Why the 8.6% Unemployment is Political BULLSHIT!!!

[GHook93]

The US adult population is composed of three groups: (1) The Employed, (2) The Unemployed and the (3) Not in the labor market. Yet the calculation for unemployment under the Obama Administration ONLY considers the employed and unemployed.

The largest growing segment of the adult population since 2008 isn't employed or unemployed its NOT IN THE LABOR MARKET!

See below you are considered "Not in Labor Force" if a person stops looking for work but are available for work. This means not a person who is now disabled or retired. "Stop looking" is measured when someones unemployment checks run out! These people are still unemployed, they are actually worse off the the official unemployed receiving checks from the government. Yet the Obama administration thinks it's wise to take them out of the unemployment numbers, so they can toss up a bullshit number showing unemployment has decreased!

What is the Real Unemployment Rate, and How Could We Tell? | Rortybomb
By definition, you can be one of three, mutually exclusive types – employed, unemployed or not in the labor force – and you can transfer between these types. The labor force is the sum of employed people and unemployed people. December 2007 is when the Great Recession started, so we include that as a baseline in each circle.

True the 'Not in the Labor Market' can be for various reasons, but the vast majority of Americans are getting lumped in there because their unemployment benefits have run out and they can't find a job. This segment has grown by leaps and bounds since Obama has taken office. It's growth is the only reason the bullshit unemployment number isn't in the teens or glup 20s! The get knocked out of the number FOR POLITICAL REASONS! However, most people aren't buying it! Only partisan hacks do.

There are two facts to deal with in this Great Recession. The labor force hasn’t grown since December 2007 when the recession started, even though we are a much bigger country. The “Not in Labor Force” has increased in response. This must mean that the labor-force participation rate has declined. Let’s graph each normalized to December 2007:

This chart shows the stagnant growth in the labor market, regardless of the propaganda pelted by the Obama administration on unemployment levels!

Three way to calculate the labor force!

Let’s take a look at three ways of counting unemployment.

1. The official unemployment rate. (or Obama Mathematics) Called “U-3″, it is the total unemployed divided by the labor force. Unemployed are defined as: “Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” If a person stops looking for work but are available for work, they end up in the “Not in Labor Force” category. How to keep track of those who have given up looking for work?

2. The marginally-attached unemployment rate. This refers to “U-5″ unemployment. Marginally-attached workers are those that “indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work.” To get this rate, the BLS adds marginally-attached workers to the labor force as unemployed and recalculate the unemployment rate.

Even this alternative mechanisms of determining unemployment isn’t necessarily working. If it has been thirteen months since you’ve last looked for work, you are no longer counted as marginally attached. Given how long this recession has been going, it is likely some people have fallen out of this measure. We’ll need to come up with something else.

3. A consistent labor-force participation rate. (The Only Way To Measure TRUE UNEMPLOYMENT)Many people have posted graphs on how the employment-to-population ratio has declined. How can we use that to help give us a clearer picture on the labor market?

A different way to go about it is to look at the labor-force participation rate, which is down to 64% from 66% in December 2007. How many people would have to enter the labor force to get that percentage up to where it was before the recession? I subtract these two numbers and calculate the number of people who would need to enter the labor force to keep that rate consistent, and add them to the labor force as unemployed. I’m taking the the December 2007 labor force participation rate of 66% for this exercise

 

[GHook93]

Unemployed New Graduates:

The Obama administration does not consider new graduates entering the labor force but can't find a job. They are not considered, because they aren't entitled to unemployment benefits yet. Tell that to my little cousin who graduated from college 2010. He has huge student loan payments, but he is unable to find work, despite the fact that he has two extensive internship for his resume, graduated in the top 25% of his class from a top trier school. He is not in the unemployment rate.

Underemployed:

Then you have the people whose unemployment checks have run out and they take any job they can get. These people are making pennies considering what they use to make. Yet they fall out of the unemployment numbers because they are technically considered employed!

 

[GHook93]

...if the Obama administration really believed in the transparency he campaigned on back in '07-'08, then he would add the 'Not in Labor Force,' 'New grads unable to find a job' and 'Under-employed' into the employment number. But that REAL UNEMPLOYMENT number would be in the 20s! Obama can't have that; therefore, he makes up a bullshit number!

 

[pinqy]

The US adult population is composed of three groups: (1) The Employed, (2) The Unemployed and the (3) Not in the labor market. Yet the calculation for unemployment under the Obama Administration ONLY considers the employed and unemployed.

Why did you include "under the Obama administration?" No other administration has considered Not in the Labor Force for the UE rate either.

The largest growing segment of the adult population since 2008 isn't employed or unemployed its NOT IN THE LABOR MARKET!

And it's still a much lower percent than anytime before 1982.

See below you are considered "Not in Labor Force" if a person stops looking for work but are available for work.

Read it again. Not in the labor force simply means not employed (working) or unemployed (looking for woUrk). Yes it includes some people who are theoretically available to work but that's not a requirement as you seem to be implying.

This means not a person who is now disabled or retired.

There are 87,212,000 people Not in the Labor Force (Table A-1). 21,687,000 (24.9%) are disabled (Table A-6) and 21,475,000 (24.6%) are over 65 and not disabled (also Table A-6).

"Stop looking" is measured when someones unemployment checks run out!

You made that up of course, because you certainly don't have a cite or reference.
And it's so easily disproven by looking at Table A-11 (Reason for unemployment). How are people who quit, people who have never had a job, and people re entering the labor force receiving checks as you claim they must be to be counted as unemployed? And also explain how the number of unemployed is about twice the number of people receiving checks? (as found at Dept of Labor under "Persons claiming benefits in all programs).

What is the Real Unemployment Rate, and How Could We Tell? | Rortybomb
By definition, you can be one of three, mutually exclusive types – employed, unemployed or not in the labor force – and you can transfer between these types. The labor force is the sum of employed people and unemployed people. December 2007 is when the Great Recession started, so we include that as a baseline in each circle.

True the 'Not in the Labor Market' can be for various reasons, but the vast majority of Americans are getting lumped in there because their unemployment benefits have run out and they can't find a job.

Again, UI benefits aren't a factor as they aren't even asked about in the survey. But also, going back to Table A-1, look at "Persons who currently want a job." Note these are people Not in the Labor Force who say they want a job now. Do the math. How do you figure that 7% of those not in the labor force want a job is a majority of any kind?

Unemployed New Graduates:

The Obama administration does not consider new graduates entering the labor force but can't find a job.

Where did you hear that bullshit? It's not true.

Then you have the people whose unemployment checks have run out and they take any job they can get. These people are making pennies considering what they use to make. Yet they fall out of the unemployment numbers because they are technically considered employed!

Are you saying they're not employed?

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

Rasmussem/Gallup should take a Presidential Poll of soley the unemployed, then we can get a better idea of who wins in 2012.

 

[waltky]

Not gonna improve much any time soon...

CBO: Unemployment to Be ‘Largely Unchanged’ in 2012, 2013
January 31, 2012 – The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment situation will remain “largely unchanged” in 2012 and again in 2013 as the economy struggles to recover from the record recession of 2007-2008.

“In CBO’s forecast, the unemployment rate in 2012 and 2013 remains largely unchanged from its value last year,” CBO said in its updated budget forecast Tuesday. CBO reported that while jobs market conditions will improve slightly next year, the overall jobless situation will not improve much at all. CBO also reported that labor force participation – those who either have work or are actively looking for work – will decline by another one percent by 2017. “[T]he rate of participation in the labor force will fall by about 1 percentage point by 2017,” the report said.

In fact, unemployment will not return to its pre-recession level of about five percent until 2022, CBO finds. CBO estimates that unemployment will remain about one percent higher than the pre-recession level of five percent, due partly to the inability of the long-term unemployed to find work. In other words, the recession will result in about a 0.5 percent permanent increase in the unemployment rate.

CBO also said that the labor force itself will shrink permanently due to the recession. This means that because of the persistently high unemployment caused by the recession, millions of people will permanently give up looking for work. “The rate of participation in the labor force fell from 66 percent in 2007 to an average of 64 percent in the second half of 2011,” CBO said. “By CBO’s estimates, the rate of labor force participation will fall to slightly above 63 percent by 2017.”

CBO said that had millions of people not given up looking for work entirely, “the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1.25 percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent.” In other words, the unemployment rate would have been almost 10 percent – 9.95 percent exactly – had so many people not been driven from the workforce by the lack of jobs.

Source

 

[Valox]

Yet the calculation for unemployment under the Obama Administration ONLY considers the employed and unemployed.

I would be curious to see a link citing that the BLS methodology changed on January 20th, 2009.

Other than that, I share your concerns about not normalizing for the LFPR.

 

[GHook93]

Yet the calculation for unemployment under the Obama Administration ONLY considers the employed and unemployed.

I would be curious to see a link citing that the BLS methodology changed on January 20th, 2009.

Other than that, I share your concerns about not normalizing for the LFPR.

To be fair W used the same methodology, but he was a pretty bad president himself. One can't think Obama sucks and also think Bush was a horrendous President also. It's not mutually exclusive. I voted for Kerry in 2000. Granted I was in college and much more liberal back then, but I would probably have done it again knowing how bad a President Bush turned out to be. Nevertheless, the "not in the market" group was much much smaller under Bush. It an epidemic under Obama!

 

[Valox]

Yet the calculation for unemployment under the Obama Administration ONLY considers the employed and unemployed.

I would be curious to see a link citing that the BLS methodology changed on January 20th, 2009.

Other than that, I share your concerns about not normalizing for the LFPR.

To be fair W used the same methodology, but he was a pretty bad president himself. One can't think Obama sucks and also think Bush was a horrendous President also. It's not mutually exclusive. I voted for Kerry in 2000. Granted I was in college and much more liberal back then, but I would probably have done it again knowing how bad a President Bush turned out to be. Nevertheless, the "not in the market" group was much much smaller under Bush. It an epidemic under Obama!

To be fair, how is the President in charge of BLS calculations?

 

[pinqy]

Yet the calculation for unemployment under the Obama Administration ONLY considers the employed and unemployed.

I would be curious to see a link citing that the BLS methodology changed on January 20th, 2009.

Other than that, I share your concerns about not normalizing for the LFPR.

To be fair W used the same methodology, but he was a pretty bad president himself.

and every other president, and most countries in th world.

Nevertheless, the "not in the market" group was much much smaller under Bush. It an epidemic under Obama!

Well, yeah....the economy is worse so more people have dropped out and fewer tried to get in the labor market.

 

[Toro]

I would be curious to see a link citing that the BLS methodology changed on January 20th, 2009.

Other than that, I share your concerns about not normalizing for the LFPR.

To be fair W used the same methodology, but he was a pretty bad president himself.

and every other president, and most countries in th world.

Nevertheless, the "not in the market" group was much much smaller under Bush. It an epidemic under Obama!

Well, yeah....the economy is worse so more people have dropped out and fewer tried to get in the labor market.

The President doesn't determine the methodology.

Or am I wrong?

 

[pinqy]

To be fair W used the same methodology, but he was a pretty bad president himself.

and every other president, and most countries in th world.

Nevertheless, the "not in the market" group was much much smaller under Bush. It an epidemic under Obama!

Well, yeah....the economy is worse so more people have dropped out and fewer tried to get in the labor market.

The President doesn't determine the methodology.

Or am I wrong?

Kennedy and Carter both formed committees to reccomend changes in the CPS methodology, and some of the reccomend actions wee later adopted, but no, there's no direct influence.

 

[Fang]

Reagan took over an even worse economy from Carter in 1980. In Reagan's 2nd and 3rd years the unemployment rate was riding the around 10%, very similar to Obama's 2nd and 3rd years. However, By the end of Reagan's 3rd year the unemployment rate started going down. By time the election rolled around it was down to 7.2%.

Let's see if Obama can accomplish the same.

 

[kiwiman127]

The US adult population is composed of three groups: (1) The Employed, (2) The Unemployed and the (3) Not in the labor market. Yet the calculation for unemployment under the Obama Administration ONLY considers the employed and unemployed.

The largest growing segment of the adult population since 2008 isn't employed or unemployed its NOT IN THE LABOR MARKET!

See below you are considered "Not in Labor Force" if a person stops looking for work but are available for work. This means not a person who is now disabled or retired. "Stop looking" is measured when someones unemployment checks run out! These people are still unemployed, they are actually worse off the the official unemployed receiving checks from the government. Yet the Obama administration thinks it's wise to take them out of the unemployment numbers, so they can toss up a bullshit number showing unemployment has decreased!

What is the Real Unemployment Rate, and How Could We Tell? | Rortybomb
By definition, you can be one of three, mutually exclusive types – employed, unemployed or not in the labor force – and you can transfer between these types. The labor force is the sum of employed people and unemployed people. December 2007 is when the Great Recession started, so we include that as a baseline in each circle.

True the 'Not in the Labor Market' can be for various reasons, but the vast majority of Americans are getting lumped in there because their unemployment benefits have run out and they can't find a job. This segment has grown by leaps and bounds since Obama has taken office. It's growth is the only reason the bullshit unemployment number isn't in the teens or glup 20s! The get knocked out of the number FOR POLITICAL REASONS! However, most people aren't buying it! Only partisan hacks do.

There are two facts to deal with in this Great Recession. The labor force hasn’t grown since December 2007 when the recession started, even though we are a much bigger country. The “Not in Labor Force” has increased in response. This must mean that the labor-force participation rate has declined. Let’s graph each normalized to December 2007:

This chart shows the stagnant growth in the labor market, regardless of the propaganda pelted by the Obama administration on unemployment levels!

Three way to calculate the labor force!

Let’s take a look at three ways of counting unemployment.

1. The official unemployment rate. (or Obama Mathematics) Called “U-3″, it is the total unemployed divided by the labor force. Unemployed are defined as: “Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” If a person stops looking for work but are available for work, they end up in the “Not in Labor Force” category. How to keep track of those who have given up looking for work?

2. The marginally-attached unemployment rate. This refers to “U-5″ unemployment. Marginally-attached workers are those that “indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work.” To get this rate, the BLS adds marginally-attached workers to the labor force as unemployed and recalculate the unemployment rate.

Even this alternative mechanisms of determining unemployment isn’t necessarily working. If it has been thirteen months since you’ve last looked for work, you are no longer counted as marginally attached. Given how long this recession has been going, it is likely some people have fallen out of this measure. We’ll need to come up with something else.

3. A consistent labor-force participation rate. (The Only Way To Measure TRUE UNEMPLOYMENT)Many people have posted graphs on how the employment-to-population ratio has declined. How can we use that to help give us a clearer picture on the labor market?

A different way to go about it is to look at the labor-force participation rate, which is down to 64% from 66% in December 2007. How many people would have to enter the labor force to get that percentage up to where it was before the recession? I subtract these two numbers and calculate the number of people who would need to enter the labor force to keep that rate consistent, and add them to the labor force as unemployed. I’m taking the the December 2007 labor force participation rate of 66% for this exercise

This just like it was during the Bush years.

The unemployment rate for January 2000 was 4.0
The unemployment rate for January 2007 was 4.6.

Now look at the Work Force Participation Rate for both of those years on the below chart. For those two time periods, they should be relatively close on the chart, but they aren't even close.

Some things never change, do they?

 

[Old_Liberal]

Reagan took over an even worse economy from Carter in 1980. In Reagan's 2nd and 3rd years the unemployment rate was riding the around 10%, very similar to Obama's 2nd and 3rd years. However, By the end of Reagan's 3rd year the unemployment rate started going down. By time the election rolled around it was down to 7.2%.

Let's see if Obama can accomplish the same.

LOL. Now that was funny. Got some news for ya. We no longer have an important economic engine here, that reagen had. Consumer good manufacturing to sell in our huge consumer market. SO, no large number of factories to call back layed off workers. What do we have in its place? Nada, nothing, zip.

A repub president will do no better, even if he drops the tax rate on the rich to 1 per cent. Cheap labor and free access to our market trumps everything. The rich will invest overseas. So, give em tax breaks so they can help out communist china.

 

[Fang]

Reagan took over an even worse economy from Carter in 1980. In Reagan's 2nd and 3rd years the unemployment rate was riding the around 10%, very similar to Obama's 2nd and 3rd years. However, By the end of Reagan's 3rd year the unemployment rate started going down. By time the election rolled around it was down to 7.2%.

Let's see if Obama can accomplish the same.

LOL. Now that was funny. Got some news for ya. We no longer have an important economic engine here, that reagen had. Consumer good manufacturing to sell in our huge consumer market. SO, no large number of factories to call back layed off workers. What do we have in its place? Nada, nothing, zip.

A repub president will do no better, even if he drops the tax rate on the rich to 1 per cent. Cheap labor and free access to our market trumps everything. The rich will invest overseas. So, give em tax breaks so they can help out communist china.

We know Obama can't do it. So I'll take my chances with someone (Romney hopefully) who actually has real world experience in the private sector.

 

[asaratis]

I would be curious to see a link citing that the BLS methodology changed on January 20th, 2009.

Other than that, I share your concerns about not normalizing for the LFPR.

To be fair W used the same methodology, but he was a pretty bad president himself. One can't think Obama sucks and also think Bush was a horrendous President also. It's not mutually exclusive. I voted for Kerry in 2000. Granted I was in college and much more liberal back then, but I would probably have done it again knowing how bad a President Bush turned out to be. Nevertheless, the "not in the market" group was much much smaller under Bush. It an epidemic under Obama!

To be fair, how is the President in charge of BLS calculations?

The same way Bill Clinton was in charge of the voodoo economics that "created" the "surpluses".

 

[midcan5]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/128477-did-obama-save-gm-3.html#post2607852

Do you whiners buy American? Do you make an effort to buy American? Is your car made here by Americans by an American company? If so you can whine, if not direct your whining at yourself.

Buy American = "Because Ford, GM and Chrysler conduct far more of their research, design, engineering, manufacturing and assembly work in the U.S. than foreign automakers do, buying a Ford, GM, or Chrysler supports almost three times as many jobs as buying the average foreign automobile. Some comparisons are even more striking. Buying a Ford supports 3.5 times more jobs than buying a Hyundai. Comparing a Honda and a Hyundai? Buying a Honda supports more than 2 times more jobs."
The Level Field Institute


MadeInUSA - Home- Recycling American Dollars Through Patriotic Spending
How Americans Can Buy American
American Made Products Directory - Made in USA, United States Manufacturers
THE AMERICAN LIST | A Continuous Lean.
Shirts Made in USA : All American Clothing
American and Unionmade Clothing by All USA Clothing

 

[jaybags]

and in other breaking news........water is wet

 

[NYcarbineer]

U-6 actually fell more than U-3 in the last employment report.

The Obama haters run this nonsense out every few months, ie, let's count unemployment in some brand new way that makes the Obama economy look worse.

THAT is the bullshit here.