Unemployment rate to 8.8%

[bigrebnc1775]

according to the polls obama will not be re-elected in 2012

Taking bets..you in?

Thats the polls just like what shithead is trying to say about the unemploymentnumbers they use a "poll" to get the percentage numbers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

However, I do not see anyone discussing the raise in food stamp users.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

according to the polls obama will not be re-elected in 2012

So, who is going to defeat him. Will it be Michelle, Sarah, Huck, Romney...just who will it be? The GOP needs to worry that the economy is improving. They are wringing their hands with worry. So, the best thing to do is screw it up with their "tea party induced" budget deals. Yeah, they need to kill 200,000 jobs quickly. THEY CAN DO IT!

You are the one jumping for joy over the unemployment numbers, the way they get the numbers is using a poll. Your percentage numbers is wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Take a look at this if unemployment is going down why are the new unemployment numbers of checks going up?
Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000


An additional 4.3 million unemployed workers received benefits under the extended programs during the week ending Feb. 19, a drop of about 200,000 from the previous week. Some of those recipients may have found jobs, while many likely exhausted their benefits. Altogether, 8.8 million people were on the benefit rolls that week.

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

 

[The T]

However, I do not see anyone discussing the raise in food stamp users.

It will detract from their argument as to torpedo it...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

However, I do not see anyone discussing the raise in food stamp users.

It will detract from their argument as to torpedo it...

Let's proceed. I posted in this thread the rise in food stamp usage. Yes here it is

42.9 million people collected food stamps last month
up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago

Food Stamp Rolls Continue to Rise - Real Time Economics - WSJ

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000


An additional 4.3 million unemployed workers received benefits under the extended programs during the week ending Feb. 19, a drop of about 200,000 from the previous week. Some of those recipients may have found jobs, while many likely exhausted their benefits. Altogether, 8.8 million people were on the benefit rolls that week.
Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

Now I must ask what idiot says the unemployment percentage numbers are going down?

 

[Trajan]

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

Wow! Isn't it funny how two different articles can come up with two completely different answers on the same question? Hmmm, who to trust? I know nothing about Craig Steiner. I know a little bit about FactCheck.org. I have in the past looked at the government's take on this (can't remember the site and really don't care to go looking for it) and it showed that there was a surplus. Wait a minute, that was a government site.

Dagnammit! I still have no idea whom to trust!

Immie

this might help....

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do realize debt and deficits are different..right?

And your own chart shows conservatives growing debt..and liberals shrinking it.

Thanks.

information is information, I have no issue posting anything good bad or indifferent and you do see I posted a LINK though eh?

and yes I understand theres a difference, its a starting point, and the survey question for you is;

did Clinton leave office with debt. he helped create? You can balance your monthly or yearly check book by hook and by crook, but if your credit card has debt but you met your minimal payment do you really have a 'surplus'?

and as far as cons vs libs's why yes of course its that simple isn't it? :rollleyes:, how many ways do you want slice that bologna?

 

[william the wie]

The reports of rapidly increasing numbers of people on disability and SSI and more people taking Social Security at 62 is another area of interest that needs to be dispelled to make the UE number seem credible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

However, I do not see anyone discussing the raise in food stamp users.

It will detract from their argument as to torpedo it...

Let's proceed. I posted in this thread the rise in food stamp usage. Yes here it is

42.9 million people collected food stamps last month
up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago

Food Stamp Rolls Continue to Rise - Real Time Economics - WSJ

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000


An additional 4.3 million unemployed workers received benefits under the extended programs during the week ending Feb. 19, a drop of about 200,000 from the previous week. Some of those recipients may have found jobs, while many likely exhausted their benefits. Altogether, 8.8 million people were on the benefit rolls that week.
Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

Now I must ask what idiot says the unemployment percentage numbers are going down?

I didn't mean to kill your thread Jim

 

[boedicca]

Well, she's right, but inaccurate. It IS true that people not looking for work are not counted as unemployed. She's wrong that that's the ONLY reason it's gone down. The Labor Force has gone up the last 2 months, so people are not dropping out of the labor force.



Benefits has never had anything to do with the unemployment rate. It's not even asked.

Labor force participation has decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% in the past year.

That's why unemployment has decreased.

Period. End of story.

The unemployment rate has decreased by 1 point.

The LFPR has decreased by .7%.

I'll let you do the math...

You clearly don't understand what these stats mean.

239M people are in the civilian population.

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

With a 64.2% participation rate, the labor force is approx. 153M.

A 1% increase in the employment rate means 1.5M more people employed.

1.7M > 1.5M

More people have dropped out of the labor force in the past year than are getting net new jobs.

 

[pinqy]

Labor force participation has decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% in the past year.

That's why unemployment has decreased.

Period. End of story.

The unemployment rate has decreased by 1 point.

The LFPR has decreased by .7%.

I'll let you do the math...

You clearly don't understand what these stats mean.

239M people are in the civilian population.

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

With a 64.2% participation rate, the labor force is approx. 153M.

A 1% increase in the employment rate means 1.5M more people employed.

1.7M > 1.5M

More people have dropped out of the labor force in the past year than are getting net new jobs.

Your calculations assume the population doesn't change. Which is a false assumption. The Labor Force Level can stay exactly the same from one month to the next, and yet the LF participation rate will go down. For the second time in this thread LOWER LF PARTICIPATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A LOWER LABOR FORCE.

 

[boedicca]

The unemployment rate has decreased by 1 point.

The LFPR has decreased by .7%.

I'll let you do the math...

You clearly don't understand what these stats mean.

239M people are in the civilian population.

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

With a 64.2% participation rate, the labor force is approx. 153M.

A 1% increase in the employment rate means 1.5M more people employed.

1.7M > 1.5M

More people have dropped out of the labor force in the past year than are getting net new jobs.

Your calculations assum the population doesn't change. Which is a false assumption. The Labor Force Level can stay exactly the same from one month to the next, and yet the LF participation rate will go down. For the second time in this thread LOWER LF PARTICIPATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A LOWER LABOR FORCE.

I NEVER SAID A LOWER PARTICIPATION RATE MEANT AN ABSOLUTE LOWER QUANTITY OF THE LABOR FORCE, you nattering nabob of nicompoopdom.

The relevant point is: the only reason unemployment has declined by 1% is because 1.7M people have given up looking for work. If they hadn't given up, unemployment would be 9.8%.

Please, read a basic text on macro economics.

 

[Annie]

Yep, the numbers are there in the government reporting, check out links at site:

Our Workforce Lost 2.33 Million People in One Year? - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online

Our Workforce Lost 2.33 Million People in One Year?
April 1, 2011 12:38 P.M.
By Jim Geraghty

My regular correspondent Number Cruncher takes a look at the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and notices:

The percentage of the overall population that is employed in March 2010 was 58.6 percent. One year later, the total percentage of overall population employed is… 58.5 percent. Conclusion: In a growing population we have produced fewer jobs than the number that the population grew. (For the record, the number of Civilian non-institutionalized population was 237.2 million in March 2010, and is 239.00 million in March 2011.)

The number of people who were “not in the labor force” In March 2010 was 83,264,000 (seasonally adjusted). In March 2011, it was 85,594,000 (seasonally adjusted). If you want to know how unemployment dropped a point, look no further than this statistic.​

If you remove 2.33 million people from the labor force within one year, that will indeed help lower the unemployment rate. It is, however, not the same as helping the unemployed find jobs...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The unemployment rate has decreased by 1 point.

The LFPR has decreased by .7%.

I'll let you do the math...

You clearly don't understand what these stats mean.

239M people are in the civilian population.

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

With a 64.2% participation rate, the labor force is approx. 153M.

A 1% increase in the employment rate means 1.5M more people employed.

1.7M > 1.5M

More people have dropped out of the labor force in the past year than are getting net new jobs.

Your calculations assume the population doesn't change. Which is a false assumption. The Labor Force Level can stay exactly the same from one month to the next, and yet the LF participation rate will go down. For the second time in this thread LOWER LF PARTICIPATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A LOWER LABOR FORCE.

Here's one for you.
42.9 million people collected food stamps last month
up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago

Food Stamp Rolls Continue to Rise - Real Time Economics - WSJ

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000


An additional 4.3 million unemployed workers received benefits under the extended programs during the week ending Feb. 19, a drop of about 200,000 from the previous week. Some of those recipients may have found jobs, while many likely exhausted their benefits. Altogether, 8.8 million people were on the benefit rolls that week.
Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

Now I must ask what idiot says the unemployment percentage numbers are going down?

 

[boedicca]

Saying unemployment is going down by not counting long term discouraged workers is the equivalent of saying there is no inflation by excluding food and energy costs from the calculations.

 

[Trajan]

Yep, the numbers are there in the government reporting, check out links at site:

Our Workforce Lost 2.33 Million People in One Year? - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online

Our Workforce Lost 2.33 Million People in One Year?
April 1, 2011 12:38 P.M.
By Jim Geraghty

My regular correspondent Number Cruncher takes a look at the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and notices:

The percentage of the overall population that is employed in March 2010 was 58.6 percent. One year later, the total percentage of overall population employed is… 58.5 percent. Conclusion: In a growing population we have produced fewer jobs than the number that the population grew. (For the record, the number of Civilian non-institutionalized population was 237.2 million in March 2010, and is 239.00 million in March 2011.)

The number of people who were “not in the labor force” In March 2010 was 83,264,000 (seasonally adjusted). In March 2011, it was 85,594,000 (seasonally adjusted). If you want to know how unemployment dropped a point, look no further than this statistic.​

If you remove 2.33 million people from the labor force within one year, that will indeed help lower the unemployment rate. It is, however, not the same as helping the unemployed find jobs...

yea and hence the oft quoted trad water mark of monthly additions of approx. 120-140k jobs( depending upon who you ask) that we need to integrate new entrants into the employment force.

 

[Trajan]

You clearly don't understand what these stats mean.

239M people are in the civilian population.

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

With a 64.2% participation rate, the labor force is approx. 153M.

A 1% increase in the employment rate means 1.5M more people employed.

1.7M > 1.5M

More people have dropped out of the labor force in the past year than are getting net new jobs.

Your calculations assume the population doesn't change. Which is a false assumption. The Labor Force Level can stay exactly the same from one month to the next, and yet the LF participation rate will go down. For the second time in this thread LOWER LF PARTICIPATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A LOWER LABOR FORCE.

Here's one for you.
42.9 million people collected food stamps last month
up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago

Food Stamp Rolls Continue to Rise - Real Time Economics - WSJ

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000


An additional 4.3 million unemployed workers received benefits under the extended programs during the week ending Feb. 19, a drop of about 200,000 from the previous week. Some of those recipients may have found jobs, while many likely exhausted their benefits. Altogether, 8.8 million people were on the benefit rolls that week.
Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

Now I must ask what idiot says the unemployment percentage numbers are going down?

that number will also steam roll as the 99er's hit that mark at the start of this mess as they have been since the downturn really started in 08...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your calculations assume the population doesn't change. Which is a false assumption. The Labor Force Level can stay exactly the same from one month to the next, and yet the LF participation rate will go down. For the second time in this thread LOWER LF PARTICIPATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A LOWER LABOR FORCE.

Here's one for you.
42.9 million people collected food stamps last month
up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago

Food Stamp Rolls Continue to Rise - Real Time Economics - WSJ

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000


An additional 4.3 million unemployed workers received benefits under the extended programs during the week ending Feb. 19, a drop of about 200,000 from the previous week. Some of those recipients may have found jobs, while many likely exhausted their benefits. Altogether, 8.8 million people were on the benefit rolls that week.
Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

Now I must ask what idiot says the unemployment percentage numbers are going down?

that number will also steam roll as the 99er's hit that mark at the start of this mess as they have been since the downturn really started in 08...

When that happens the shit will hit the fan.

 

[konkon]

What is the real unemployment rate?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is the real unemployment rate?

The BLS identified 13.5 million unemployed workers

17.7%
http://starson.starsconfidential.co...yment-shows-us-economy-short-20-million-jobs/