Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is a big disconnect between Gallop & Government adjusted numbers.
The OP is, of course, misleading. Among other differences, Gallup collects its numbers daily and applies a rolling average. Due to this, they cannot seasonally adjust, as the BLS numbers are.
Census collects the data for BLS using the week that contains the 12th (Feb 12-18). Looking at the same week for Gallup, they had it at 9.1%. The BLS NOT-seasonally adjusted number for that week of Feb is 8.7%. Not comparable? Wait.
Gallup margin of error at 90% confidence is +/- 0.7 percentage points, meaning their range is really between 8.6% and 9.8%. The BLS margin of error at 90% confidence is +/- 0.2 percentage points, for a range of 8.5% to 8.9%. Since the two ranges overlap, there is no statistically significant difference.
The seasonally adjusted number of Americans filing claims for jobless benefits rose to 362,000 last week. Economists forecast 352,000 claims. Applications for unemployment insurance payments increased by 8,000 in the week ended March 3, Labor Department figures showed.
The Government Jobs Report is 19 minutes away.
(ALWAYS LIES) 
The seasonally adjusted number of Americans filing claims for jobless benefits rose to 362,000 last week. Economists forecast 352,000 claims. Applications for unemployment insurance payments increased by 8,000 in the week ended March 3, Labor Department figures showed.
The Government Jobs Report is 19 minutes away.
hey guess what? the Government Numbers are LIES!!!!
The seasonally adjusted number of Americans filing claims for jobless benefits rose to 362,000 last week. Economists forecast 352,000 claims. Applications for unemployment insurance payments increased by 8,000 in the week ended March 3, Labor Department figures showed.
The Government Jobs Report is 19 minutes away.
hey guess what? the Government Numbers are LIES!!!!
Well, that was certainly a well thought out, well reasoned, and strongly supported argument.
hey guess what? the Government Numbers are LIES!!!!
Well, that was certainly a well thought out, well reasoned, and strongly supported argument.
Shadow Government Statistics : Home Page
Well, that was certainly a well thought out, well reasoned, and strongly supported argument.
Shadow Government Statistics : Home Page
Ok, let's look at Mr. Williams UE rate. He claims he's taking the U-6 measure and all he's doing is adding in people who would be considered discouraged (willing and available to work, not currently looking because they do not believe they'd be successful) except that they have not looked for work in over a year, which was a new requirement in 1994.
So how many is he claiming?
The U-6 is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for Economic reasons) / (Labor Force + Marginally Attached) or for short, let's write the equation as (U+M+P)/(L+M)
Adding in his Discouraged (D) to the equation that would be (U+M+P+D)/(L+M+D) We have to add it to the numerator and denominator because those people were not part of the equation before.
Plugging in Unemployed and Labor Force from Table A-1, Part Time for Economic Reasons from Table A-8, and Marginally Attached from Table A-16, our equation for the U-6 becomes (12,806,000 + 2,608,000 + 8,119,000)/(154,871,000 + 2,608,000) = 23,533,000/157,479,000 = 14.9%
Ok, now Williams claims adding in the long term discouraged raises it to 22.4% so we have (23,533,000+D)/(154,479,000+D) = 22.4% Solve the equation and D = 15,132,000
Over 15 million people he's adding. That's more than total unemployed. You don't think that seems a little high?
But wait, there's more. Go back to Table A-1 and we see that "people who currently want a job" (those not counted as unemployed who say they do want to work) is only 6,378,000. And that includes the Marginally Attached we have already counted. So his figure of 22.4% includes 11,362,000 MORE than those who say they want to work.
Williams does not do any data collection, he simply "massages" published data (he has no access to any government micro data except possibly Consumer Expenditure microdata which is available to the public for a fee). He does not publish his methodology and no one has ever managed to duplicate his work.
So aside from political bias, how are you figuring he's reliable? Not that I'm expecting a reasoned argument, but hope springs eternal.
Ok, let's look at Mr. Williams UE rate. He claims he's taking the U-6 measure and all he's doing is adding in people who would be considered discouraged (willing and available to work, not currently looking because they do not believe they'd be successful) except that they have not looked for work in over a year, which was a new requirement in 1994.
So how many is he claiming?
The U-6 is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for Economic reasons) / (Labor Force + Marginally Attached) or for short, let's write the equation as (U+M+P)/(L+M)
Adding in his Discouraged (D) to the equation that would be (U+M+P+D)/(L+M+D) We have to add it to the numerator and denominator because those people were not part of the equation before.
Plugging in Unemployed and Labor Force from Table A-1, Part Time for Economic Reasons from Table A-8, and Marginally Attached from Table A-16, our equation for the U-6 becomes (12,806,000 + 2,608,000 + 8,119,000)/(154,871,000 + 2,608,000) = 23,533,000/157,479,000 = 14.9%
Ok, now Williams claims adding in the long term discouraged raises it to 22.4% so we have (23,533,000+D)/(154,479,000+D) = 22.4% Solve the equation and D = 15,132,000
Over 15 million people he's adding. That's more than total unemployed. You don't think that seems a little high?
But wait, there's more. Go back to Table A-1 and we see that "people who currently want a job" (those not counted as unemployed who say they do want to work) is only 6,378,000. And that includes the Marginally Attached we have already counted. So his figure of 22.4% includes 11,362,000 MORE than those who say they want to work.
Williams does not do any data collection, he simply "massages" published data (he has no access to any government micro data except possibly Consumer Expenditure microdata which is available to the public for a fee). He does not publish his methodology and no one has ever managed to duplicate his work.
So aside from political bias, how are you figuring he's reliable? Not that I'm expecting a reasoned argument, but hope springs eternal.
^Blah,Blah,Blah.. Vote For Obumba it's a Recovery!!! (in fewer words)
Ok, let's look at Mr. Williams UE rate. He claims he's taking the U-6 measure and all he's doing is adding in people who would be considered discouraged (willing and available to work, not currently looking because they do not believe they'd be successful) except that they have not looked for work in over a year, which was a new requirement in 1994.
So how many is he claiming?
The U-6 is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for Economic reasons) / (Labor Force + Marginally Attached) or for short, let's write the equation as (U+M+P)/(L+M)
Adding in his Discouraged (D) to the equation that would be (U+M+P+D)/(L+M+D) We have to add it to the numerator and denominator because those people were not part of the equation before.
Plugging in Unemployed and Labor Force from Table A-1, Part Time for Economic Reasons from Table A-8, and Marginally Attached from Table A-16, our equation for the U-6 becomes (12,806,000 + 2,608,000 + 8,119,000)/(154,871,000 + 2,608,000) = 23,533,000/157,479,000 = 14.9%
Ok, now Williams claims adding in the long term discouraged raises it to 22.4% so we have (23,533,000+D)/(154,479,000+D) = 22.4% Solve the equation and D = 15,132,000
Over 15 million people he's adding. That's more than total unemployed. You don't think that seems a little high?
But wait, there's more. Go back to Table A-1 and we see that "people who currently want a job" (those not counted as unemployed who say they do want to work) is only 6,378,000. And that includes the Marginally Attached we have already counted. So his figure of 22.4% includes 11,362,000 MORE than those who say they want to work.
Williams does not do any data collection, he simply "massages" published data (he has no access to any government micro data except possibly Consumer Expenditure microdata which is available to the public for a fee). He does not publish his methodology and no one has ever managed to duplicate his work.
So aside from political bias, how are you figuring he's reliable? Not that I'm expecting a reasoned argument, but hope springs eternal.
^Blah,Blah,Blah.. Vote For Obumba it's a Recovery!!! (in fewer words)
Like I thought, you have no idea what you're talking about. And you neg rep me because you don't understand basic math. Nice. You can't argue actual issues, just spout nonsense and accuse everyone else of political bias when you're operating on nothing else.
And I would certainly not reccomend for anyone to vote for Obama. I certtainly have no intention of voting for him...I voted for McCain last time.
And why does money have to be backed by anything? Yes, too much money in circulation can be a problem, but is it, at the moment? I'm not seeing it. Inflation is not particularly high right now.^Blah,Blah,Blah.. Vote For Obumba it's a Recovery!!! (in fewer words)
Like I thought, you have no idea what you're talking about. And you neg rep me because you don't understand basic math. Nice. You can't argue actual issues, just spout nonsense and accuse everyone else of political bias when you're operating on nothing else.
And I would certainly not reccomend for anyone to vote for Obama. I certtainly have no intention of voting for him...I voted for McCain last time.
the Fed prints up money backed by nothing. the Dow goes up.. WooHoo it's a Recovery!!!
Ok, if you understand it, explain it. Where do the numbers come from, how are you claiming they're manipulated or invented, and what is your evidence or alternate source? If you're still going to back up shadowstats clearly bogus numbers, defend them.the Unemployment Numbers are total Fiction. i understand that much sport.
And why does money have to be backed by anything? Yes, too much money in circulation can be a problem, but is it, at the moment? I'm not seeing it. Inflation is not particularly high right now.Like I thought, you have no idea what you're talking about. And you neg rep me because you don't understand basic math. Nice. You can't argue actual issues, just spout nonsense and accuse everyone else of political bias when you're operating on nothing else.
And I would certainly not reccomend for anyone to vote for Obama. I certtainly have no intention of voting for him...I voted for McCain last time.
the Fed prints up money backed by nothing. the Dow goes up.. WooHoo it's a Recovery!!!
Ok, if you understand it, explain it. Where do the numbers come from, how are you claiming they're manipulated or invented, and what is your evidence or alternate source? If you're still going to back up shadowstats clearly bogus numbers, defend them.the Unemployment Numbers are total Fiction. i understand that much sport.
I won't hold my breath as you've shown no sign you actually understnd any of it.
In other words, you DO NOT know where the numbers come from or what the definitions are. Short version...the Population consists of:And why does money have to be backed by anything? Yes, too much money in circulation can be a problem, but is it, at the moment? I'm not seeing it. Inflation is not particularly high right now.the Fed prints up money backed by nothing. the Dow goes up.. WooHoo it's a Recovery!!!
Ok, if you understand it, explain it. Where do the numbers come from, how are you claiming they're manipulated or invented, and what is your evidence or alternate source? If you're still going to back up shadowstats clearly bogus numbers, defend them.the Unemployment Numbers are total Fiction. i understand that much sport.
I won't hold my breath as you've shown no sign you actually understnd any of it.
go to any Wal-Mart at the beginning of any Month (Welfare Checks) count the people.. do you know how many people are NOT being counted? do they count welfare people as EMPLOYED?
In other words, you DO NOT know where the numbers come from or what the definitions are. Short version...the Population consists of:And why does money have to be backed by anything? Yes, too much money in circulation can be a problem, but is it, at the moment? I'm not seeing it. Inflation is not particularly high right now.
Ok, if you understand it, explain it. Where do the numbers come from, how are you claiming they're manipulated or invented, and what is your evidence or alternate source? If you're still going to back up shadowstats clearly bogus numbers, defend them.
I won't hold my breath as you've shown no sign you actually understnd any of it.
go to any Wal-Mart at the beginning of any Month (Welfare Checks) count the people.. do you know how many people are NOT being counted? do they count welfare people as EMPLOYED?
Employed: Worked for pay during the reference week, or worked 15+ hours unpaid on family business/farm. Temporary absences such as vacation, illness, injury, strike, are still employed.
Unemployed: Did not work during the reference week, but wants a job, could have accepted a job if offered then and has actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week.
Not in the Labor Force: Did not work during the reference week. Does not want to work, OR did not look for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week OR could not have accepted a job if offered during the reference week.
Those people under 16, in prison, in the military, or in an institution are not in the population.
So "welfare people" would be in whatever category they fit into.
In other words, you DO NOT know where the numbers come from or what the definitions are. Short version...the Population consists of:go to any Wal-Mart at the beginning of any Month (Welfare Checks) count the people.. do you know how many people are NOT being counted? do they count welfare people as EMPLOYED?
Employed: Worked for pay during the reference week, or worked 15+ hours unpaid on family business/farm. Temporary absences such as vacation, illness, injury, strike, are still employed.
Unemployed: Did not work during the reference week, but wants a job, could have accepted a job if offered then and has actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week.
Not in the Labor Force: Did not work during the reference week. Does not want to work, OR did not look for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week OR could not have accepted a job if offered during the reference week.
Those people under 16, in prison, in the military, or in an institution are not in the population.
So "welfare people" would be in whatever category they fit into.
it's all a Bunch of lies. Government twists the data and Numbers to fit whatever result they want.. Unemployment too high? Whoops there Goes 5 Million or so people GONE! it's almost like Magic! Vote for Obumba!
yep, seriously. A liberal will lack the IQ to know what capitalism is. That was a perfect example.
Unemployment increased to 9.1% in February from 8.6% in January and 8.5% in December?
Well color me surprised
