The Experts Agree: The Recession is Over.

[Polk]

Well my exact claim was, "It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit." I didn't mention anything about part-time workers specifically. You brought that up. The links I provided proved my claim.

I brought that up because it represents a significant different. I asked you to show that the unemployed were counted in that way because that's the only way the numbers you were throwing around were relevant. The links you provided don't make that point. They say that our current measures underestimate the number of unemployment. You can still believe that's true without the 17 percent number being valid.

When I did start becoming more active Bush was held to the same standards that I hold Obama too.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know you that well and you seem like a good guy. I will say though that a lot of people who are throwing around the numbers you are were old enough to have clearly stated beleifts then and bashed liberals for "talking down the economy" for talking about underemployment using the same measures they consider "real unemployment" today.

Part-time workers being counted and those workers who have simply given up looking for a job would both be significant and relevant.

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, and I'd say you're probably right. Much of the talk is partisan in nature. I, however, am not a Republican or a Democrat.

They're relevant, sure, but people working part-time who'd rather be working full-time have never been counted as part of the unemployed. And counting them in that way makes a huge difference in the data.

 

[Toro]

It is, I believe, the U-6 unemployment figure. It measures those who have dropped out of the workforce and those who are underemployed.

It was 8%-10% before the crisis, which would have made America's unemployment similar to Europe's official rate of unemployment. Of course, most of the people who quote the 17% now don't realize this.

Yeah, I know. I questioning their usage.

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

No it is not. It is not even close.

Mike Darda, an economist at MKM Partners, estimates that if you used this definition of unemployment, it would have been about 45% during the Great Depression.

Today is not even remotely comparable to the 1930s. This is the total employed divided by the total employable population. We have plunged dramatically but we are still higher than at any point before the mid-1970s, let alone the 1930s. The comparisons of today to the 1930s are just nonsense.

 

[Toro]

Here is a very simple question for you Polk. Do you know anyone who is looking for work? Have they found a job? That's how you judge the economy. I know a whole lot of people looking for work, some for months, and I can't tell you of one person that I know of that has found work.

I know people who were unemployed and have found work.

 

[Polk]

A crash course on measures of labor utilization.

The unemployment rate most commonly quoted in the media is called U-3 and represents the number of people actively looking for work. It currently sits at 10.2 percent, and was 6.1 percent a year ago.

The unemployment rate most comparable to how it was measured during the Depression is called U-5 and it represents everyone counted in U-3 plus people who aren't currently looking for work, but say they would be willing to work if a job were available and have looked in the recent past. It currently sits at 11.6 percent. and was 7.1 percent a year ago.

The 17 percent figure that's often being thrown around by conservatives now as representing "real unemployment" is a measure called U-6. U-6 includes everyone in the U-5 group and anyone working part-time who would rather be working full-time. This measure, as noted, currently sits at 17.5 percent, and was at 11.1 percent a year ago.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regardless of whether it was the exact same way they calculated during the Depression or not it remains the most accurate calculation. What other reason would there be to keep out those criteria besides trying to make the government's policies look good?

 

[Polk]

Regardless of whether it was the exact same way they calculated during the Depression or not it remains the most accurate calculation. What other reason would there be to keep out those criteria besides trying to make the government's policies look good?

It's not the most accurate calculation. People working part-time who would prefer full-time work are not unemployed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why dont you just say you only believe what you want to believe?

Is there something you believe that you don't want to believe? just curious.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regardless of whether it was the exact same way they calculated during the Depression or not it remains the most accurate calculation. What other reason would there be to keep out those criteria besides trying to make the government's policies look good?

It's not the most accurate calculation. People working part-time who would prefer full-time work are not unemployed.

And yet they're not making what they would be under normal economic conditions, and may not be making enough to live on. So they're certainly still negatively effected by the downturn.

 

[Avatar4321]

btw. I have a tendency to disbelieve something so called unnamed experts agree on. Just seems to be common sense to be skeptical to me.

 

[Amanda]

National Association for Business Economics:

Recovery Soon to Lose "Jobless" Label
November 2009

Reaffirming last month’s call that the Great Recession is over, NABE panelists have marked up their predictions for economic growth in 2010 and expect performance to exceed its long-term trend. “While the recovery has been jobless so far, that should soon change. Within the next few months, companies should be adding instead of cutting jobs,” said NABE President Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University. Panelists predict a relatively sluggish consumer upturn but look for a sizable housing rebound, low inflation, and further rise in stock prices. Importantly, panelists are mostly (though not entirely) optimistic that the Federal Reserve’s policies will not lead to higher inflation. At the same time, NABE panelists are “extremely” concerned about high federal deficits over the next five years.


National Association for Business Economics (NABE)

Thank you for digging us out of Bush's deep hole Mr Obama.

It's kinda hard to be optimistic about these things when you know so many that are unemployed and were foreclosed on. Did any of these "experts" lose their job or home?

 

[mal]

Here is a very simple question for you Polk. Do you know anyone who is looking for work? Have they found a job? That's how you judge the economy. I know a whole lot of people looking for work, some for months, and I can't tell you of one person that I know of that has found work.

I know people who were unemployed and have found work.

I also... One Improved his after being Laid Off when his Company Lost a Contract...

He went to a New Company and is doing Better than he did in the Previous Decade with the other.

But then again, Denver is in Fairly Good Shape.

I wouldn't Stay in Detroit.



peace...

 

[skookerasbil]

Yeah, I know. I questioning their usage.

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

No it is not. It is not even close.

Mike Darda, an economist at MKM Partners, estimates that if you used this definition of unemployment, it would have been about 45% during the Great Depression.

Today is not even remotely comparable to the 1930s. This is the total employed divided by the total employable population. We have plunged dramatically but we are still higher than at any point before the mid-1970s, let alone the 1930s. The comparisons of today to the 1930s are just nonsense.

LMAO.....leave it to the k00ks to make absurd comparisons in an effort to make liberal public policy results look good!! A giant mole on somebody's face is still a giant hideous mole even if one can point out an even more giant mole on somebody else's face!!!


Who cares about the comparisons to the 30's..........bottom line is lots and lost of people are out of work and its gotten significantly worse over the past year. And of course it has...........because nothing has been done to stimulate the economy that is sustainable............not to mention buisness hanging over there heads treats of gigantic new taxes with Cap and Tax and this Healthcare goof!!!


All this economic psychobabble on this thread............lmao...............the presidents poll #'s are falling like a stone in water so even the stupidest schmo gets it that this president doesnt know what the fcukk he is doing with regards to the economy!!!

 

[Polk]

Regardless of whether it was the exact same way they calculated during the Depression or not it remains the most accurate calculation. What other reason would there be to keep out those criteria besides trying to make the government's policies look good?

It's not the most accurate calculation. People working part-time who would prefer full-time work are not unemployed.

And yet they're not making what they would be under normal economic conditions, and may not be making enough to live on. So they're certainly still negatively effected by the downturn.

Being negatively effected by the downturn does not mean the same thing as unemployment.

 

[mal]

It's not the most accurate calculation. People working part-time who would prefer full-time work are not unemployed.

And yet they're not making what they would be under normal economic conditions, and may not be making enough to live on. So they're certainly still negatively effected by the downturn.

Being negatively effected by the downturn does not mean the same thing as unemployment.

I'm not Makin' as much as I did Last Year...

Recessions happen.

Making More than in 2007 though!



peace...

 

[NYcarbineer]

A crash course on measures of labor utilization.

The unemployment rate most commonly quoted in the media is called U-3 and represents the number of people actively looking for work. It currently sits at 10.2 percent, and was 6.1 percent a year ago.

The unemployment rate most comparable to how it was measured during the Depression is called U-5 and it represents everyone counted in U-3 plus people who aren't currently looking for work, but say they would be willing to work if a job were available and have looked in the recent past. It currently sits at 11.6 percent. and was 7.1 percent a year ago.

The 17 percent figure that's often being thrown around by conservatives now as representing "real unemployment" is a measure called U-6. U-6 includes everyone in the U-5 group and anyone working part-time who would rather be working full-time. This measure, as noted, currently sits at 17.5 percent, and was at 11.1 percent a year ago.

The right is now actively engaged in using the previously unused higher number you refer to. Scarborough on MSNBC for example is now routinely referring to unemployment as at 20%.

 

[Annie]

A crash course on measures of labor utilization.

The unemployment rate most commonly quoted in the media is called U-3 and represents the number of people actively looking for work. It currently sits at 10.2 percent, and was 6.1 percent a year ago.

The unemployment rate most comparable to how it was measured during the Depression is called U-5 and it represents everyone counted in U-3 plus people who aren't currently looking for work, but say they would be willing to work if a job were available and have looked in the recent past. It currently sits at 11.6 percent. and was 7.1 percent a year ago.

The 17 percent figure that's often being thrown around by conservatives now as representing "real unemployment" is a measure called U-6. U-6 includes everyone in the U-5 group and anyone working part-time who would rather be working full-time. This measure, as noted, currently sits at 17.5 percent, and was at 11.1 percent a year ago.

The right is now actively engaged in using the previously unused higher number you refer to. Scarborough on MSNBC for example is now routinely referring to unemployment as at 20%.

In Detroit it's more like 28%. Everywhere it's higher for young, black males.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A crash course on measures of labor utilization.

The unemployment rate most commonly quoted in the media is called U-3 and represents the number of people actively looking for work. It currently sits at 10.2 percent, and was 6.1 percent a year ago.

The unemployment rate most comparable to how it was measured during the Depression is called U-5 and it represents everyone counted in U-3 plus people who aren't currently looking for work, but say they would be willing to work if a job were available and have looked in the recent past. It currently sits at 11.6 percent. and was 7.1 percent a year ago.

The 17 percent figure that's often being thrown around by conservatives now as representing "real unemployment" is a measure called U-6. U-6 includes everyone in the U-5 group and anyone working part-time who would rather be working full-time. This measure, as noted, currently sits at 17.5 percent, and was at 11.1 percent a year ago.

U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression | The Economic Populist

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"If you let me write $1.4 trillion a year in hot checks, I'll give you an illusion of prosperity too" -- Lloyd Bensten as adjusted for Inflation

 

[Polk]

A crash course on measures of labor utilization.

The unemployment rate most commonly quoted in the media is called U-3 and represents the number of people actively looking for work. It currently sits at 10.2 percent, and was 6.1 percent a year ago.

The unemployment rate most comparable to how it was measured during the Depression is called U-5 and it represents everyone counted in U-3 plus people who aren't currently looking for work, but say they would be willing to work if a job were available and have looked in the recent past. It currently sits at 11.6 percent. and was 7.1 percent a year ago.

The 17 percent figure that's often being thrown around by conservatives now as representing "real unemployment" is a measure called U-6. U-6 includes everyone in the U-5 group and anyone working part-time who would rather be working full-time. This measure, as noted, currently sits at 17.5 percent, and was at 11.1 percent a year ago.

U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression | The Economic Populist

Very interesting read.

 

[Toro]

It's more accurate and closer to the way unemployment was calculated during the Great Depression, which shows that these two downturns are closer in relation than Washington would like to admit.

No it is not. It is not even close.

Mike Darda, an economist at MKM Partners, estimates that if you used this definition of unemployment, it would have been about 45% during the Great Depression.

Today is not even remotely comparable to the 1930s. This is the total employed divided by the total employable population. We have plunged dramatically but we are still higher than at any point before the mid-1970s, let alone the 1930s. The comparisons of today to the 1930s are just nonsense.

LMAO.....leave it to the k00ks to make absurd comparisons in an effort to make liberal public policy results look good!! A giant mole on somebody's face is still a giant hideous mole even if one can point out an even more giant mole on somebody else's face!!!


Who cares about the comparisons to the 30's..........bottom line is lots and lost of people are out of work and its gotten significantly worse over the past year. And of course it has...........because nothing has been done to stimulate the economy that is sustainable............not to mention buisness hanging over there heads treats of gigantic new taxes with Cap and Tax and this Healthcare goof!!!


All this economic psychobabble on this thread............lmao...............the presidents poll #'s are falling like a stone in water so even the stupidest schmo gets it that this president doesnt know what the fcukk he is doing with regards to the economy!!!

You are an idiot.