Unemployment numbers are lies.

[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.

You're an idiot. The bureau of labor statistics puts out every statistic you could want. Available to the public.

 

[Valox]

Given the fact that the LFPR edged up by 0.2% while the UE rate remained constant is good news, especially combined with the fact that most of last quarter's GDP came from increases in inventory.

As a skeptic, a bear, and someone who thinks Obama's economic policies suck, this is surprisingly good news.

It is still nothing to brag about, but I thought last increases in inventories would be more of a drag on the economy than the data shows.

 

[KissMy]

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.

If that was the case in 2010 when boomer's weren't retiring, it proves that the Boomer demographic had nothing to do with the SS problems or unemployment. It also makes your quote below irrelevant.

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]

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.

If that was the case in 2010 when boomer's weren't retiring, it proves that the Boomer demographic had nothing to do with the SS problems or unemployment. It also makes your quote below irrelevant.

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.

Huh? The ratio of payees to recipients has been declining for over a decade.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where all the clowns from the right who assured us that UE was going to go back up in February,

because employment was just inflated by the holidays?

lol, are they snoozing in the quiet rooom?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

SS was about a year away from going broke,

in 1983.

 

[KissMy]

Where all the clowns from the right who assured us that UE was going to go back up in February,

because employment was just inflated by the holidays?

lol, are they snoozing in the quiet rooom?

I don't recall saying that, but Gallup Poll & TrimTabs are saying that UE did rise last month.

 

[Valox]

Where all the clowns from the right who assured us that UE was going to go back up in February,

because employment was just inflated by the holidays?

lol, are they snoozing in the quiet rooom?

The true clowns are the Democrats who declared under 8% UE rate if we passed their misguided stimulus.

 

[KissMy]

Because ADP, TrimTabs & the BLS all say we are adding jobs I am inclined to think we are headed in the right direction regardless of the flakey unemployment numbers. The unadjusted Employment-population ratio is improving ever so slowly. This improvement just needs to speed up.

 

[The T]

Because ADP, TrimTabs & the BLS all say we are adding jobs I am inclined to think we are headed in the right direction regardless of the flakey unemployment numbers. The unadjusted Employment-population ratio is improving ever so slowly. This improvement just needs to speed up.

Does that include the couple of million jobs that no longer exist?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

There are several tables under which unemployment percentage is measured. The most widely used is U-3. This one counts only those collecting unemployment and those actively looking for work. U-6 counts all people who have had full time jobs and are not employed. This is the most accurate measure of unemployment

 

[Bass v 2.0]

troll thread

 

[editec]

What really matters isn't the methodology so much as it is CHANGING the methodology that screws us up.

But I defintiely get using some number as the FLOOR from which one measures unemplyment.

That is to say, I see the logic behind such a proposal.


If the "nature state of employment" is really only 66% of eligible workers, then deviations from that target number would give a the real story about the state of employment.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Actually they do, depending on the birth rate from year to year the number of students over 16 varies from year to year and people can retire at age 62 but are counted as part of the labor force until they are 65, both are counted as part of the labor force population but are not in the labor force and therefore make the labor force participation rate less accurate than the BLS survey.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where all the clowns from the right who assured us that UE was going to go back up in February,

because employment was just inflated by the holidays?

lol, are they snoozing in the quiet rooom?

The true clowns are the Democrats who declared under 8% UE rate if we passed their misguided stimulus.

They never did that. You're ignorant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where all the clowns from the right who assured us that UE was going to go back up in February,

because employment was just inflated by the holidays?

lol, are they snoozing in the quiet rooom?

I don't recall saying that, but Gallup Poll & TrimTabs are saying that UE did rise last month.

So? Is Gallup using a methodology that is more comprehensive and more verifiably accurate than the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

 

[Cammmpbell]

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

Yeah....they lied about it during Franklin Roosevelt's terms too. They published figures around 25% but I was living in west TN and it reached 50%. I don't mean when adjusted for anything....I mean half of all working men who wanted a job could not find one. Men were working on the west TN dirt farms 12 hours a day for $0.75 and their mid day meal. Hobos were riding the rails and begging at people's doors for something to eat. Grown men cried because they couldn't feed their families. There were no unions, no vacation, no personal leave, no pensions, no unemployment insurance, no way to be excused from a job and if you missed they simply took somebody from the men waiting for something to do and hired him. If one's supervisor didn't like the way an employee combed their hair or how long it took him to have a bowel movement...he fired him. There were no women in the work force, if a Black had anything to do it was something a White didn't want to do, old people who were poor ended up on a county "poor farm" and had to fend for themselves by raising food on a couple of acres.......you know.......the Republican dream.

That's the way they would like to see it now.

 

[KissMy]

Where all the clowns from the right who assured us that UE was going to go back up in February,

because employment was just inflated by the holidays?

lol, are they snoozing in the quiet rooom?

I don't recall saying that, but Gallup Poll & TrimTabs are saying that UE did rise last month.

So? Is Gallup using a methodology that is more comprehensive and more verifiably accurate than the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

They are accurate. They are just not seasonally adjusting their numbers like the BLS is. Guess what? The BLS not seasonally adjusted UE number is 9.3% which is actually higher than Gallup's 9.1%. So the BLS seasonal adjusted headline grabbing 8.3% UE number may still very well rise even if the actual employment situation is improving.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Funny how the numbers are always cooked when the other guys are in office.

Well, not funny. Silly.

.

 

[skookerasbil]

Top story on DRUDGE this AM....................

Spin it any way you want. Bottom line..........the country is still 6 million jobs short = epic fAiL. In fact.........its such a joke, its absurd. Only the k00ks are saying these are the roaring 2010's!!

U.S. Still Down 6 Million Jobs - Real-Time Advice - SmartMoney