If you downsize the workforce, you can lie about Unemployment.

[Neubarth]

Here, ponder these numbers and tell me what you come up with. In the last census we horribly undercounted the population. That undercount is still factored in to the estimated population of the US. I will just round it off to 310 Million.

Population of these United States is 310,000,000
Population that is 15 years old or under 60,000,000
Population that is over 68 years old 35,000,000
___________________________________________
Potential Working age population is 215,000,000 (16 years to 68 years)
From them, subtract the following.
Population that is in prison is 2,300,000
Population that is in military 1,400,000 (Army Navy Air Force Marines)
Disabled working age population 1,300,000 (That is a generous estimate.)
_______________________________________
Available workforce 210,000,000

People employed full time 137,000,000 (from the nefarious DOL and probably an overstatement for effect)

People unemployed or under-employed in the working population 73,000,000 (210 M minus 137 M) (If they do not have full time jobs.)

73 M divided by 210 M times 100 for the percentage. (34%) Oh No!

Thus 34% of the working population is unemployed or underemployed.

Even if you were to say that 40 million were college students or seniors in high school or full time housewives or househusbands, you will still have 33 million unemployed.

Colleges conducting their own surveys keep coming up with this 33 million number of people who would be working if only they could find a real job. Many of them are working part time jobs, but you can not support a family on a part time job.

Somehow, I just do not trust the government numbers, especially when they say that less than half of the population is in the workforce. 153 Million versus 310 Million. (This is not Mexico or Guatemala or a similar country where there is a large segment of the population that is not trained to work in a factory or office or some other capacity. If you are too dumb for more technical jobs, there is always the army or farm work or a shovel.)

 

[Neubarth]

Come on people, Look at reality. You have been lied to, BIG TIME!

 

[uscitizen]

Now you are figuring how Bush kept unemployment low.
Congratulations.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes we are being lied to, the same lies we have been getting for decades.
Nothing new about that.

 

[Neubarth]

Yes we are being lied to, the same lies we have been getting for decades.
Nothing new about that.

I have been pointing this out since Carter was president. I voted for him the first time. I did not vote for him the second time.

 

[uscitizen]

Wasn't the second time when Ross Ran? I voted for Ross. Ross was correct.

 

[Neubarth]

Wasn't the second time when Ross Ran? I voted for Ross. Ross was correct.

In 1976 I voted for Jimmy. I was a Southern Baptist Sunday School Teacher and so was he. I was a Naval Officer and so was he. I think the biggest reason I voted for Jimmy was that I just wanted change in Washington. After four years of Jimmy, in 1980, I urgently wanted change in Washington and voted for Reagan, even though he has a horrible reputation as an Ultra Liberal when it came to spending. He loved to spend money that we did not have and as soon as he was president set out on that course.

I think Perot was 1992 when he ran against Bush. Perot was strongly opposed to Gulf War I as I remember. People were eager to see change in Washington and did not like the idea of four more years of Republican politics. It was about then that I started voting for myself in place of party politicians.

With hindsight, I look back at the 8 years of Clinton and realize that he was the fiscal conservative that we needed and still need in office. I never voted for him. He was one of the more practical Presidents we have had in the past fifty years.

 

[georgephillip]

Last Sunday on ABC's "This Week" Alan Greenspan was asked about the previous Friday's report that 162,000 jobs had been created in March.

"There is a momentum building up which is really just beginning, and it's got a way to go," was how Maestro responded.

Sir Alan went on:

"There's a shortage of inventories out there and we're on the edge of a significant build-up."

"The momentum is very clearly there, and I doubt very much that we are going to run out of that momentum until very late in the year..."

Lord Maestro also predicted the chance of a double-dip recession had faded considerably.

Any thoughts or comments?

 

[pinqy]

Here, ponder these numbers and tell me what you come up with. In the last census we horribly undercounted the population. That undercount is still factored in to the estimated population of the US. I will just round it off to 310 Million.

Current estimate is 307,000,000 more or less, but close enough.

But I have some questions on the parameters you chose...I'm not clear on why you made these choices.

[quot]Population that is 15 years old or under 60,000,000
Population that is over 68 years old 35,000,000[/quote]
Why these age limits? While the European Union and many other countries that are more socialized and have stronge government transfer payments to the elderly do have an maximum age when counting the Labor Force, the US does not. And why 68? And the US and most of Europe uses 16 as the minimum because that's the age where there are no legal restrictions to working.


[quote[Potential Working age population is 215,000,000 (16 years to 68 years)[/quote]Is your minimum 15 or 16? First you say 15 and older and now 16 and older?

From them, subtract the following.
Population that is in prison is 2,300,000
Population that is in military 1,400,000 (Army Navy Air Force Marines)
Disabled working age population 1,300,000 (That is a generous estimate.)

You exclued prisoners, good...I get annoyed by stupid liberals who want to include prisoners as unemployed, but Cesnus and BLS also exclude people in mental institutions.
For disabled, what's your definition of disabled? Also, are you excluding disabled under 15 and over 68 or have you accidentally double counted those people? And why exclude the disabled when over 6,000,000 people with disabilities (defined as "is deaf or has serious difficulty hearing; is blind or has serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses; has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition; has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs; has difficulty dressing or bathing; or has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition")

People employed full time 137,000,000 (from the nefarious DOL and probably an overstatement for effect)

I'd suggest you use the not seasonally adjusted numbers. It's easier for comparison with a lot of BLS data in that smaller groups such as the disabled and the elderly and discouraged workers are not seasonally adjusted.

People unemployed or under-employed in the working population 73,000,000 (210 M minus 137 M) (If they do not have full time jobs.)

Why are you counting all part time workers as underemployed? Isn't that assuming that they all would want full time jobs?

I've worked with close to 2 dozen different statistical agencies on unemployment measurement and nobody I've ever heard of measures unemployment the way you're suggesting. So I'm really curious as to how you reached these decisions.

 

[Neubarth]

HELL, Pinko, the 2000 census undercounted three million Hispanics in California alone. Actual population in the US should be 314 Million plus.

16 to 68 is a good work force. Now, I know many many people who are still working after age 68. Many of my children had full time jobs (or near full time) when they were 14 and 15. For her sixteenth birthday, my daughter Arlene bought herself a new car with cash that she had saved from her jobs for the past two years. She was also a straight A student in high school in case anybody questions her early desire to join the work force.

I chose my variables just to get some rough numbers. A million added here or a million subtracted there is not too important. The point is to show how much room there is in the numbers for millions to go uncounted as regards unemployment.

Having grown up in Mexico, I have hundreds of Mexican friends. Many are illegal, but with some corrupt documentation they have managed to work in the United States as if they were legal. There are millions of them across the nation. They are drawing welfare, food stamps and many other services. The US census loves to undercount them so the Department of Labor can lie like hell about the Unemployment Numbers. Twenty years ago I had two maids living in my house. They assisted my wife in raising all of the children. The census worker refused to count them even though they were gainfully employed in the US.

Once people see how much slop there is in the numbers for the workforce they can then understand how unreliable the DOL numbers are. The Universities that try to calculate their own numbers go right back to square Zero and have to ask themselves, "How accurate is the census?" California has been howling about the horrible undercounts of people living in the major metropolitan areas of the state and the farm towns in the Central Valley for thirty years now. The state is constantly denied Federal Funds that it is entitled to (because of those undercounts.)

MY assumed numbers are ball park and accurate enough for their stated purpose, to show the slop and wake people up to the potential for well over fifty percent error in the Unemployment numbers.