News media reporting Unemployment is down.

[Neubarth]

Here is the truth from the DOL site where they have to post the actual numbers from the states.

"The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 460,516 in the week ending Sept. 5, an increase of 3,834 from the previous week. There were 336,733 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008."

Folks, Unemployment is going back up again regardless of what Obama and his pack of pathological liars claim.

 

[Neubarth]

Yahoo!

 

[The Rabbi]

Here is the truth from the DOL site where they have to post the actual numbers from the states.

"The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 460,516 in the week ending Sept. 5, an increase of 3,834 from the previous week. There were 336,733 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008."

Folks, Unemployment is going back up again regardless of what Obama and his pack of pathological liars claim.

I saw a blog on this. They calculate the numbers differently for different figures. For unemployment they use a survey method. For claims, they use hard numbers. Yes, it's a sleight of hand. Expect to see more of it as the Obama Administration struggles to look good.

 

[Neubarth]

Here is the truth from the DOL site where they have to post the actual numbers from the states.

"The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 460,516 in the week ending Sept. 5, an increase of 3,834 from the previous week. There were 336,733 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008."

Folks, Unemployment is going back up again regardless of what Obama and his pack of pathological liars claim.

I saw a blog on this. They calculate the numbers differently for different figures. For unemployment they use a survey method. For claims, they use hard numbers. Yes, it's a sleight of hand. Expect to see more of it as the Obama Administration struggles to look good.

Right you are oh learned one!

 

[The Rabbi]

It's completely dishonest.
Equally dishonest is that they don't count people who have given up looking, or people underemployed in part time jobs.
Add up those and the unemployment figure for real is about 13%.

 

[pinqy]

Here is the truth from the DOL site where they have to post the actual numbers from the states.

"The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 460,516 in the week ending Sept. 5, an increase of 3,834 from the previous week. There were 336,733 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008."

Folks, Unemployment is going back up again regardless of what Obama and his pack of pathological liars claim.

I have not seen the media saying unemployment is going down. BLS certainly isn't saying it either.

I saw a blog on this. They calculate the numbers differently for different figures.

Well, duh. Different concepts, different collection, of course they'll be calculated differently.

For unemployment they use a survey method. For claims, they use hard numbers.

Again, duh....claims are a smaller number, all can be and are reported. For Unemployment level, you'd have to do a complete census and count everyone in the country every month. That's not possible.

Yes, it's a sleight of hand.

How is it sleight of hand? How do you think it should be done?

It's completely dishonest.

How....details. First explain WHY things are defined and calculated as they are, and then explain how that's dishonest. You might not agree with the concepts, but that doesn't make them dishonest.

Equally dishonest is that they don't count people who have given up looking, or people underemployed in part time jobs.

So, not counting people who have jobs as unemployed is dishonest? That really makes sense to you? "Oh, he has a job, but we'll say he doesn't" That's more honest? And which people who have given up looking would you count? Those that don't want a job anymore? Those that would like to have a job but can't for some reason other than economic reasons?
The thing is the categories you're suggesting are way too subjective. They'd distort out of whack actual unemployment. The purpose of the UE rate is to track the health of the job market. Including people who aren't part of the job market doesn't really help in that goal, does it?
It is important to keep track of those who potentiall could be part of the labor force, and those working part time for economic reasons, and they are tracked. But there's no good reason to include them in the UE rate...that's not what it's for.

Add up those and the unemployment figure for real is about 13%.

I love how people keep trying to claim that a definition that nobody has ever used as anything other than an alternative view is the "real definition."

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have anything to contribute here, or are you determined to show your ass?

 

[pinqy]

Do you have anything to contribute here, or are you determined to show your ass?

Ah, so you never actually thought about the concepts or definitions. I'd be very surprised if you even knew them. When you're prepared to have an adult discussion on the issues, let me know, I've been studying and working with these and other surveys/statistics for many years, so I know what I'm talking about. My contribution is to point out that you and Neubarth are hardly people to listen to because you have no experience and little to no knowledge on the topic.