | No Job Advice and Help


Unemployment 8.3% Or 11% Or 15.1%? - Forbes
 
Sigh. The stats the BLS is using is what is called the U3. That ignores anyone who stops looking for work because they simply gave up trying. In January 1.2 million people did that.

"But January's surprise gains weren't without a few dark spots. Chronic unemployment in the U.S. has left many Americans pessimistic about ever returning to the workforce, and that's skewing the numbers.

A record 1.2 million Americans gave up looking for work in January, dropping the participation rate in the workforce to a 30-year low." (U.S. cranks out jobs - Windsor - CBC News)


The U6 takes those people into account. The BLS calculates the U6 but only releases the U3 in the media. Doesn't that seem a little strange to you?

No. You do not know what U6 is. U6 is, essentially, people who are working part time but want to work full time. +U4, +U5, +U3.

The White house uses U3 as it's "official" number. The BLS publishes all 6 numbers on its web site - so, no, that doesn't seem strange to me at all.

Educate yourself.
 
The point is I have to trust shadowstats more than I do BLS. I can actually see the methodology BLS is using and personally double check it. I can't do any such thing with shadowstats. For all I know this guy is just making up the numbers.

Yeah I had a look at Shawdowstats myself and reviewed their numbers and couldn't find their methodology (which is vital to establish legitimacy). That being said most other agencies place real unemployment between 11% and 15% once you add back in all the people that gave up looking for work and/or are underemployed.

So I don't particularly trust Shadowstats conclusion here but I can tell you that unemployment is a hell of a lot higher than 8.3.

Depends how you define "unemployment". With the typical definition it's 8.3, but then the typical definition doesn't seem to apply so much during a prolonged downturn when people leave the labour force. So I look at this instead:

fredgraph.png


When the employment-population ratio starts consistently climbing maybe then I'll get excited about a recovery.
The employment-population ratio is a meaningless moronic measurement of recovery. For example, the workforce can grow but the ratio shrink when the population grows more than the workforce!! That is what happened this month. Of course the emp/pop ratio can be quite useful for deceivers as we also see this month!!!
 
So I don't particularly trust Shadowstats conclusion here but I can tell you that unemployment is a hell of a lot higher than 8.3.

No. You can't. Not unless you want to start just making shit up like Shadowstats did.

Sigh. The stats the BLS is using is what is called the U3. That ignores anyone who stops looking for work because they simply gave up trying. In January 1.2 million people did that.

"But January's surprise gains weren't without a few dark spots. Chronic unemployment in the U.S. has left many Americans pessimistic about ever returning to the workforce, and that's skewing the numbers.

A record 1.2 million Americans gave up looking for work in January, dropping the participation rate in the workforce to a 30-year low." (U.S. cranks out jobs - Windsor - CBC News)


The U6 takes those people into account. The BLS calculates the U6 but only releases the U3 in the media. Doesn't that seem a little strange to you?

Observe:


image.html



Gallery - Category: Graphs, Stats and Charts - Image: U3-U6 Unemployment Situation | NoJobSurvivor.com


What is Unemployment? | No Job Advice and Help


Unemployment 8.3% Or 11% Or 15.1%? - Forbes
That's not true!!! The labor force INCREASED by 500,000 workers in January. It was the population that grew by over a million when the new census was used in January!!!

And it's U-4 that counts the workers who dropped out of the workforce, which is 8.9%
 
Yeah I had a look at Shawdowstats myself and reviewed their numbers and couldn't find their methodology (which is vital to establish legitimacy). That being said most other agencies place real unemployment between 11% and 15% once you add back in all the people that gave up looking for work and/or are underemployed.

So I don't particularly trust Shadowstats conclusion here but I can tell you that unemployment is a hell of a lot higher than 8.3.

Depends how you define "unemployment". With the typical definition it's 8.3, but then the typical definition doesn't seem to apply so much during a prolonged downturn when people leave the labour force. So I look at this instead:

fredgraph.png


When the employment-population ratio starts consistently climbing maybe then I'll get excited about a recovery.
The employment-population ratio is a meaningless moronic measurement of recovery. For example, the workforce can grow but the ratio shrink when the population grows more than the workforce!! That is what happened this month. Of course the emp/pop ratio can be quite useful for deceivers as we also see this month!!!

First off, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the labour force and the population will grow at roughly the same rate.

I'm not suggesting it be the measure always used, obviously during normal times use the headline unemployment rate. I'm saying that during a prolonged downturn or severe recession, using a measure of unemployment to assess the labour force is going to be thrown out by the affect of the downturn on labour force participation. So unless you honestly believe that follow the recession a whole bunch of people just went "you know what, we don't want to work any more", then the employment-population ratio is a pretty decent measure.
 
First off, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the labour force and the population will grow at roughly the same rate.

No it isn't..... working women, people retiring earlier, kids prolonging their idle childhoods until their 25 or 26, vets returning home to no jobs, a changing workforce that doesn't value the "many hands" approach like it once did, decreases in government jobs....

There are alot of reasons why the labor force could grow at a different rate than the population.
 
First off, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the labour force and the population will grow at roughly the same rate.

No it isn't..... working women, people retiring earlier, kids prolonging their idle childhoods until their 25 or 26, vets returning home to no jobs, a changing workforce that doesn't value the "many hands" approach like it once did, decreases in government jobs....

There are alot of reasons why the labor force could grow at a different rate than the population.

Cultural shifts. So I'll ask again: do you honestly believe that during the recession a whole bunch of people just decided to leave/not join the labour force for an unrelated reason, causing the employment to population ratio to permanently fall so many points? If you think no, like I do, then employment-population is a decent measure which isn't thrown off by the fact that workers become "discouraged" during downturns.
 
First off, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the labour force and the population will grow at roughly the same rate.

No it isn't..... working women, people retiring earlier, kids prolonging their idle childhoods until their 25 or 26, vets returning home to no jobs, a changing workforce that doesn't value the "many hands" approach like it once did, decreases in government jobs....

There are alot of reasons why the labor force could grow at a different rate than the population.

Cultural shifts. So I'll ask again: do you honestly believe that during the recession a whole bunch of people just decided to leave/not join the labour force for an unrelated reason, causing the employment to population ratio to permanently fall so many points? If you think no, like I do, then employment-population is a decent measure which isn't thrown off by the fact that workers become "discouraged" during downturns.
Since 2008 you have had about 7,500 Boomers retiring at age 62 EVERY DAY, the earliest age they are able to collect!!! If you don't think that has had a significant effect on the labor force/population ratio, enough to make it a useless measurement of economic activity, then I don't know what else to say.
 
No it isn't..... working women, people retiring earlier, kids prolonging their idle childhoods until their 25 or 26, vets returning home to no jobs, a changing workforce that doesn't value the "many hands" approach like it once did, decreases in government jobs....

There are alot of reasons why the labor force could grow at a different rate than the population.

Cultural shifts. So I'll ask again: do you honestly believe that during the recession a whole bunch of people just decided to leave/not join the labour force for an unrelated reason, causing the employment to population ratio to permanently fall so many points? If you think no, like I do, then employment-population is a decent measure which isn't thrown off by the fact that workers become "discouraged" during downturns.
Since 2008 you have had about 7,500 Boomers retiring at age 62 EVERY DAY, the earliest age they are able to collect!!! If you don't think that has had a significant effect on the labor force/population ratio, enough to make it a useless measurement of economic activity, then I don't know what else to say.

Source?
 
Well, we have seen the short-tem participation rate let's look at the long term work force participation rate.
It appears the the employment picture really never recovered from the 2001 recession and got worse with the recession six years after that. In other words, the employment picture has been screwed since 2001.
 

Forum List

Back
Top