Unemployment Rate 14.5 %

[jgarden]

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

"Lumpy 1" may even be right, but you won't see the conservatives or economists from the American Enterprise Institute making any mention of unreported unemployment once they get control of the White House.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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

"Lumpy 1" may even be right, but you won't see the conservatives or economists from the American Enterprise Institute making any mention of unreported unemployment once they get control of the White House.

I would hope that your crystal ball is on the fritz... I'm pretty fed up with government dishonesty from both political parties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

JRK is lying again. Bush and the GOP own it. Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Jroc, who has done nothing for America, lies, as usual. I am GOP, I can't do a darn thing about the Dems but I can beat down the fools like Jroc that pull down our party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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..

Lumpy is a good guy but simply does not understand our history or our political system.

 

[Jroc]

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

Jroc, who has done nothing for America, lies, as usual. I am GOP, I can't do a darn thing about the Dems but I can beat down the fools like Jroc that pull down our party.

Hardly.....Stick to your college courses and liberal professors for now. Someday you might grow out of it...Hopefully anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Jroc, who has done nothing for America, lies, as usual. I am GOP, I can't do a darn thing about the Dems but I can beat down the fools like Jroc that pull down our party.

Hardly.....Stick to your college courses and liberal professors for now. Someday you might grow out of it...Hopefully anyway.

You describe youself. That's called projecting.

We have made sure in the primaries here that all Tea Party and extremists have been paired with a very solid clear-thinking Republican, plus we have then encouraged other far rigth wacks to get in the races.

So we are busy and successful at clearing the deadwood.

But one has to play fair, too. A couple on the school board wanted to go after a Tea Party lady who is an assistant principal, but does not mix politics with her daily job. We put an end to that effort.

 

[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.

A bump for the Lump.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I don't get why the Democrats are rehashing the past in this thread and not dealing with here and now.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't get why the Democrats are rehashing the past in this thread and not dealing with here and now.

Why should they let you revisionists rewrite history without rebuttal????

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't get why the Democrats are rehashing the past in this thread and not dealing with here and now.

Both sides do it all the time.

The one we do is talk about how the GOP saved the Civil Rights Campaign and have not done a damned thing in decades since.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I don't get why the Democrats are rehashing the past in this thread and not dealing with here and now.

Why should they let you revisionists rewrite history without rebuttal????

I suppose I could re-read the thread but I don't recall me bringing up Reagan.

The original Op was in regards to alternate (realistic) ways of looking at the unemployment numbers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And do that Reagan in 1983 gives tremendous insight into Obama in 2012.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Well... eh

 

[JakeStarkey]

Meh. What's happening today can be better informed in knowing what happened with Reagan's term. Come on, Lumpy1, they are not unrelated.

 

[SniperFire]

 

[Lumpy 1]

Meh. What's happening today can be better informed in knowing what happened with Reagan's term. Come on, Lumpy1, they are not unrelated.

Just to stir the pot, wouldn't it be more related to Romney after he wins this 2012 election?

Obama= Carter....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not yet. In the tenth month of the third year, Reagan's unemployment was two points higher than Obama's.

So here we are in the fifth month of the fourth year. We know Obama is at 8.1. What was Reagan's figure? I honestly don't know.