Unemployment numbers are lies.

[miami_thomas]

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

 

[edthecynic]

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

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.

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.

 

[Full-Auto]

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

Think Family Fued..........................



SURVEY SAYS............

 

[8537]

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.

 

[miami_thomas]

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.

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.

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.

 

[miami_thomas]

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.

And why is it going to decline? Please explain.

 

[KissMy]

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

Trimtabs Investment Research estimates the U.S. economy added 149,000 jobs in February, down from its January estimate of 181,000. TrimTabs’ employment estimates are based on an analysis of daily income tax deposits to the U.S. Treasury from all salaried U.S. employees. They are historically more accurate than initial estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “To bring down the unemployment rate, the economy needs to generate at least 250,000 new jobs every month,” says Madeline Schnapp, Director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs. “Job growth of 149,000 new jobs is not terrible, but it is also not a result worth celebrating either.”

 

[8537]

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.

And why is it going to decline? Please explain.

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.

 

[KissMy]

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.

And why is it going to decline? Please explain.

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.

That demographic switch will take 18 years. It has next to nothing to do with the current jobs situation.

 

[miami_thomas]

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.

And why is it going to decline? Please explain.

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.

They are not even counted as being part of the working population. They do not affect the labor force participation rate at all.

 

[8537]

And why is it going to decline? Please explain.

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.

That demographic switch will take 18 years. It has next to nothing to do with the current jobs situation.

You've got to be kidding me. It's already happening - creating the economic problems with the SS trust funds. And it will continue to happen for years.

 

[8537]

And why is it going to decline? Please explain.

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.

They are not even counted as being part of the working population. They do not affect the labor force participation rate at all.

Oh wait - on that point, you are exactly right. The population-work ratio will decline, but not the labor force.

Sorry for the diversion.

 

[KissMy]

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.

That demographic switch will take 18 years. It has next to nothing to do with the current jobs situation.

You've got to be kidding me. It's already happening - creating the economic problems with the SS trust funds. And it will continue to happen for years.

The cut in SS withholding taxes rising disability/welfare payments is what is currently affecting the SS trust fund.

In the United States, Social Security refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. The original Social Security Act (1935) and the current version of the Act, as amended encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs. The larger and better known programs are:

Federal Old-Age (Retirement), Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Unemployment benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

 

[8537]

That demographic switch will take 18 years. It has next to nothing to do with the current jobs situation.

You've got to be kidding me. It's already happening - creating the economic problems with the SS trust funds. And it will continue to happen for years.

The cut in SS withholding taxes rising disibility/welfare payments is what is currently affecting the SS trust fund.

Oh gawd. I wasn't born yesterday. the SS trust fund has been predicted to start declining about now since...well...Reagan.

And if you're going to cut and paste, at least have the courtesy of linking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe we should go to a format of measuring unemployment using the average labor participation rate of 66%.

No, what you believe is that we should concoct some sort of new measure that will make the headline number look worse,

because Obama is president.

 

[KissMy]

You've got to be kidding me. It's already happening - creating the economic problems with the SS trust funds. And it will continue to happen for years.

The cut in SS withholding taxes rising disability/welfare payments is what is currently affecting the SS trust fund.

Oh gawd. I wasn't born yesterday. the SS trust fund has been predicted to start declining about now since...well...Reagan.

And if you're going to cut and paste, at least have the courtesy of linking.

Just because you believe the lies does not make it true. The SS trust fund & employment situation does not reverse course in the first year. They turn after we get half way through the 18 year long demographic cycle. If the retiring boomer's were affecting employment then unemployment would be very low. New hires would be snapped up to replace the jobs vacated by the boomer's & the boomer's would not be collecting unemployment or seeking employment.

 

[chikenwing]

I believe we should go to a format of measuring unemployment using the average labor participation rate of 66%.

No, what you believe is that we should concoct some sort of new measure that will make the headline number look worse,

because Obama is president.

Or an honest assessment,not propaganda,a fixed formula that is not manipulated.

8.3 is not reality everyone knows this,but still we love to be fluffed.

 

[miami_thomas]

I believe we should go to a format of measuring unemployment using the average labor participation rate of 66%.

No, what you believe is that we should concoct some sort of new measure that will make the headline number look worse,

because Obama is president.

At least I want the truth. You want a lie to protect obama.

 

[8537]

The cut in SS withholding taxes rising disability/welfare payments is what is currently affecting the SS trust fund.

Oh gawd. I wasn't born yesterday. the SS trust fund has been predicted to start declining about now since...well...Reagan.

And if you're going to cut and paste, at least have the courtesy of linking.

Just because you believe the lies does not make it true. The SS trust fund & employment situation does not reverse course in the first year.

SS was projected to begin taking in less than it spends in 2010...in 1990.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe we should go to a format of measuring unemployment using the average labor participation rate of 66%.

No, what you believe is that we should concoct some sort of new measure that will make the headline number look worse,

because Obama is president.

At least I want the truth. You want a lie to protect obama.

U-6 is at a 37 month low. That is no lie.