Unemployment went from 8.1 to 8.2

[The T]

What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?

Al things considered? Around 19%.

 

[Foxfyre]

What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?

Disclaimer: The New Ameirican is not an entirely unbiased or fully objective site, and I did not take the time to verify their numbers here, but I'll go out on a limb and say they look pretty accurate based on what I've been reading lately:

. . . .The nominal unemployment rate is still high, but the real jaw-dropping fact is the number of working-age Americans who are not working. Today that is 100,000,000 Americans out of a total population of about 310,000,000. Demographically, about 80,000,000 Americans are minors and about 40,000,000 are age 65 or older. That leaves approximately 190,000,000 Americans who are adults of working age. About half of those do not have a full-time job.

The situation, according to the very statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show an increasingly dismal picture, when the number of people who could be working but are not is counted. In April 2011, the number listed in those statistics as “unemployed” was 13.8 million. That number actually dropped in February 2012 to 12.8 million, then to 12.7 million in March and 12.5 million in April. The unemployment rate over those four months also declined: 9.0 percent in April 2011, 8.3 percent in February 2012, 8.2 percent in March 2012, and 8.1 percent in April 2012.

When those “Not in the labor force” are adding to those “Unemployed,” then those who are not working is growing: 99.5 million in April 2011, 100.3 million in February 2012, 100.5 million in March 2012, and 100.9 million in April 2012. When counting both those “Not in the labor force” (though in the age in which most Americans work) and “Unemployed” as a single group, then those who are not working, but are in the age group in which Americans normally work, has remained steady and high: 41.6 percent in April 2011, 41.5 percent in February 2012, 41.5 percent in March 2012, and 41.6 percent in April 2012. . . .
The Real Unemployment Rate

 

[naturegirl]

What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?

Disclaimer: The New Ameirican is not an entirely unbiased or fully objective site, and I did not take the time to verify their numbers here, but I'll go out on a limb and say they look pretty accurate based on what I've been reading lately:

. . . .The nominal unemployment rate is still high, but the real jaw-dropping fact is the number of working-age Americans who are not working. Today that is 100,000,000 Americans out of a total population of about 310,000,000. Demographically, about 80,000,000 Americans are minors and about 40,000,000 are age 65 or older. That leaves approximately 190,000,000 Americans who are adults of working age. About half of those do not have a full-time job.

The situation, according to the very statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show an increasingly dismal picture, when the number of people who could be working but are not is counted. In April 2011, the number listed in those statistics as “unemployed” was 13.8 million. That number actually dropped in February 2012 to 12.8 million, then to 12.7 million in March and 12.5 million in April. The unemployment rate over those four months also declined: 9.0 percent in April 2011, 8.3 percent in February 2012, 8.2 percent in March 2012, and 8.1 percent in April 2012.

When those “Not in the labor force” are adding to those “Unemployed,” then those who are not working is growing: 99.5 million in April 2011, 100.3 million in February 2012, 100.5 million in March 2012, and 100.9 million in April 2012. When counting both those “Not in the labor force” (though in the age in which most Americans work) and “Unemployed” as a single group, then those who are not working, but are in the age group in which Americans normally work, has remained steady and high: 41.6 percent in April 2011, 41.5 percent in February 2012, 41.5 percent in March 2012, and 41.6 percent in April 2012. . . .
The Real Unemployment Rate

So the Dem war on women is still raging full force. How many women are without jobs now??

 

[The T]

and they do to you?......i dont think so....

Facts to her are Subjective...objective...err...uhmm...her own?

well back in that one post of hers were she said...." YOUR experts are just clueless hacks".... but hers i guess are not?.....i mean only a HACK would say something like that....

And be gleeful about it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?

Disclaimer: The New Ameirican is not an entirely unbiased or fully objective site, and I did not take the time to verify their numbers here, but I'll go out on a limb and say they look pretty accurate based on what I've been reading lately:

. . . .The nominal unemployment rate is still high, but the real jaw-dropping fact is the number of working-age Americans who are not working. Today that is 100,000,000 Americans out of a total population of about 310,000,000. Demographically, about 80,000,000 Americans are minors and about 40,000,000 are age 65 or older. That leaves approximately 190,000,000 Americans who are adults of working age. About half of those do not have a full-time job.

The situation, according to the very statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show an increasingly dismal picture, when the number of people who could be working but are not is counted. In April 2011, the number listed in those statistics as “unemployed” was 13.8 million. That number actually dropped in February 2012 to 12.8 million, then to 12.7 million in March and 12.5 million in April. The unemployment rate over those four months also declined: 9.0 percent in April 2011, 8.3 percent in February 2012, 8.2 percent in March 2012, and 8.1 percent in April 2012.

When those “Not in the labor force” are adding to those “Unemployed,” then those who are not working is growing: 99.5 million in April 2011, 100.3 million in February 2012, 100.5 million in March 2012, and 100.9 million in April 2012. When counting both those “Not in the labor force” (though in the age in which most Americans work) and “Unemployed” as a single group, then those who are not working, but are in the age group in which Americans normally work, has remained steady and high: 41.6 percent in April 2011, 41.5 percent in February 2012, 41.5 percent in March 2012, and 41.6 percent in April 2012. . . .
The Real Unemployment Rate

So the Dem war on women is still raging full force. How many women are without jobs now??

It's higher now than when Bush was president.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching a panel on TV talking about it this morning. It was pointed out that there are a LOT of lower paying jobs going empty out there. Why? Because of the extended unemployment benefits. Why go for a McJob or some such when you can net about as much drawing unemployment and watching soaps?

At substantial risk to my ever increasingly tough hide, I have posted elsewhere, started threads even, of the dangers of making a population dependent on government generosity, and how quickly a sense of dependency and entitlement develops. And once it does, people become very unhappy, defensive, accusatory, and unyeilding, sometimes even to the point of violence, if anybody suggests that they give up any part of the government freebies to which they have become accustomed.

And of course, it is that syndrome that is helping contribute to our considerable economic woes.

 

[The T]

I was watching a panel on TV talking about it this morning. It was pointed out that there are a LOT of lower paying jobs going empty out there. Why? Because of the extended unemployment benefits. Why go for a McJob or some such when you can net about as much drawing unemployment and watching soaps?

At substantial risk to my ever increasingly tough hide, I have posted elsewhere, started threads even, of the dangers of making a population dependent on government generosity, and how quickly a sense of dependency and entitlement develops. And once it does, people become very unhappy, defensive, accusatory, and unyeilding, sometimes even to the point of violence, if anybody suggests that they give up any part of the government freebies to which they have become accustomed.

And of course, it is that syndrome that is helping contribute to our considerable economic woes.

Lots to be said of the 'Give it to me NOW' generation...

 

[Foxfyre]

It is also a good argument for going back to the six months of unemployment and then it stops policy. Yes, a few people can't find work within that six months and wind up depending on charity or halp from family and friends, etc., but most will take whatever they can get rather than let the unemployment run out. Even if they work six months on a crappy job just to qualify for another six months of unemployment.

But there is dignity and self esteem in work, even if it is a shitty job, and a person working on an even shitty job is more attractive to a prospective employer with a better job to offer than is a guy who has been sitting idle and drawing unemployment for two years.

Government freebies are not something that should ever be encouraged. They do us no favors.

 

[Rozman]

If I am a betting person . I would say this is the wrong direction No link yet just seen it on the news

You gotta believe the Lib ass kissers will have a positive
spin on this.

 

[Trajan]

It is also a good argument for going back to the six months of unemployment and then it stops policy. Yes, a few people can't find work within that six months and wind up depending on charity or halp from family and friends, etc., but most will take whatever they can get rather than let the unemployment run out. Even if they work six months on a crappy job just to qualify for another six months of unemployment.

But there is dignity and self esteem in work, even if it is a shitty job, and a person working on an even shitty job is more attractive to a prospective employer with a better job to offer than is a guy who has been sitting idle and drawing unemployment for two years.

Government freebies are not something that should ever be encouraged. They do us no favors.

well, I will surprise you and disagree, this is/was major. (so was the Carter & Reagan recessions aside from the depression the only comparable downturns in modern history) ....I didn't have much of an issue going from 6 months to a year, but 99 weeks is out of the question....on that we certainly agree.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is also a good argument for going back to the six months of unemployment and then it stops policy. Yes, a few people can't find work within that six months and wind up depending on charity or halp from family and friends, etc., but most will take whatever they can get rather than let the unemployment run out. Even if they work six months on a crappy job just to qualify for another six months of unemployment.

But there is dignity and self esteem in work, even if it is a shitty job, and a person working on an even shitty job is more attractive to a prospective employer with a better job to offer than is a guy who has been sitting idle and drawing unemployment for two years.

Government freebies are not something that should ever be encouraged. They do us no favors.

well, I will surprise you and disagree, this is/was major. (so was the Carter & Reagan recessions aside from the depression the only comparable downturns in modern history) ....I didn't have much of an issue going from 6 months to a year, but 99 weeks is out of the question....on that we certainly agree.

I'm maybe not as hard nosed as some would think, and many things are negotiable if somebody can make a good case. It's just that the less guarantee of a guaranteed income there is, the harder people will look for an income they have to work for.

 

[edthecynic]

What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?

Al things considered? Around 19%.

The real unemployment rate is 7.7%

 

[Trajan]

What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?

Al things considered? Around 19%.

The real unemployment rate is 7.7%

the 69K jobs this month didn't meet the 135k threshold for new workers, oops, wait, they took retiree jobs but the BLS doesn't count that...got it.

 

[edthecynic]

If I am a betting person . I would say this is the wrong direction No link yet just seen it on the news

Where are all the CON$ bitching that the BLS is fudged and we should be using Gallup?
Oh that's right, Gallup has UE at 8.0% so suddenly the BLS is not fudged.

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

*shrugs*, I never used gallup, I am still however, waiting for you to tell me how many retirees retired last month and why the folks who take those jobs are not counted in the employment numbers?

I see you identify yourself as a CON$ervoFascist now.

And you were told how to calculate the number of retirees many times and I even did the math for you after you played too dumb to do simple arithmetic. And I never said that the people who take the job of a retired person are not counted, I said they were not NEW jobs.
So take your Straw Men and shove them where the sub doesn't shine.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems like I said the unemployment rate ahs been understated all year so far. Probably still is.

 

[KissMy]

Looking at the raw unadjusted data, this was actually one of the better jobs creation months since Obama took office. Even so it amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of jobs. When charted the little bump still looks like tits on a gnat. Also previous months were revised down.

 

[Trajan]

Where are all the CON$ bitching that the BLS is fudged and we should be using Gallup?
Oh that's right, Gallup has UE at 8.0% so suddenly the BLS is not fudged.

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

*shrugs*, I never used gallup, I am still however, waiting for you to tell me how many retirees retired last month and why the folks who take those jobs are not counted in the employment numbers?

I see you identify yourself as a CON$ervoFascist now.

And you were told how to calculate the number of retirees many times and I even did the math for you after you played too dumb to do simple arithmetic. And I never said that the people who take the job of a retired person are not counted, I said they were not NEW jobs.
So take your Straw Men and shove them where the sub doesn't shine.

I see you have again, dropped the civility.

I knew , (again), you would not be able to help yourself.

I never use gallup for employment or unemployment figures, that is what we are discussing are we not?


I asked you 3 times, how does an unemployed worker get employed and not have it reflected in the numbers, your claim being that the oddles and boodles of retirees were having their jobs back-filled by unemployed people not reflected in the numbers.....

This makes 4.


OR you can post the link to the post where in you explained this, thx in advance.

 

[edthecynic]

*shrugs*, I never used gallup, I am still however, waiting for you to tell me how many retirees retired last month and why the folks who take those jobs are not counted in the employment numbers?

I see you identify yourself as a CON$ervoFascist now.

And you were told how to calculate the number of retirees many times and I even did the math for you after you played too dumb to do simple arithmetic. And I never said that the people who take the job of a retired person are not counted, I said they were not NEW jobs.
So take your Straw Men and shove them where the sub doesn't shine.

I see you have again, dropped the civility.

I knew , (again), you would not be able to help yourself.

I never use gallup for employment or unemployment figures, that is what we are discussing are we not?


I asked you 3 times, how does an unemployed worker get employed and not have it reflected in the numbers, your claim being that the oddles and boodles of retirees were having their jobs back-filled by unemployed people not reflected in the numbers.....

This makes 4.


OR you can post the link to the post where in you explained this, thx in advance.

I said CON$ were using Gallup when Gallup's numbers were higher than the BLS, then you jumped in all defensive denying that you used Gallup as if I had accused YOU personally of using Gallup, so clearly YOU identify yourself as a CON$ervoFascist. The CON$ also insisted that the non-seasonally adjusted numbers, like Gallup used, were the ONLY accurate numbers because the BLS adjusted the seasonal numbers to favor Obama. Of course now that both the BLS unadjusted numbers 7.7% and Gallup's numbers 8.0% are lower than the BLS seasonally adjusted number, suddenly the BLS adjusted number is the most accurate, just as I predicted!!!

It is hardly civil for you to habitually make up shit about me. You even accused me of making "uncivil" remarks to you in a thread I never posted in. When you stop lying I'll be more civil to you.

And I never claimed "oddles and boodles" of retirees were having their jobs filled. I gave LINKS that showed that 10,000 Boomers reach retirement age a day and that 54% are retired by age 65. I even did the monthly math for you, 10,000 X 30 X.54 = 162,000. I then guessed that many but not all, I approximated 100,000 per month, of those NOT NEWLY CREATED ALREADY EXISTING jobs vacated by retiring Boomers were filled by replacement workers because the number of unemployed people decreased by a greater amount than the stated NEW jobs for each month.
For example, last month BLS claimed there were 115,000 NEW jobs, this was revised to 77,000 NEW jobs, but the number of unemployed went down by 173,000. So the BLS does keep track of these workers leaving the ranks of the unemployed. You can't call a job that was filled by a Boomer for X number of years a "NEW" job.

Why is it so hard for YOU to understand that???

 

[pinqy]

I gave LINKS that showed that 10,000 Boomers reach retirement age a day and that 54% are retired by age 65. I even did the monthly math for you, 10,000 X 30 X.54 = 162,000. I then guessed that many but not all, I approximated 100,000 per month, of those NOT NEWLY CREATED ALREADY EXISTING jobs vacated by retiring Boomers were filled by replacement workers because the number of unemployed people decreased by a greater amount than the stated NEW jobs for each month.
For example, last month BLS claimed there were 115,000 NEW jobs, this was revised to 77,000 NEW jobs, but the number of unemployed went down by 173,000. So the BLS does keep track of these workers leaving the ranks of the unemployed. You can't call a job that was filled by a Boomer for X number of years a "NEW" job.

You can't compare the jobs numbers with the unemployment numbers. The jobs numbers are only non-farm pay roll jobs and come from a survey of businesses. It excludes the self-employed, agricultural workers, and people who work in other people's houses. And people with more than one job are counted for each job.

Unemployment comes from a household survey. Employment and Unemployment from the household survey include everyone (16 and older not in prison, an institute, or the military).

Remember all the data you see are the NET changes. You have to go to Labor Force Flows , a research series to see what really happens.

 

[pinqy]

What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?

Disclaimer: The New Ameirican is not an entirely unbiased or fully objective site, and I did not take the time to verify their numbers here, but I'll go out on a limb and say they look pretty accurate based on what I've been reading lately:

Well, sort of kind of true. Definitely misleading.

. . . .The nominal unemployment rate is still high, but the real jaw-dropping fact is the number of working-age Americans who are not working. Today that is 100,000,000 Americans out of a total population of about 310,000,000. Demographically, about 80,000,000 Americans are minors and about 40,000,000 are age 65 or older. That leaves approximately 190,000,000 Americans who are adults of working age. About half of those do not have a full-time job.

They're using a non-standard framework here. In looking at Labor Force statistics, the Universe is not the total population, but the adult civilian population: those 16 and older not in prison, the military, or an institution (mental institute, nursing home etc). The rationale is to eliminate those who as a group face legal or practical barriers to entry/exit of the labor force.

There is no upper limit on age because there are no legal restrictions on work (as there are for minors) and many people (7.3 million) over age 65 are working.

So using the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population of 242,966,000, there are 242,966,000 people who are 16 and over and could legally work or change jobs without restrictions. Of those, 142,287,000 worked the week of May 6-12, 2012, 12,720,000 did not work but could have taken a job if offered and were looking for work, and 87,958,000 did not work but either were not looking or were not available.

The situation, according to the very statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show an increasingly dismal picture, when the number of people who could be working but are not is counted. In April 2011, the number listed in those statistics as “unemployed” was 13.8 million. That number actually dropped in February 2012 to 12.8 million, then to 12.7 million in March and 12.5 million in April. The unemployment rate over those four months also declined: 9.0 percent in April 2011, 8.3 percent in February 2012, 8.2 percent in March 2012, and 8.1 percent in April 2012.

All true.

When those “Not in the labor force” are adding to those “Unemployed,” then those who are not working is growing: 99.5 million in April 2011, 100.3 million in February 2012, 100.5 million in March 2012, and 100.9 million in April 2012. When counting both those “Not in the labor force” (though in the age in which most Americans work) and “Unemployed” as a single group, then those who are not working, but are in the age group in which Americans normally work, has remained steady and high: 41.6 percent in April 2011, 41.5 percent in February 2012, 41.5 percent in March 2012, and 41.6 percent in April 2012. . . .
The Real Unemployment Rate

[/QUOTE]

Close enough. Though they start by claiming total population and eliminating those over 65, the 41.6% not working for April is true, but it includes people over 65.

But let's look at the breakdown of those not working. I'll use the not-seasonally adjusted numbers for May 2012. (the official numbers are seasonally adjusted, but that's not possible for all groups, so I'll just avoid it, though that won't match the numbers I cited earlier).

Table A-3
ACNI population: 242,966,000
Employed: 142,727,000
Not working: 100,239,000
Available and Actively looking for work: 12,271,000
Not available and/or not looking (Not in the Labor Force): 87,968,000

Now we look closer at those Not in the Labor Force (not working but not considered unemployed) in Table A-38
Do Not Want a Job: 81,132,000 (funny how the article failed to mention that)
Want a Job: 6,835,000
Want a Job, did not look in over a year: 1,412,000 (do these really want a job???)
Want a job but not available to work: 544,000
Want a job, looked in last year (but not last 4 weeks) quit looking for personal issues (school, family, transportation/child care issues etc): 1,593,000
And that leaves 830,000 people who "gave up." They looked in the last year but not last 4 weeks, say they want a job, say they could take a job, but stopped looking because they didn't think they'd find work. Common reasons are belief in discrimination due to race, age, sex, lack of school/training, bad economy.

The problem is that articles like the one you cite try to paint it as if all these people not working are a problem with the economy. But people who don't want to work, or can't take a job, or stopped looking for personal reasons aren't a problem with the economy or labor market.