Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[rightwinger]

Anyone who believes unemployment is 4.3 percent is a moron

The government makes up thes numbers........Fake News

 

[Rustic]

Anyone who believes unemployment is 4.3 percent is a moron

The government makes up thes numbers........Fake News

Can you suck/kiss anymore Obama ass?

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who believes unemployment is 4.3 percent is a moron

The government makes up thes numbers........Fake News

Can you suck/kiss anymore Obama ass?

You are the one believing fantasy employment numbers

 

[Rustic]

Anyone who believes unemployment is 4.3 percent is a moron

The government makes up thes numbers........Fake News

Can you suck/kiss anymore Obama ass?

You are the one believing fantasy employment numbers

The federal government is incompetent when it comes to numbers… Fact

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who believes unemployment is 4.3 percent is a moron

The government makes up thes numbers........Fake News

Can you suck/kiss anymore Obama ass?

You are the one believing fantasy employment numbers

The federal government is incompetent when it comes to numbers… Fact

Real unemployment is at 53 percent under Trump

 

[Rustic]

Anyone who believes unemployment is 4.3 percent is a moron

The government makes up thes numbers........Fake News

Can you suck/kiss anymore Obama ass?

You are the one believing fantasy employment numbers

The federal government is incompetent when it comes to numbers… Fact

Real unemployment is at 53 percent under Trump

You're thinking of green energy jobs

 

[leftwinger]

people give up looking. No longer counted.

Well, if one isn't seeking a job, it stands to reason it's not a problem that one doesn't have a job because people who want/need a job, look for a job.

Yes, but after a length of time "they do not exist". They fall off the books. This subject has been beat to death. You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count. There are millions of these that have fallen off the books each month since 2009 crash. Where am I wrong on that?

POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?

You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count.

That "he" doesn't count is on him. If he wants to be counted, he needs to do whatever the heck it is one does to be counted as unemployed, that is "seeking a job but not yet having found one." I can't say what action(s) that entails for I've never not had a job, never specifically reported anything to the BLS, yet I'm sure somehow the BLS manages to count me among the employed.

POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?

You are the second person today who's asked me a that were they to Google for an answer to it, they'd have the damn answer to their question. I don't know what it is with you two, others too perhaps, that you see something and then deign to accept or reject its verity without performing even the most cursory of critical analysis to find out whether doing so is warranted, to say nothing of doing that and tossing it my way in an effort to challenge my remarks..

If you aren't willing to accept the explanation of the economist in the article to which I linked, you can always perform your own detailed analysis by obtaining and reviewing the ADP and the BLS' methodologies for quantifying U.S. employment. Assuming you have the skills to do so thoroughly and accurately, you'll know exactly why ADP reported some 253K jobs and the BLS reported a different figure. Then you can share the methodology information you obtained and tell us the results of your analysis rather than asking me.

That "he" doesn't count is on him. If he wants to be counted, he needs to do whatever the heck it is one does to be counted as unemployed, that is "seeking a job but not yet having found one." I can't say what action(s) that entails for I've never not had a job, never specifically reported anything to the BLS, yet I'm sure somehow the BLS manages to count me among the employed.

There is nothing to be GAINED for this sort of un-employed to try to get Unemployment Department to count him. Their UI payments are completed. I doubt ANYONE is going to try to barge into an office or try to get through on the internet to get some bureaucrat to put their name into a "bucket" that does not exist. This is one main reason all during Obama no one "believed" the normal un-employment figure. These were not "normal" times. No different yet under Trump on this matter. Did you miss out on those discussions in the media? If you have a job I am certain it is easy to keep track of you. If you don't, not so easy for them. Not easy for the un-employed to live through it either.


You are the second person today who's asked me a that were they to Google for an answer to it, they'd have the damn answer to their question.

You are correct. I will go to a PC and attempt to look it up. 100K job difference is large? I had not noticed such a big difference during the past few years. So sorry to disturb you, your royal pompous arrogant poster. Or you could have simply posted the answers for those on a small screen tablet.

If you aren't willing to accept the explanation of the economist in the article to which I linked, you can always perform your own detailed analysis by obtaining and reviewing the ADP and the BLS' methodologies for quantifying U.S. employment.

Well since this is not your thread, not the OP I don't know which link to which you refer? I will go hunt that down too if I FEEL like it. I will keep you in mind. Trust me.

 

[pinqy]

Yes, but after a length of time "they do not exist". They fall off the books.

Unemployed is defined as:
"Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So where are you getting the idea that there is a time limit? And no one "ceases to exist," they're just no longer classified as unemployed. If you are age 16 or older, not in the military or in prison or other institution like a nursing home or mental hospital, then you are either employed, unemployed, or "not in the labor force." If a person not in the labor force starts looking, then s/he becomes unemployed.
Oh, and there are no "books to fall off of.

You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count. There are millions of these that have fallen off the books each month since 2009 crash. Where am I wrong on that?

Well, the unemployment rate doesn't come from any list or books, and it doesn't matter how long you've been out of work. If you're looking for work in that month, you are unemployed for that month.

 

[pinqy]

Over 1 million jobs have been added since Trump was elected. There were over 235,000 added in May! lol

Trump is doing everything right. I couldn't be happier with him.

That's not what the op's link says.

You damn near always see a good jobs report for May and June because of seasonal hiring.

umm the numbers are seasonally adjusted because of that. The actual increase in jobs was +810,000. But most of that was normal seasonal hiring. Take that out and the result was +135,000

 

[leftwinger]

Yes, but after a length of time "they do not exist". They fall off the books.

Unemployed is defined as:
"Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So where are you getting the idea that there is a time limit? And no one "ceases to exist," they're just no longer classified as unemployed. If you are age 16 or older, not in the military or in prison or other institution like a nursing home or mental hospital, then you are either employed, unemployed, or "not in the labor force." If a person not in the labor force starts looking, then s/he becomes unemployed.
Oh, and there are no "books to fall off of.

You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count. There are millions of these that have fallen off the books each month since 2009 crash. Where am I wrong on that?

Well, the unemployment rate doesn't come from any list or books, and it doesn't matter how long you've been out of work. If you're looking for work in that month, you are unemployed for that month.

OK. Tell me how anyone knows whether or not this guy is looking for work? For 52 weeks or more the UI have washed their hands of him. No more bi-weekly payments. No more tracking. No bi-weekly forms to submit, nothing. They don't contact him and He CANNOT contact them. No internet forms to fill out. He is simply living with no income. There were millions of these, out of work in 2009..........found no new work.......ran out of benefits........fall off the books. Maybe he sold his house, living in a car or RV? with relatives? Mom? No one tracks these people. I am certain of it. Obama took a beating on this, for saying Unemployment went down yet it was due to people falling off the books. This is why the LPR stayed low, correct?

Please don't tell me about some GOVT phone sample to generate this Unemployment figure. It is nonsense. Personally, I have not answered the landline since 1999 unless I know who it is or expecting a call. Hillary was supposed to get 400 EV also based on landline polls.

 

[pinqy]

There is nothing to be GAINED for this sort of un-employed to try to get Unemployment Department to count him.

Especially since that's not where the unemployment rate data come from. They come from the Census Bureau, not any unemployment department.

If you have a job I am certain it is easy to keep track of you. If you don't, not so easy for them. Not easy for the un-employed to live through it either.

Wait...do you think there's like a list of everyone and individuals are tracked? How on earth do you think that's possible?

 

[usmbguest5318]

people give up looking. No longer counted.

Well, if one isn't seeking a job, it stands to reason it's not a problem that one doesn't have a job because people who want/need a job, look for a job.

Yes, but after a length of time "they do not exist". They fall off the books. This subject has been beat to death. You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count. There are millions of these that have fallen off the books each month since 2009 crash. Where am I wrong on that?

POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?

You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count.

That "he" doesn't count is on him. If he wants to be counted, he needs to do whatever the heck it is one does to be counted as unemployed, that is "seeking a job but not yet having found one." I can't say what action(s) that entails for I've never not had a job, never specifically reported anything to the BLS, yet I'm sure somehow the BLS manages to count me among the employed.

POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?

You are the second person today who's asked me a that were they to Google for an answer to it, they'd have the damn answer to their question. I don't know what it is with you two, others too perhaps, that you see something and then deign to accept or reject its verity without performing even the most cursory of critical analysis to find out whether doing so is warranted, to say nothing of doing that and tossing it my way in an effort to challenge my remarks..

If you aren't willing to accept the explanation of the economist in the article to which I linked, you can always perform your own detailed analysis by obtaining and reviewing the ADP and the BLS' methodologies for quantifying U.S. employment. Assuming you have the skills to do so thoroughly and accurately, you'll know exactly why ADP reported some 253K jobs and the BLS reported a different figure. Then you can share the methodology information you obtained and tell us the results of your analysis rather than asking me.

That "he" doesn't count is on him. If he wants to be counted, he needs to do whatever the heck it is one does to be counted as unemployed, that is "seeking a job but not yet having found one." I can't say what action(s) that entails for I've never not had a job, never specifically reported anything to the BLS, yet I'm sure somehow the BLS manages to count me among the employed.

There is nothing to be GAINED for this sort of un-employed to try to get Unemployment Department to count him. Their UI payments are completed. I doubt ANYONE is going to try to barge into an office or try to get through on the internet to get some bureaucrat to put their name into a "bucket" that does not exist. This is one main reason all during Obama no one "believed" the normal un-employment figure. These were not "normal" times. No different yet under Trump on this matter. Did you miss out on those discussions in the media? If you have a job I am certain it is easy to keep track of you. If you don't, not so easy for them. Not easy for the un-employed to live through it either.


You are the second person today who's asked me a that were they to Google for an answer to it, they'd have the damn answer to their question.

You are correct. I will go to a PC and attempt to look it up. 100K job difference is large? I had not noticed such a big difference during the past few years. So sorry to disturb you, your royal pompous arrogant poster. Or you could have simply posted the answers for those on a small screen tablet.

If you aren't willing to accept the explanation of the economist in the article to which I linked, you can always perform your own detailed analysis by obtaining and reviewing the ADP and the BLS' methodologies for quantifying U.S. employment.

Well since this is not your thread, not the OP I don't know which link to which you refer? I will go hunt that down too if I FEEL like it. I will keep you in mind. Trust me.

Well since this is not your thread, not the OP I don't know which link to which you refer?

Um....The one found in the paragraph preceding the passage to which the comment above is a response. Does your computing device not indicate to you what text has "in" it a hyperlink to external content?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad to see the Alt Right glad that Trump is doing just like Obama.

 

[pinqy]

OK. Tell me how anyone knows whether or not this guy is looking for work? For 52 weeks or more the UI have washed their hands of him. No more bi-weekly payments. No more tracking. No bi-weekly forms to submit, nothing. They don't contact him and He CANNOT contact them. No internet forms to fill out. He is simply living with no income. There were millions of these, out of work in 2009..........found no new work.......ran out of benefits........fall off the books.

Completely irrelevant to the UE rate.

Please don't tell me about some GOVT phone sample to generate this Unemployment figure. It is nonsense. Personally, I have not answered the landline since 1999 unless I know who it is or expecting a call. Hillary was supposed to get 400 EV also based on landline polls.

The Census Bureau divides each state into Primary Sample Units (roughly county size). These sample units are sorted into strata where all the PSUs in the strata are similar. Many strata only have one PSU in them. One PSU is randomly selected from each stratum, and then more random selection until there's a list of around 70,000 addresses. Some addresses are just wrong (it's now a business or a parking lot, or no one lives there, and some people refuse to participate etc.) But there are about 60,000 usable households each month

Once an address is selected, a Census agent personally visits the house (letters are sent first to warn and explain) and conducts the interview. Once selected, an address is in the survey for 4 months, out for 8 months, and back in for 4 months and then out for good. After the initial interview, the rest of the time can be done over the phone if the household prefers. When the household comes back into the survey after its 8 months out, the first new interview is also a personal visit.

So no, it's not a landline poll, it's not random digit dialing, it's a very carefully scientifically designed survey.

 

[leftwinger]

There is nothing to be GAINED for this sort of un-employed to try to get Unemployment Department to count him.

Especially since that's not where the unemployment rate data come from. They come from the Census Bureau, not any unemployment department.

If you have a job I am certain it is easy to keep track of you. If you don't, not so easy for them. Not easy for the un-employed to live through it either.

Wait...do you think there's like a list of everyone and individuals are tracked? How on earth do you think that's possible?

OK. How does the "Census Bureau" know who is working, not working, on UI, out of UI, on disability, off disability in South Dakota? Using a Telephone sample survey to landlines in West Virginia or Texas?

The UI DEPT in each state knows exactly WHO applies for UI benefits, applies for extended benefits, who gets a job and stops needing payments, who runs out of UI payments........but that is where it ends. No more tracking. They also know who is on State disablilty payments. That is another can of worms to track.

Everyone who works "on the books" is paying taxes under an SS number. Excuse my ignorance but the FED and STATE GOVT knows who and how many are getting paid each week or month........or who is working "on the books". Anyone NOT working and not on any State books (UI or SDI) or SS or SSD is lost in the maze. They also have a count of who is in prison or jail I suppose. But those roaming free? How do they know?

Maybe I am wrong? I don't think so as I know many from 2008-2009 in/out of this boat. Not to mention the 10000000s' of internet posts on the subject. Feel free to straighten me out.

 

[leftwinger]

people give up looking. No longer counted.

Well, if one isn't seeking a job, it stands to reason it's not a problem that one doesn't have a job because people who want/need a job, look for a job.

Yes, but after a length of time "they do not exist". They fall off the books. This subject has been beat to death. You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count. There are millions of these that have fallen off the books each month since 2009 crash. Where am I wrong on that?

POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?

You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count.

That "he" doesn't count is on him. If he wants to be counted, he needs to do whatever the heck it is one does to be counted as unemployed, that is "seeking a job but not yet having found one." I can't say what action(s) that entails for I've never not had a job, never specifically reported anything to the BLS, yet I'm sure somehow the BLS manages to count me among the employed.

POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?

You are the second person today who's asked me a that were they to Google for an answer to it, they'd have the damn answer to their question. I don't know what it is with you two, others too perhaps, that you see something and then deign to accept or reject its verity without performing even the most cursory of critical analysis to find out whether doing so is warranted, to say nothing of doing that and tossing it my way in an effort to challenge my remarks..

If you aren't willing to accept the explanation of the economist in the article to which I linked, you can always perform your own detailed analysis by obtaining and reviewing the ADP and the BLS' methodologies for quantifying U.S. employment. Assuming you have the skills to do so thoroughly and accurately, you'll know exactly why ADP reported some 253K jobs and the BLS reported a different figure. Then you can share the methodology information you obtained and tell us the results of your analysis rather than asking me.

That "he" doesn't count is on him. If he wants to be counted, he needs to do whatever the heck it is one does to be counted as unemployed, that is "seeking a job but not yet having found one." I can't say what action(s) that entails for I've never not had a job, never specifically reported anything to the BLS, yet I'm sure somehow the BLS manages to count me among the employed.

There is nothing to be GAINED for this sort of un-employed to try to get Unemployment Department to count him. Their UI payments are completed. I doubt ANYONE is going to try to barge into an office or try to get through on the internet to get some bureaucrat to put their name into a "bucket" that does not exist. This is one main reason all during Obama no one "believed" the normal un-employment figure. These were not "normal" times. No different yet under Trump on this matter. Did you miss out on those discussions in the media? If you have a job I am certain it is easy to keep track of you. If you don't, not so easy for them. Not easy for the un-employed to live through it either.


You are the second person today who's asked me a that were they to Google for an answer to it, they'd have the damn answer to their question.

You are correct. I will go to a PC and attempt to look it up. 100K job difference is large? I had not noticed such a big difference during the past few years. So sorry to disturb you, your royal pompous arrogant poster. Or you could have simply posted the answers for those on a small screen tablet.

If you aren't willing to accept the explanation of the economist in the article to which I linked, you can always perform your own detailed analysis by obtaining and reviewing the ADP and the BLS' methodologies for quantifying U.S. employment.

Well since this is not your thread, not the OP I don't know which link to which you refer? I will go hunt that down too if I FEEL like it. I will keep you in mind. Trust me.

Well since this is not your thread, not the OP I don't know which link to which you refer?

Um....The one found in the paragraph preceding the passage to which the comment above is a response. Does your computing device not indicate to you what text has "in" it a hyperlink to external content?

Get off me. Your "link" post came AFTER my post. So I did not google it. Sue me. Your link to USA today sucketh. No clear answer. Please summarize it for all with your wisdom. I am done with it. Your implication was "if I had read your link" I would know. It was AFTER, correct?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, if one isn't seeking a job, it stands to reason it's not a problem that one doesn't have a job because people who want/need a job, look for a job.

Yes, but after a length of time "they do not exist". They fall off the books. This subject has been beat to death. You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count. There are millions of these that have fallen off the books each month since 2009 crash. Where am I wrong on that?

POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?

You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count.

That "he" doesn't count is on him. If he wants to be counted, he needs to do whatever the heck it is one does to be counted as unemployed, that is "seeking a job but not yet having found one." I can't say what action(s) that entails for I've never not had a job, never specifically reported anything to the BLS, yet I'm sure somehow the BLS manages to count me among the employed.

POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?

You are the second person today who's asked me a that were they to Google for an answer to it, they'd have the damn answer to their question. I don't know what it is with you two, others too perhaps, that you see something and then deign to accept or reject its verity without performing even the most cursory of critical analysis to find out whether doing so is warranted, to say nothing of doing that and tossing it my way in an effort to challenge my remarks..

If you aren't willing to accept the explanation of the economist in the article to which I linked, you can always perform your own detailed analysis by obtaining and reviewing the ADP and the BLS' methodologies for quantifying U.S. employment. Assuming you have the skills to do so thoroughly and accurately, you'll know exactly why ADP reported some 253K jobs and the BLS reported a different figure. Then you can share the methodology information you obtained and tell us the results of your analysis rather than asking me.

That "he" doesn't count is on him. If he wants to be counted, he needs to do whatever the heck it is one does to be counted as unemployed, that is "seeking a job but not yet having found one." I can't say what action(s) that entails for I've never not had a job, never specifically reported anything to the BLS, yet I'm sure somehow the BLS manages to count me among the employed.

There is nothing to be GAINED for this sort of un-employed to try to get Unemployment Department to count him. Their UI payments are completed. I doubt ANYONE is going to try to barge into an office or try to get through on the internet to get some bureaucrat to put their name into a "bucket" that does not exist. This is one main reason all during Obama no one "believed" the normal un-employment figure. These were not "normal" times. No different yet under Trump on this matter. Did you miss out on those discussions in the media? If you have a job I am certain it is easy to keep track of you. If you don't, not so easy for them. Not easy for the un-employed to live through it either.


You are the second person today who's asked me a that were they to Google for an answer to it, they'd have the damn answer to their question.

You are correct. I will go to a PC and attempt to look it up. 100K job difference is large? I had not noticed such a big difference during the past few years. So sorry to disturb you, your royal pompous arrogant poster. Or you could have simply posted the answers for those on a small screen tablet.

If you aren't willing to accept the explanation of the economist in the article to which I linked, you can always perform your own detailed analysis by obtaining and reviewing the ADP and the BLS' methodologies for quantifying U.S. employment.

Well since this is not your thread, not the OP I don't know which link to which you refer? I will go hunt that down too if I FEEL like it. I will keep you in mind. Trust me.

Well since this is not your thread, not the OP I don't know which link to which you refer?

Um....The one found in the paragraph preceding the passage to which the comment above is a response. Does your computing device not indicate to you what text has "in" it a hyperlink to external content?

Get off me. Your "link" post came AFTER my post. So I did not google it. Sue me. Your link to USA today sucketh. No clear answer. Please summarize it for all with your wisdom. I am done with it.

Your "link" post came AFTER my post. So I did not google it.

That is exactly my point. You should have questioned the veracity of the information before you included in your remarks, before you "uttered" it publicly as part of the support for a claim you made. You see, that's part of what "intellectual integrity" entails -- confirming the merit and verity of the information one uses (or intends to use) to support a claim. Had you aptly done that, you wouldn't have needed to ask why ADP cited the figures they have cited and why they differ from the official BLS figures.

 

[leftwinger]

I am glad to see the Alt Right glad that Trump is doing just like Obama.

Not tonight Jake.......not tonight. I am getting hammered from two sides. I don't need you crap also!

But yes, The UI is just a bogus now as it was "claimed" to be bogus the last 8 years. What is good for goose is good for gander. I don't know where or how they produce this number, but I still say millions are not accounted for. For instance, Jim Bowie went back to work. He now counts in the LFPR. Was he on the UI books? Was he in never-never land after running out of benefits? Roaming the country like a serial killer? We don't know. Did some one go pull his name from the Unemployed list? Not likely because they were no longer tracking him.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I am glad to see the Alt Right glad that Trump is doing just like Obama.

Not tonight Jake.......not tonight. I am getting hammered from two sides. I don't need you crap also!

But yes, The UI is just a bogus now as it was "claimed" to be bogus the last 8 years. What is good for goose is good for gander. I don't know where or how they produce this number, but I still say millions are not accounted for. For instance, Jim Bowie went back to work. He now counts in the LFPR. Was he on the UI books? Was he in never-never land after running out of benefits? Roaming the country like a serial killer? We don't know. Did some one go pull his name from the Unemployed list? Not likely because they were no longer tracking him.

I still say millions are not accounted for.

My parents are among the millions of unemployed people who are not seeking work. They are because they are retired and aren't seeking work. Being retired isn't the only reason people don't seek work, be it over the long term or in the period each month when the BLS collects its data about such things.

• If nearly 40% of Americans aren’t working, what are they doing?
• Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

The people you've been "on about" are called "discouraged workers." There were approximately 540K of them in May 2016. There are now about 355K of them. Given the size of the work force and the quantity of people not seeking work, either sum is immaterial, except perhaps to the people who've become "discouraged" and those who to some extent depend on their having income.

 

[leftwinger]

OK. Tell me how anyone knows whether or not this guy is looking for work? For 52 weeks or more the UI have washed their hands of him. No more bi-weekly payments. No more tracking. No bi-weekly forms to submit, nothing. They don't contact him and He CANNOT contact them. No internet forms to fill out. He is simply living with no income. There were millions of these, out of work in 2009..........found no new work.......ran out of benefits........fall off the books.

Completely irrelevant to the UE rate.

Please don't tell me about some GOVT phone sample to generate this Unemployment figure. It is nonsense. Personally, I have not answered the landline since 1999 unless I know who it is or expecting a call. Hillary was supposed to get 400 EV also based on landline polls.

The Census Bureau divides each state into Primary Sample Units (roughly county size). These sample units are sorted into strata where all the PSUs in the strata are similar. Many strata only have one PSU in them. One PSU is randomly selected from each stratum, and then more random selection until there's a list of around 70,000 addresses. Some addresses are just wrong (it's now a business or a parking lot, or no one lives there, and some people refuse to participate etc.) But there are about 60,000 usable households each month

Once an address is selected, a Census agent personally visits the house (letters are sent first to warn and explain) and conducts the interview. Once selected, an address is in the survey for 4 months, out for 8 months, and back in for 4 months and then out for good. After the initial interview, the rest of the time can be done over the phone if the household prefers. When the household comes back into the survey after its 8 months out, the first new interview is also a personal visit.

So no, it's not a landline poll, it's not random digit dialing, it's a very carefully scientifically designed survey.

Is there ANY PERSON reading this that has ever been on this tracking list? I worked many years. Never knew one person who had any letter, interview, visits? over months. Sounds really good. Hard to believe it is true or they actually do as they say? Put me in the skeptical column.

Note: I once did an internet search and they claimed it was Phone survey of 1000 (qty?) households. I did this since I had been on USMB, so recently. I am not doing it again.