economy is not on a rebound, it's on a roar

[Zander]

Zanders, you're a self proclaimed Capitalist Pig, how has your portfolio done in the last three years?

My portfolio is not "the economy".

You having a tough time grasping that concept?

It's a simple question.

No, it's an irrelevant question. My investments are my own, they do not represent the "economy" or measure its performance.

 

[emptystep]

I post how great it is that people are putting trillions into the stock market, actually more, much more, than that since this is only the DJI, which represents a belief in the U.S. economy and everyone is coming here to say how bad the economy it.

What gives? Why isn't everyone rejoicing at such wonderful news?

 

[emptystep]

My portfolio is not "the economy".

You having a tough time grasping that concept?

It's a simple question.

No, it's an irrelevant question. My investments are my own, they do not represent the "economy" or measure its performance.

Irrelevant to what? It is a simple question? You can say you don't want to answer it but calling it irrelevant doesn't make sense.

 

[emptystep]

As of Dec 2012, the last time updated, the U6 unemployemt rate was at 14.4%. The U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it actually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job, unlike the UI rates the politicians throw around. The U6 number has not been below 14.4 since Dec 2008 and has actually reached an all time high of 17.1 under obama and has stayed between 15-17 for almost his entire time in office. By contrast, under Bush it never went above 10.3 and was between 7 and 8 for most of his two terms. Four more years of this, which is what we'll have with sambo in office and we'll ALL be in welfare and food stamps...........which is his goal.

How can the DJI double and the U6 is still above 14? One of those numbers must not be right.

 

[SteadyMercury]

OK, so you're down around 1% now. Given inexact measurement of these things that's probably within margin of error.
You lose. Again.

Gotcha, you are reduced to claiming victory by the possibility of a margin of error that you can't event quantify. Can you look any more stupid?

 

[emptystep]

Oh wow, odd how no one on the streets (American citizens) seem to feel this giant OMFGZ in your face "roaring" economy....

Instead we get UE numbers that are dismal at best and that’s even if you don’t count that the UE numbers count people falling off the ass end (unemployed too long so they lose their welfare check) get counted as a job created that month.


What kills me is how Democrats, liberals and Progressives would claim a roaring stock market under a President like Bush or lets just be fair, any Republican President, means that there is corruption and they are simply making the rich richer, and that's bad! But under Obama if he literally hands the rich hundreds of billions of printed money it's considered a "roaring recovery!!!."

Democrats put a negative spin on everything all 8 years of the Bush Administration. They were telling us the economy sucked when it was booming.

Now that the economy sucks they're constantly grasping at any indicator that isn't negative.


I think it's pretty clear that being honest isn't a consideration for them.

First of all I did not say the economy sucked during the Bush Administration, at least not in this thread.

How can you say the economy sucks if the DJI has a slant that vertical for that far? Something must be going pretty right for someone. Why is everyone saying that nothing is going right for anybody?

What's not honest?

 

[emptystep]

It's none of your business.

I would have never asked you if you had not jumped in and answered for Zanders. What has got you so defensive?

 

[SteadyMercury]

AThe U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it actually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job

This isn't true.

If I quit working to write a novel and am not actively seeking employment but answer yes I'd take a good job if it came along I'd be U6.

It I decided to go back to college to get an advanced degree and am not looking for a job but would accept one if it fell in my lap I'm U6.

"Can't fnd" has little to do with U6.

 

[pinqy]

As of Dec 2012, the last time updated, the U6 unemployemt rate was at 14.4%. The U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it actually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job,

So does the official rate. The U6 adds in people who aren't trying to work (but might start looking soon) and people who are working, but not enough hours. And since the only difference between the U5 and U6 is the part time for economic reasons, it's kind of dishonest to not mention that it includes people who have e steady jobs.

 

[jtpr312]

AThe U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it actually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job

This isn't true.

If I quit working to write a novel and am not actively seeking employment but answer yes I'd take a good job if it came along I'd be U6.

It I decided to go back to college to get an advanced degree and am not looking for a job but would accept one if it fell in my lap I'm U6.

"Can't fnd" has little to do with U6.

Wrong. U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

The "U-6" is considered to be a broader measure of the unemployment situation in the United States.

The "U-6" includes two groups of people that the "U-3" does not:

1. "Marginally attached workers" - people who are not actively looking for work, but who have indicated that they want a job and have looked for work (without success) sometime in the past 12 months. This class also includes "discouraged workers" who have completely given up on finding a job because they feel that they just won't find one.

2. People who are looking for full-time work but have to settle on a part-time job due to economic reasons. This means that they want full-time work, but can't find it.



http://http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

 

[Wiseacre]

Some people think we're still in a recession but the gov't has fudged the numbers. Where would we be if the gov't wasn't spending so much money and going into debt to do it? It's like I get a loan from the bank and think I'm making a lot of money.

 

[jtpr312]

As of Dec 2012, the last time updated, the U6 unemployemt rate was at 14.4%. The U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it actually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job,

So does the official rate. The U6 adds in people who aren't trying to work (but might start looking soon) and people who are working, but not enough hours. And since the only difference between the U5 and U6 is the part time for economic reasons, it's kind of dishonest to not mention that it includes people who have e steady jobs.

This is what the U6 number is according to the Dept of Labor.

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the United States:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

 

[pinqy]

AThe U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it acthttp:// http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htmually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job

This isn't true.

If I quit working to write a novel and am not actively seeking employment but answer yes I'd take a good job if it came along I'd be U6.

It I decided to go back to college to get an advanced degree and am not looking for a job but would accept one if it fell in my lap I'm U6.

"Can't fnd" has little to do with U6.

Wrong. U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

Since the examples SteadyMercury gave all fit the definition of Marginally Attached, why are you saying the examples are wrong?

The "U-6" is considered to be a broader measure of the unemployment situation in the United States.

It's not considered a measure of unemployment, it's a measure of fertilization.

The "U-6" includes two groups of people that the "U-3" does not:

1. "Marginally attached workers" - people who are not actively looking for work, but who have indicated that they want a job and have looked for work (without success) sometime in the past 12 months. This class also includes "discouraged workers" who have completely given up on finding a job because they feel that they just won't find one.

Note that the majority of Marginally attached stopped looking for personal reasons. Note that the marginally attached can't tell us about the current labor market or how hard it is to find a job now.

2. People who are looking for full-time work but have to settle on a part-time job due to economic reasons. This means that they want full-time work, but can't find it.

Not quite. 1. They Don't have to be looking for full time work, just willing and able.
2. Only a third of part time for economic reasons can't find full time work. 2/3 normally work full time, but had hours cut due to slow or slack business or seasonal decline. Table A-8

 

[pinqy]

As of Dec 2012, the last time updated, the U6 unemployemt rate was at 14.4%. The U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it actually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job,

So does the official rate. The U6 adds in people who aren't trying to work (but might start looking soon) and people who are working, but not enough hours. And since the only difference between the U5 and U6 is the part time for economic reasons, it's kind of dishonest to not mention that it includes people who have e steady jobs.

This is what the U6 number is according to the Dept of Labor.

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the United States:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

And how are you claiming that's different from what I said? The thing is that when you brought up the U-6, you didn't mention part time for economic reasons, but gave a definition closer to the U-5.

 

[emptystep]

As of Dec 2012, the last time updated, the U6 unemployemt rate was at 14.4%. The U6 number is the true unemployment rate because it actually reflects working age Americans who want to work but can't find a job,

So does the official rate. The U6 adds in people who aren't trying to work (but might start looking soon) and people who are working, but not enough hours. And since the only difference between the U5 and U6 is the part time for economic reasons, it's kind of dishonest to not mention that it includes people who have e steady jobs.

This is what the U6 number is according to the Dept of Labor.

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the United States:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian force plus all marginally attached workers.

I think the issue is that you seem to be saying that the higher number indicates a higher unemployment rate than what is shown in the more commonly used metric. It is similar to saying this car is going 65mph and someone else pointing out that it is going over 100 kph like it is actually going faster in the second case.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So does the official rate. The U6 adds in people who aren't trying to work (but might start looking soon) and people who are working, but not enough hours. And since the only difference between the U5 and U6 is the part time for economic reasons, it's kind of dishonest to not mention that it includes people who have e steady jobs.

This is what the U6 number is according to the Dept of Labor.

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the United States:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian force plus all marginally attached workers.

I think the issue is that you seem to be saying that the higher number indicates a higher unemployment rate than what is shown in the more commonly used metric. It is similar to saying this car is going 65mph and someone else pointing out that it is going over 100 kph like it is actually going faster in the second case.

no, it's saying that under Obama real unemployment is worse than ever by a long shot, which it is.

 

[pinqy]

This is what the U6 number is according to the Dept of Labor.

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the United States:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian force plus all marginally attached workers.

I think the issue is that you seem to be saying that the higher number indicates a higher unemployment rate than what is shown in the more commonly used metric. It is similar to saying this car is going 65mph and someone else pointing out that it is going over 100 kph like it is actually going faster in the second case.

no, it's saying that under Obama real unemployment is worse than ever by a long shot, which it is.

Why do you think a measure that includes people who have jobs to be a measure of unemployment at all, let alone "real" unemployment?

Current U-6 is 14.4%. Please show your math how that is "worse than ever by a long shot" than 17.1%, which was the rate in Oct 2009.

And since that's the date when the U-3 also hit its highest since the current U-6 started in 1994, (all 6 measures tend to move together), why do you think it makes a difference which one you use?

 

[emptystep]

This is what the U6 number is according to the Dept of Labor.

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the United States:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian force plus all marginally attached workers.

I think the issue is that you seem to be saying that the higher number indicates a higher unemployment rate than what is shown in the more commonly used metric. It is similar to saying this car is going 65mph and someone else pointing out that it is going over 100 kph like it is actually going faster in the second case.

no, it's saying that under Obama real unemployment is worse than ever by a long shot, which it is.

So this chart is meaningless?

 

[emptystep]

I think the issue is that you seem to be saying that the higher number indicates a higher unemployment rate than what is shown in the more commonly used metric. It is similar to saying this car is going 65mph and someone else pointing out that it is going over 100 kph like it is actually going faster in the second case.

no, it's saying that under Obama real unemployment is worse than ever by a long shot, which it is.

So this chart is meaningless?

As is this one?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no, it's saying that under Obama real unemployment is worse than ever by a long shot, which it is.

So this chart is meaningless?

As is this one?

U6 averaged 9% and went to 15% under Barry's socialism. This is what we would expect from socialism, after all it killed 125 million or so in USSR and Red China. Why did you think China switched to Republican capitalism and instantly made everyone rich by historical standards??