Unemployment numbers are lies.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by miami_thomas, Mar 9, 2012.

  1. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    I believe we should go to a format of measuring unemployment using the average labor participation rate of 66%. If you look through history the labor force has almost always been just above or just below 66%, until recently. This is why it should be the standard and not the moving target. I mean how much sense does 8.3% being different than 8.3% last month, a year ago, or a year from now all being different. 8.3% should mean 8.3% period. It makes no sense what so ever the way it is now. Currently everyone is boasting an 8.3% unemployment rate. However, that is at the current labor participation rate of 63.9%. If the rate were the average 66%, the unemployment rate would actually be 11.2%. Heck if the labor force was the same as when Obama took office the unemployment rate would be 10.5%. The fact is they use the ability to move the labor force around to make things seem better than they really are. But in the end we are just being lied to.


    January 2009
    Population 234,739
    Labor Force 153,716 Rate: 65.5
    Employed: 142,099 Rate: 60.5
    Unemployed: 11,616 Rate: 7.6


    February 2012
    Population 242,435
    Labor Force 154,871 Rate: 63.9
    Employed: 142,065 Rate: 58.6
    Unemployed: 12,806 Rate: 8.3


    If labor force was same as 01/09 65.5

    Population 242,435
    Labor Force 158,794 Rate: 65.5
    Employed: 142,065 Rate: 58.6
    Unemployed: 16,729 Rate: 10.5

    If the labor force was it’s average rate of 66 the unemployment would be

    Population 242,435
    Labor Force 160,007 Rate: 66
    Employed: 142,065 Rate: 58.6
    Unemployed: 17,942 Rate: 11.2
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,557
    Thanks Received:
    3,074
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,678
    First of all, using the labor force participation rate is moronic on its face! It ASSumes that the birth rate and retirement and death rates never change. :cuckoo:

    But using 66%, the peak rate as the "AVERAGE" rate is just typical CON$erviNutzi dishonesty and simply proves that CON$ will use any number they can invent that makes UE look higher when a Dem is president and lower when a Republicant is president.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Full-Auto
    Offline

    Full-Auto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,555
    Thanks Received:
    1,614
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,615
    Think Family Fued..........................



    SURVEY SAYS............
     
  4. 8537
    Offline

    8537 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,754
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New England's West Coast
    Ratings:
    +729
    The labor force participation is naturally going to decline over the next couple decades simply due to demographics. There's no point in attempting to fix it to a certain figure.
     
  5. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    You do reallize birth retirement are not even counted in the population right? Those numbers have nothing to do with the labor force participation rate.
     
  6. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    And why is it going to decline? Please explain.
     
  7. KissMy
    Offline

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    12,061
    Thanks Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +2,921
    The employment to population ratio is the best measure. Things are not getting better fast enough. Adding a tenth of a percent to the employment to population ratio is finally going in the right direction but is has taken way too long.

    TrimTabs Says U.S. Economy Adds Sub-Par 149,000 Jobs in February
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2012
  8. 8537
    Offline

    8537 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,754
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New England's West Coast
    Ratings:
    +729
    Because there's a perfectly predictable increase in the number of people over 65 as baby boomers retire and live longer. The population of those 65+ will be a larger share of the population in the next couple decades.
     
  9. KissMy
    Offline

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    12,061
    Thanks Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +2,921
    :cuckoo: That demographic switch will take 18 years. It has next to nothing to do with the current jobs situation. :cuckoo:
     
  10. miami_thomas
    Offline

    miami_thomas VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +96
    They are not even counted as being part of the working population. They do not affect the labor force participation rate at all.
     

Share This Page