What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?
Al things considered? Around 19%.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?
What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?
. . . .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
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
Facts to her are Subjective...objective...err...uhmm...her own?and they do to you?......i dont think so....
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....
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??
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.
If I am a betting person . I would say this is the wrong direction No link yet just seen it on the news
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.
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.
The real unemployment rate is 7.7%What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?
Al things considered? Around 19%.
The real unemployment rate is 7.7%What is the real unemployment rate somewhere around or north of 15%?
Al things considered? Around 19%.
I see you identify yourself as a CON$ervoFascist now.Where are all the CON$ bitching that the BLS is fudged and we should be using Gallup?If I am a betting person . I would say this is the wrong direction No link yet just seen it on the news
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$ervoFascist now.Where are all the CON$ 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?
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 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!!!I see you identify yourself as a CON$ervoFascist now.*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?
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 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.
Well, sort of kind of true. Definitely misleading.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:
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.. . . .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.
All true.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.
[/QUOTE]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