Unemployment Rate 14.5 %

[sealybobo]

Just getting real on the unemployment figures and supplying some alternate links for y'all.

-----------------------------


Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

That rate stands at about 14.5%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate.

As economists digest the disappointing job numbers released Friday -- just 120,000 jobs added in March, well below expectations -- some say the U6 figure is the data point people should be focused on.

The official figure used by the Labor Department “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar and economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

The U6 number is derived from a household survey that includes people who are actually unemployed as well as those who haven’t looked for work in over four weeks, Mathur explained.

“If you’re unemployed and you haven’t been looking for work in the previous four weeks than you’re not considered part of the official unemployed,” she said. The U6 rate, meanwhile, “includes all of those people who are too discouraged to look for work.”

The 120,000 jobs added in March was the smallest increase since October and effectively killed momentum that had been growing in the labor markets since late last year. Forecasts had predicted nonfarm unemployment to rise by 203,000. The economy had added more than 200,000 jobs in each of the past two months.

Time to Focus on the Real Unemployment Rate | Fox Business

other links

Alternate Unemployment Charts

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

2 questions.

1. Did you use this formula when you judged Bush?

2. Will you use this same formula against Romney?

 

[sealybobo]

And Lumpy. You may be the only retard that didn't already know about this. But you act like you are telling us something new. Tired old GOP playbook. So predictable. Maybe you can use this on your stupid girlfriend or sister who's undecided but this is USMB bitch.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Lumpy1 still won't post the 10,.8% from October 1983, which translated to more than 18% real unemployment under Reagan, almost 1 out of 5 American adults were not working.

Gads Man, I wasn't aware of it (it's old news) but as I recall this was after just after the Carter Years.

It was in the 34th month of Reagan's first term, not immediately after the JC 'years'.

Nice try, Lumpy1, but no cigar.

I suppose.. my interest level is kinda low on this...honestly

Why are we rehashing the Reagan Years anyway, just wondering?

Is it because Reagan gave the country new hope in hard times while Obama has accomplished the exact opposite?

 

[Vast LWC]

Gads Man, I wasn't aware of it (it's old news) but as I recall this was after just after the Carter Years.

Interesting reading for Ya..

Much has been written about the budget deficits during the Reagan Administration, usually pointing to President Reagan as the one to blame, in an attempt to cast a shadow on the viability of "Reaganomics," or "Trickle-down-theory" economics," or "Supply-side" economics.

Of course Reagan's across-the-board tax rates were, and are still, legendary, lowering the top rate from a whopping 70% during the Carter years, all the way down to 28%. Much of prior economic theory had believed income tax cuts, of such enormous magnitude, would have the effect of decreasing revenues coming into the treasury.

The opposite happened. How can this be? How can the government "charge less" and "get more?" On surface, it does sound counter-intuitive, or like I like to say, "bass-ackwards." Even the elder George Bush (who eventually ended up being Reagan's V.P.), had previously, during the campaign in which he was running against Reagan in the Republican primary, "Voodoo Economics."

However, more tax revenue was collected during every year of the two Reagan terms than had ever been collected and any single previous year in the history of the United States. By the last year of the Reagan administration in 1988, the federal government (in that year alone), collected over $391,000,000,000 more than any year of the just prior Carter administration. In percentage terms, the federal government took in 76% more that year than it had ever collected in any year of any other administration!

Why, then were there large deficits? Because as much as the tax revenues increased, government spending increased even more! It makes one wonder if there is any amount of money high enough for the bureaucrats in Washington not to spend.

There are several very logical reasons why tax revenue increases, especially when taxes are cut on the rich. One is that they, like all Americans, don't mind paying their "fair share." Therefore, they are not compelled to use tax shelters, usually with no inherent economic viability, to avoid high taxes. Loop holes are not used. Money is not shipped overseas to avoid paying taxes in the U. S. Tax savings from the wealthy are reinvested, which helps the economy, and creates even more revenue. Money that was being wasted on taxes is used to grow businesses and hire more workers. Individuals find that their paychecks are larger, can afford to purchase things that they previously weren't able to because that money was being siphoned by electronic tube directly to the IRS!

Tax revenues went up when John F. Kennedy cut tax rates during the 1960s. I wonder if the left would demonize JFK if he tried that today?

Newsvine - The "Reagan" Deficits of the '80's...whose to blame?

See, but herein lies the fallacy that is at the heart of every "tax cuts will grow revenue" argument that has been raised in the past 10 years:

The point on the Laffer curve where tax cuts would grow the economy and therefore theoretically bring in more revenue was passed quite some time ago. Therefore, the Bush tax cuts, and any proposed future tax cuts would have no positive effect on the economy, and only a negative effect on the deficit/debt.

And that's even assuming the theory behind the Laffer Curve is correct, and the rapid economic recovery of the 80's was not due to other factors, like large scale automation and the growth in use of computers, for instance.


In fact, if you look back at a closer representation of the market crash and bubble bursting that we just experienced, 1929, you see that the free market approach that was used for the 2 years following the market crash not only didn't work, but made the situation significantly worse.

 

[sealybobo]

Gads Man, I wasn't aware of it (it's old news) but as I recall this was after just after the Carter Years.

It was in the 34th month of Reagan's first term, not immediately after the JC 'years'.

Nice try, Lumpy1, but no cigar.

I suppose.. my interest level is kinda low on this...honestly

Why are we rehashing the Reagan Years anyway, just wondering?

Is it because Reagan gave the country new hope in hard times while Obama has accomplished the exact opposite?

I wonder why you have such a negative perception of Obama? He's more conservative than Reagan was. If Reagan ran today, he couldn't win the GOP nomination.

Obama is going to beat Romney. That fills a lot of us with great hope. Reagan sucked. While you thought he was great, he planted the free trade and anti labor seeds that are now the roots of our problems.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It was in the 34th month of Reagan's first term, not immediately after the JC 'years'.

Nice try, Lumpy1, but no cigar.

I suppose.. my interest level is kinda low on this...honestly

Why are we rehashing the Reagan Years anyway, just wondering?

Is it because Reagan gave the country new hope in hard times while Obama has accomplished the exact opposite?

I wonder why you have such a negative perception of Obama? He's more conservative than Reagan was. If Reagan ran today, he couldn't win the GOP nomination.

Obama is going to beat Romney. That fills a lot of us with great hope. Reagan sucked. While you thought he was great, he planted the free trade and anti labor seeds that are now the roots of our problems.

Obama.. his leftist policies that you obviously refuse to deny.. the rest of your post is bullshit and conjecture, so I'm not bothering to respond..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gads Man, I wasn't aware of it (it's old news) but as I recall this was after just after the Carter Years.

It was in the 34th month of Reagan's first term, not immediately after the JC 'years'.

Nice try, Lumpy1, but no cigar.

I suppose.. my interest level is kinda low on this...honestly

Why are we rehashing the Reagan Years anyway, just wondering?

Is it because Reagan gave the country new hope in hard times while Obama has accomplished the exact opposite?

(Laughter ringing in the hall)

Lumpy1, Obama is Mr. Hope!

The only naysayers are the extremist right seeing their years of victimization of the victims ending.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It was in the 34th month of Reagan's first term, not immediately after the JC 'years'.

Nice try, Lumpy1, but no cigar.

I suppose.. my interest level is kinda low on this...honestly

Why are we rehashing the Reagan Years anyway, just wondering?

Is it because Reagan gave the country new hope in hard times while Obama has accomplished the exact opposite?

(Laughter ringing in the hall)

Lumpy1, Obama is Mr. Hope!

The only naysayers are the extremist right seeing their years of victimization of the victims ending.

Sheesh.. try to stay in touch with reality my friend...

 

[edthecynic]

Lumpy1 still won't post the 10,.8% from October 1983, which translated to more than 18% real unemployment under Reagan, almost 1 out of 5 American adults were not working.

Gads Man, I wasn't aware of it (it's old news) but as I recall this was after just after the Carter Years.

Interesting reading for Ya..

Much has been written about the budget deficits during the Reagan Administration, usually pointing to President Reagan as the one to blame, in an attempt to cast a shadow on the viability of "Reaganomics," or "Trickle-down-theory" economics," or "Supply-side" economics.

Of course Reagan's across-the-board tax rates were, and are still, legendary, lowering the top rate from a whopping 70% during the Carter years, all the way down to 28%. Much of prior economic theory had believed income tax cuts, of such enormous magnitude, would have the effect of decreasing revenues coming into the treasury.

The opposite happened. How can this be? How can the government "charge less" and "get more?" On surface, it does sound counter-intuitive, or like I like to say, "bass-ackwards." Even the elder George Bush (who eventually ended up being Reagan's V.P.), had previously, during the campaign in which he was running against Reagan in the Republican primary, "Voodoo Economics."

However, more tax revenue was collected during every year of the two Reagan terms than had ever been collected and any single previous year in the history of the United States. By the last year of the Reagan administration in 1988, the federal government (in that year alone), collected over $391,000,000,000 more than any year of the just prior Carter administration. In percentage terms, the federal government took in 76% more that year than it had ever collected in any year of any other administration!

Why, then were there large deficits? Because as much as the tax revenues increased, government spending increased even more! It makes one wonder if there is any amount of money high enough for the bureaucrats in Washington not to spend.

There are several very logical reasons why tax revenue increases, especially when taxes are cut on the rich. One is that they, like all Americans, don't mind paying their "fair share." Therefore, they are not compelled to use tax shelters, usually with no inherent economic viability, to avoid high taxes. Loop holes are not used. Money is not shipped overseas to avoid paying taxes in the U. S. Tax savings from the wealthy are reinvested, which helps the economy, and creates even more revenue. Money that was being wasted on taxes is used to grow businesses and hire more workers. Individuals find that their paychecks are larger, can afford to purchase things that they previously weren't able to because that money was being siphoned by electronic tube directly to the IRS!

Tax revenues went up when John F. Kennedy cut tax rates during the 1960s. I wonder if the left would demonize JFK if he tried that today?

Newsvine - The "Reagan" Deficits of the '80's...whose to blame?

A perfect example of the CON$ervoFascist BIG LIE philosophy!!! Since CON$ always lie, tell a BIG LIE!

St Ronnie cut taxes his first 2 years and revenue fell, so he then rolled back the last 1/3 of his tax cuts and became a tax raising fool and revenue increased. That's right, Reagan tax cuts produced lower revenue his first 2 years and his next 6 years of tax increases produced record revenue. By his last year Reagan raised taxes more than any other peace time president in history. Even the radical Right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation chart shows Reagan lost revenue with his 81 and 82 tax cuts and revenue went up with Reagan's 83 to 88 tax increases.

And spending was out of control during the Reagan Regime because he pissed money away on such pork barrel boondoggles as Star Wars.

BTW, revenue went down after JFK's tax cuts also.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I suppose.. my interest level is kinda low on this...honestly

Why are we rehashing the Reagan Years anyway, just wondering?

Is it because Reagan gave the country new hope in hard times while Obama has accomplished the exact opposite?

(Laughter ringing in the hall)

Lumpy1, Obama is Mr. Hope!

The only naysayers are the extremist right seeing their years of victimization of the victims ending.

Sheesh.. try to stay in touch with reality my friend...

The far right extremists are out of touch, my friend. If the economy does not budge from this day on, Obama wins by 7 to 8%, even better than last time. If it picks up at all in the summer and the rest stays the same, Romney could lose by 11 to 12% points.

Your mantra of ABO is not true, has not been true, and will never be true. He is a candidate blessed by fate, and it is going to take Romney (1) not making any gaffes (let's hope not) and (2) some real luck.

 

[naturegirl]

Whoa, hold on...........someone needs to tell these fellas Reagan is dead and Bush isn't president anymore. It's all Obama, the great Divider-in-Chief that's supposed to be leading the pack now............well unless it's bad then it's someone else's fault.

 

[Jroc]

Thanks Bush, thanks Obama... Thanks Reps in congress and thanks Dems in congress... For blaming everyone and everything but themselves.

I have a great idea! Dems and Reps can do what they do best, start a new Government agency or entitlement to fix the problem! TA DA! Then 20-50 years later when that Program has grown 100x it's size and helps run incredible deficits (if we make it that far) both sides can blame everyone and everything but themselves, YAYAYAY!

Today it's Obama's fault. 4 years agro it was Bush's fault!

No, 4 years ago it was the democratic congress' fault. 10 demerit points for going off the republican reservation.

Oh that's right! Unless you're a Democrat, then it's Republicans fault from 6 years ago or when Republicans took over the house 2 years ago!

It’s great how this works, you can always, and I do in fact mean always blame the other side. Shit, Obama had a HISTORIC super majority with Dems in the House and Senate and I kid you not you can fill a thread with people blaming the reason Obama didn’t save the country and real ANYTHING from the Bush era evil policies on the MINORITY Republicans…

Bush and his Super majority fucked things up, and Obama with his super majority made things worse… SO it kinda makes you wonder how voting either Rep or Dems in 2012 can make any difference… But most the people in the country and these boards will vote the same anyways!

Bush never had a “super majority” on anything if so we'd have rained in Fannie and Freddie before he housing melt down and maybe even forced though Social Security reform one could argue if the Republicans had a "super majority” the financial crises might not have happened

 

[Sinjorri]

Whoa, hold on...........someone needs to tell these fellas Reagan is dead and Bush isn't president anymore. It's all Obama, the great Divider-in-Chief that's supposed to be leading the pack now............well unless it's bad then it's someone else's fault.

we wouldnt know Obama blames Bush so much i thought bush won a third term all i hear is Bush did that bush did this bush wanted war bush and big oil bush exploded the rig in the gulf and when no one was looking hes the reason we lost stock in GM.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, 4 years ago it was the democratic congress' fault. 10 demerit points for going off the republican reservation.

Oh that's right! Unless you're a Democrat, then it's Republicans fault from 6 years ago or when Republicans took over the house 2 years ago!

It’s great how this works, you can always, and I do in fact mean always blame the other side. Shit, Obama had a HISTORIC super majority with Dems in the House and Senate and I kid you not you can fill a thread with people blaming the reason Obama didn’t save the country and real ANYTHING from the Bush era evil policies on the MINORITY Republicans…

Bush and his Super majority fucked things up, and Obama with his super majority made things worse… SO it kinda makes you wonder how voting either Rep or Dems in 2012 can make any difference… But most the people in the country and these boards will vote the same anyways!

Bush never had a “super majority” on anything if so we'd have rained in Fannie and Freddie before he housing melt down and maybe even forced though Social Security reform one could argue if the Republicans had a "super majority” the financial crises might not have happened

Doesn't wash, JRK. Bush could have changed it. He didn't. He owns it. End of story.

 

[Jroc]

Oh that's right! Unless you're a Democrat, then it's Republicans fault from 6 years ago or when Republicans took over the house 2 years ago!

It’s great how this works, you can always, and I do in fact mean always blame the other side. Shit, Obama had a HISTORIC super majority with Dems in the House and Senate and I kid you not you can fill a thread with people blaming the reason Obama didn’t save the country and real ANYTHING from the Bush era evil policies on the MINORITY Republicans…

Bush and his Super majority fucked things up, and Obama with his super majority made things worse… SO it kinda makes you wonder how voting either Rep or Dems in 2012 can make any difference… But most the people in the country and these boards will vote the same anyways!

Bush never had a “super majority” on anything if so we'd have rained in Fannie and Freddie before he housing melt down and maybe even forced though Social Security reform one could argue if the Republicans had a "super majority” the financial crises might not have happened

Doesn't wash, JRK. Bush could have changed it. He didn't. He owns it. End of story.

Same old same old with you Jake the Bush administration warned about Fannie and Freddie but nothing happened in Congress he also pushed for Social security reformed but got smacked down in congress Bush screwed up with his prescription drug coverage without reforming Medicare that’s for sure

 

[BDBoop]

Just getting real on the unemployment figures and supplying some alternate links for y'all.

-----------------------------


Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

That rate stands at about 14.5%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate.

As economists digest the disappointing job numbers released Friday -- just 120,000 jobs added in March, well below expectations -- some say the U6 figure is the data point people should be focused on.

The official figure used by the Labor Department “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar and economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

The U6 number is derived from a household survey that includes people who are actually unemployed as well as those who haven’t looked for work in over four weeks, Mathur explained.

“If you’re unemployed and you haven’t been looking for work in the previous four weeks than you’re not considered part of the official unemployed,” she said. The U6 rate, meanwhile, “includes all of those people who are too discouraged to look for work.”

The 120,000 jobs added in March was the smallest increase since October and effectively killed momentum that had been growing in the labor markets since late last year. Forecasts had predicted nonfarm unemployment to rise by 203,000. The economy had added more than 200,000 jobs in each of the past two months.

Time to Focus on the Real Unemployment Rate | Fox Business

other links

Alternate Unemployment Charts

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Okay - so what's the U6 rate for the past ten years. Goose, gander and all that.

 

[pinqy]

Just getting real on the unemployment figures and supplying some alternate links for y'all.

-----------------------------


Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

That rate stands at about 14.5%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate.

As economists digest the disappointing job numbers released Friday -- just 120,000 jobs added in March, well below expectations -- some say the U6 figure is the data point people should be focused on.

The official figure used by the Labor Department “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar and economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

The U6 number is derived from a household survey that includes people who are actually unemployed as well as those who haven’t looked for work in over four weeks, Mathur explained.

“If you’re unemployed and you haven’t been looking for work in the previous four weeks than you’re not considered part of the official unemployed,” she said. The U6 rate, meanwhile, “includes all of those people who are too discouraged to look for work.”

The 120,000 jobs added in March was the smallest increase since October and effectively killed momentum that had been growing in the labor markets since late last year. Forecasts had predicted nonfarm unemployment to rise by 203,000. The economy had added more than 200,000 jobs in each of the past two months.

Time to Focus on the Real Unemployment Rate | Fox Business

other links

Alternate Unemployment Charts

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Okay - so what's the U6 rate for the past ten years. Goose, gander and all that.

Last 18 years: Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

 

[Lumpy 1]

(Laughter ringing in the hall)

Lumpy1, Obama is Mr. Hope!

The only naysayers are the extremist right seeing their years of victimization of the victims ending.

Sheesh.. try to stay in touch with reality my friend...

The far right extremists are out of touch, my friend. If the economy does not budge from this day on, Obama wins by 7 to 8%, even better than last time. If it picks up at all in the summer and the rest stays the same, Romney could lose by 11 to 12% points.

Your mantra of ABO is not true, has not been true, and will never be true. He is a candidate blessed by fate, and it is going to take Romney (1) not making any gaffes (let's hope not) and (2) some real luck.

Fate...lol.. Corporate Fat Cats, Union payoffs, country splitting politics maybe but fate, eh.

 

[Jroc]

[/COLOR]

Sheesh.. try to stay in touch with reality my friend...

The far right extremists are out of touch, my friend. If the economy does not budge from this day on, Obama wins by 7 to 8%, even better than last time. If it picks up at all in the summer and the rest stays the same, Romney could lose by 11 to 12% points.

Your mantra of ABO is not true, has not been true, and will never be true. He is a candidate blessed by fate, and it is going to take Romney (1) not making any gaffes (let's hope not) and (2) some real luck.

Fate...lol.. Corporate Fat Cats, Union payoffs, country splitting politics maybe but fate, eh.

Jake is a closet Obama lover. He never actually criticizes him, Republicans? Every chance he gets

 

[Lumpy 1]

The far right extremists are out of touch, my friend. If the economy does not budge from this day on, Obama wins by 7 to 8%, even better than last time. If it picks up at all in the summer and the rest stays the same, Romney could lose by 11 to 12% points.

Your mantra of ABO is not true, has not been true, and will never be true. He is a candidate blessed by fate, and it is going to take Romney (1) not making any gaffes (let's hope not) and (2) some real luck.

Fate...lol.. Corporate Fat Cats, Union payoffs, country splitting politics maybe but fate, eh.

Jake is a closet Obama lover. He never actually criticizes him, Republicans? Every chance he gets

I like Jake, he's a good guy but his politics, eh, delusional is just the tip of the iceberg..