Obama Plays.. Unemployment Card...?

[bigrebnc1775]

One more time...

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

From the BLS website: Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Silly thing to use unemployment Insurance to show just who is unemployed.
After all if they did use UI as a reference number the unemployment numbers would be at least 20%

 

[pinqy]

One more time...

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

From the BLS website: Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Silly thing to use unemployment Insurance to show just who is unemployed.
After all if they did use UI as a reference number the unemployment numbers would be at least 20%

Other way around, the UE rate would be a lot lower if they used UI.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One more time...

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

From the BLS website: Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Silly thing to use unemployment Insurance to show just who is unemployed.
After all if they did use UI as a reference number the unemployment numbers would be at least 20%

Other way around, the UE rate would be a lot lower if they used UI.

That's your way of looking at which would be wrong unless there was a republican president in the white house.

 

[pinqy]

Silly thing to use unemployment Insurance to show just who is unemployed.
After all if they did use UI as a reference number the unemployment numbers would be at least 20%

Other way around, the UE rate would be a lot lower if they used UI.

That's your way of looking at which would be wrong unless there was a republican president in the white house.

No, I was saying the same things under Bush. Funny part is that the Conservatives were NOT arguing against BLS methodology then, and Liberals were.

But these are facts. The April Labor Force numbers are based on the week of April 8-14. The Not Seasonally adjusted number of Unemployed according to BLS was 11,910,000
According to ETA, who adds up the UI data, there were 6,597,912 people receiving benefits from all programs.

Not sure how you thought there were more people receiving benefits than all people Unemployed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Other way around, the UE rate would be a lot lower if they used UI.

That's your way of looking at which would be wrong unless there was a republican president in the white house.

No, I was saying the same things under Bush. Funny part is that the Conservatives were NOT arguing against BLS methodology then, and Liberals were.

But these are facts. The April Labor Force numbers are based on the week of April 8-14. The Not Seasonally adjusted number of Unemployed according to BLS was 11,910,000
According to ETA, who adds up the UI data, there were 6,597,912 people receiving benefits from all programs.

Not sure how you thought there were more people receiving benefits than all people Unemployed.

Even under bush unemployment was at 5.5 and liberals were screaming it's the end of the world. Now they are content.

 

[pinqy]

BULLSHIT....That is precisely how U-3 is calculated.
It is the number of people collecting or having applied for unemployment benefits vs the BLS accepted number of eligible workers.
The fisgures DO NOT count those not collected benefits. The figures DO NOT count those who are not working and have given up looking for work.
The BLS has also reduced the number of "available" jobs to further skew the actual number of unemployed based on the assumption that 'lost jobs' will never come back or new ones will not be created to take their place.
There is a criteria (U-6) which takes into account ALL eligible workers not currently employed. That gives a percentage of nearly 16% ACTUAL unemployed.

Links? Because everything you said was wrong.

You really thought you were going to run me off? Look genius, I do my homework.
Never ask a question to which you do not already have the answer.
Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

From your own link:

The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 in the U-1 to U-6 range of alternatives) includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks.

Note that it says ALL, not "only people receiving benefits as you falsely claimed. Again, benefits have NEVER been part of the definition and they aren't even asked about in the survey.

The BLS has also reduced the number of "available" jobs

What does that even mean? The CPS doesn't deal in any way with "available jobs." The Labor Force is Employed + Unemployed. That can go up or down depending. From March to April it went down because Employed and Unemployed both went down....fewer people working and fewer people looking for work. "Available jobs" is meaningless in this context.

The U-6 is a measure of Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part Time for Economic Reasons as a percent of the Labor Force + Marginally Attached.
Marginally Attached are those who say they want to work and could take a job if offered and have looked in the last year but aren't currently looking for work (last 4 weeks). Because they're not currently looking for work, they are only theoretically available (if you don't apply for a job you can't get hired for it) so they're not classified as Unemployed.
Part Time for Economic reasons are Employed. They're just not working as many hours as they'd like...but they still have jobs.
The U-6 is currently 14.5%, not the 16% you falsely claimed.

 

[pinqy]

That's your way of looking at which would be wrong unless there was a republican president in the white house.

No, I was saying the same things under Bush. Funny part is that the Conservatives were NOT arguing against BLS methodology then, and Liberals were.

But these are facts. The April Labor Force numbers are based on the week of April 8-14. The Not Seasonally adjusted number of Unemployed according to BLS was 11,910,000
According to ETA, who adds up the UI data, there were 6,597,912 people receiving benefits from all programs.

Not sure how you thought there were more people receiving benefits than all people Unemployed.

Even under bush unemployment was at 5.5 and liberals were screaming it's the end of the world. Now they are content.

Correct. But Conservatives were NOT arguing that under Bush the "real UE rate" was 10% or so under the U-6.

 

[BillyV]

One more time...

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

From the BLS website: Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Gee, no need to shout.

Agreed that the statistics do not and have never used those receiving benefits as part of the measure of the unemployment rate. However, I would still argue (as I did in post #73) that those dropping off of the UI rolls can be indirectly responsible for a reduction in the labor force. While in UI you must report that you are actively seeking employment, and are therefore counted as unemployed. Once the UI expires, you can then become a "discouraged" or other "marginally attached" worker (thus not included in U-3), decide you really don't want to work anymore (removing yourself from the labor force altogether), or you can move to other government programs that may require you to remove yourself from being counted as unemployed (as you would if you made a claim for disability under SSI, since you are claiming that benefit due to an inability to work). SSI claims have increased by 2.2 million since mid-2010 and tracks quite well with the expiration of extended unemployment benefits as you can see below:

Coincidence? I don't think so.

None of these issues are new and were also in place during Republican administrations. But saying that the expiration of extended UI has no effect does not take the full impact of losing benefits into consideration.

 

[pinqy]

One more time...

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

From the BLS website: Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Gee, no need to shout.

Agreed that the statistics do not and have never used those receiving benefits as part of the measure of the unemployment rate. However, I would still argue (as I did in post #73) that those dropping off of the UI rolls can be indirectly responsible for a reduction in the labor force. While in UI you must report that you are actively seeking employment, and are therefore counted as unemployed. Once the UI expires, you can then become a "discouraged" or other "marginally attached" worker (thus not included in U-3), decide you really don't want to work anymore (removing yourself from the labor force altogether), or you can move to other government programs that may require you to remove yourself from being counted as unemployed (as you would if you made a claim for disability under SSI, since you are claiming that benefit due to an inability to work). SSI claims have increased by 2.2 million since mid-2010 and tracks quite well with the expiration of extended unemployment benefits as you can see below:

Coincidence? I don't think so.

None of these issues are new and were also in place during Republican administrations. But saying that the expiration of extended UI has no effect does not take the full impact of losing benefits into consideration.

The chart is a little misleading. Note that the Y axis has a bottom of 25,600,000 and the total range of the Y axis is only 2.8 million. The actual Population change from June 2008 to April 2012 is 836,000. Not a large change when we're talking a total Adult Civilian Non-institutional population of around 243 million.

Now it is true that most of the increase in disable population was for the 16-64 age group (87.6% of the increase), but we're still not talking significant numbers here.

 

[edthecynic]

Links? Because everything you said was wrong.

You really thought you were going to run me off? Look genius, I do my homework.
Never ask a question to which you do not already have the answer.
Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

From your own link:

The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 in the U-1 to U-6 range of alternatives) includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks.

Note that it says ALL, not "only people receiving benefits as you falsely claimed. Again, benefits have NEVER been part of the definition and they aren't even asked about in the survey.

The BLS has also reduced the number of "available" jobs

What does that even mean? The CPS doesn't deal in any way with "available jobs." The Labor Force is Employed + Unemployed. That can go up or down depending. From March to April it went down because Employed and Unemployed both went down....fewer people working and fewer people looking for work. "Available jobs" is meaningless in this context.

The U-6 is a measure of Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part Time for Economic Reasons as a percent of the Labor Force + Marginally Attached.
Marginally Attached are those who say they want to work and could take a job if offered and have looked in the last year but aren't currently looking for work (last 4 weeks). Because they're not currently looking for work, they are only theoretically available (if you don't apply for a job you can't get hired for it) so they're not classified as Unemployed.
Part Time for Economic reasons are Employed. They're just not working as many hours as they'd like...but they still have jobs.
The U-6 is currently 14.5%, not the 16% you falsely claimed.

What "The BLS has also reduced the number of "available" jobs" means is you are dealing with a mindless DittoNutzi who is merely parroting what their MessiahRushie told them no matter how moronic and obviously wrong it is. LimpBoy told them that the BLS keeps the UE rate down by "reducing the number of available jobs" and to them that settles it. It doesn't matter that there is no factor using "available jobs" in the equation, he said it, they believe it, with no questions asked. He has been feeding them this crap for months, and even when he is told that the "number of available jobs" has nothing to do with the UE number, he just makes up more bullshit and his sheep swallow that whole too!

May 11, 2012
RUSH: Unemployment is not going down because people are finding jobs; unemployment is going down because the universe of jobs is shrinking: The labor force participation rate. Eighty-eight million Americans aren't working! Sixteen million of them make up the 8.1% unemployment number. When you have a smaller universe of jobs against which you're calculating the unemployed, the percentage is gonna go down.

February 17, 2012
RUSH:* Folks, look, for those of you who are apparently believing that the number of available jobs doesn't matter to the unemployment rate, you have to answer something for me.* If the number of jobs doesn't matter, then why in the name of Sam Hill is everybody from Obama on down worried about creating jobs?* If the number of jobs don't matter in terms of measuring unemployment, then what does it matter whether we create any new ones?* We have to create new ones because there aren't any jobs to fill, I thought.* Isn't that what they're trying to tell us?* That's why the economy's slow?* Wake up.

October 14, 2011
RUSH: I say it, you believe it, with no questions.

 

[naturegirl]

OK so since I'm not educated enough and know nothing about UI, how about you tell me why 230,000 people are losing their benefits this week. Who's policies have led to this?? Let's see who the Messiah blames this on.

 

[The T]

OK so since I'm not educated enough and know nothing about UI, how about you tell me why 230,000 people are losing their benefits this week. Who's policies have led to this?? Let's see who the Messiah blames this on.

The economy has improved just before an election (conviently)...so it was written into the bill to extend benefits to sunset...never mind the sunset is manufactured as the figures the Gubmint dishes out to the masses...

 

[pinqy]

OK so since I'm not educated enough and know nothing about UI, how about you tell me why 230,000 people are losing their benefits this week. Who's policies have led to this?? Let's see who the Messiah blames this on.

It's because there are about 3.5 unemployed for every job opening and it's even worse in CA which as about an 11% unemployment rate. The job situation, while somewhat better than 2010, still sucks. Who is arguing otherwise?

 

[BillyV]

One more time...

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

From the BLS website: Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Gee, no need to shout.

Agreed that the statistics do not and have never used those receiving benefits as part of the measure of the unemployment rate. However, I would still argue (as I did in post #73) that those dropping off of the UI rolls can be indirectly responsible for a reduction in the labor force. While in UI you must report that you are actively seeking employment, and are therefore counted as unemployed. Once the UI expires, you can then become a "discouraged" or other "marginally attached" worker (thus not included in U-3), decide you really don't want to work anymore (removing yourself from the labor force altogether), or you can move to other government programs that may require you to remove yourself from being counted as unemployed (as you would if you made a claim for disability under SSI, since you are claiming that benefit due to an inability to work). SSI claims have increased by 2.2 million since mid-2010 and tracks quite well with the expiration of extended unemployment benefits as you can see below:

Coincidence? I don't think so.

None of these issues are new and were also in place during Republican administrations. But saying that the expiration of extended UI has no effect does not take the full impact of losing benefits into consideration.

The chart is a little misleading. Note that the Y axis has a bottom of 25,600,000 and the total range of the Y axis is only 2.8 million. The actual Population change from June 2008 to April 2012 is 836,000. Not a large change when we're talking a total Adult Civilian Non-institutional population of around 243 million.

Now it is true that most of the increase in disable population was for the 16-64 age group (87.6% of the increase), but we're still not talking significant numbers here.

All that you say is true, but somewhat beside the point. If you start at June of 2008 you are not taking into account the loss of extended unemployment benefits for the majority of job losses in late 2008 and early to mid 2009, which would have run out starting in mid-2010. Also, I doubt that there is a correlation between the decline in SSI participants from June through mid-2010 and the unemployment rate, unless those who might otherwise have claimed SSI were already collecting unemployment. However, it may be that the dramatic increase from 2010 to the present is the result of people losing their UE benefits and then applying and receiving SSI in its place. I would think the loss of income from UE would motivate them to seek other federal programs, and SSI is one that has somewhat lax standards. If those 2.2 million were still counted as unemployed, I think it would have a significant impact on the unemployment rate; as an addition to the 12.5 million regarded as unemployed, the rate would increase from 8.1% to 9.4%. Now obviously all of these claimants are not the result of the loss of unemployment benefits, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that perhaps, say 1/3 are? Maybe 1/2? So the resulting rate would climb to between 8.5% and 8.75%, not so insignificant.

 

[thereisnospoon]

CON$ will always bitterly cling to their lies!!!

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Like I have repeatedly shown CON$ always lie in packs.

This lie is easily disproved by "the government's own numbers" which the liar obviously didn't use and were posted here already numerous times so you have no excuse for not knowing you were posting a lie.

The BLS gives the details about the NILF group, including AGE. In April 2012 there were 18,216,000 age 16-24 persons NILF and 23,244,000 age 25-54 persons NILF for a TOTAL of 41,460,000 age 16-54 persons NILF. Now the liar says that 41,460,000 total is 74% of the total people NILF, but that combined 16-54 total is LESS than the 47,419,000 age 55+ persons NILF, which means that the liar's 74% is actually 47%, the liar reversed the numbers!!!! the actual percent over 55 is 53%

The CON$ervoFascist premeditated liar knew that no fellow traveler would bother to check his numbers and would just mindless parrot them and even if confronted with the lie the parrot would simply deny the truth and never check the numbers themselves.

Here are the real government AGE numbers for you CON$ to ignore.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Eddie, this does not wash.
The real numbers do not lie.
What you have posted is nothing but the equivalent of blowing sunshine up the people's asses in order to make Obama look better.
Look, the people across the US know what the real deal is. All they have to do is pay attention to reality and ignore what certain politicians and their useful idiots are telling them what to believe.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Links? Because everything you said was wrong.

You really thought you were going to run me off? Look genius, I do my homework.
Never ask a question to which you do not already have the answer.
Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

From your own link:

The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 in the U-1 to U-6 range of alternatives) includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks.

Note that it says ALL, not "only people receiving benefits as you falsely claimed. Again, benefits have NEVER been part of the definition and they aren't even asked about in the survey.

The BLS has also reduced the number of "available" jobs

What does that even mean? The CPS doesn't deal in any way with "available jobs." The Labor Force is Employed + Unemployed. That can go up or down depending. From March to April it went down because Employed and Unemployed both went down....fewer people working and fewer people looking for work. "Available jobs" is meaningless in this context.

The U-6 is a measure of Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part Time for Economic Reasons as a percent of the Labor Force + Marginally Attached.
Marginally Attached are those who say they want to work and could take a job if offered and have looked in the last year but aren't currently looking for work (last 4 weeks). Because they're not currently looking for work, they are only theoretically available (if you don't apply for a job you can't get hired for it) so they're not classified as Unemployed.
Part Time for Economic reasons are Employed. They're just not working as many hours as they'd like...but they still have jobs.
The U-6 is currently 14.5%, not the 16% you falsely claimed.

I said it's "nearly 16%"....I had not seen the latest update for Q4 of 2011.
Nevertheless. You contradict yourself. First you dismiss U-6 then you quote it.
Look, I cannot help it if you choose to ignore reality.
BLS is not bi-partisan. The people who serve in federal bureaus do so at the pleasure of the President. So please do not even think of the BLS or any other appointed employee as independent.
U-6 is the closest figure we have to ACTUAL unemployed. Too bad for you if you don't like the numbers. They are what they are. You'll just have to live with them.
Oh, the BLS does not count jobs THEY determine to be permanently "lost".
Now does the BLS count people not working who the BLS has determined 'no longer looking for work'....
True employment should be defined as those holding full time or part time jobs where the worker is working a minimum average of 37.5 hours per week.
Or long term contract work. Or self employed people working regular hours.
Here's the deal, not matter how your side tries to spin this, no matter how much you argue or deny, 15% of us are not working. That's bad. And it is going to be a campaign issue for sure. It is best you prepare yourself for that reality to come to the surface this Fall.
Who does the government count as 'employed'? - Business - Answer Desk - msnbc.com...
From Feb 2012..Forbes talks about U-3....
Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11% - Forbes

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, I was saying the same things under Bush. Funny part is that the Conservatives were NOT arguing against BLS methodology then, and Liberals were.

But these are facts. The April Labor Force numbers are based on the week of April 8-14. The Not Seasonally adjusted number of Unemployed according to BLS was 11,910,000
According to ETA, who adds up the UI data, there were 6,597,912 people receiving benefits from all programs.

Not sure how you thought there were more people receiving benefits than all people Unemployed.

Even under bush unemployment was at 5.5 and liberals were screaming it's the end of the world. Now they are content.

Correct. But Conservatives were NOT arguing that under Bush the "real UE rate" was 10% or so under the U-6.

There was no need. At the time unemployment being so low, it was not an issue.
Why on Earth would there be a necessity to argue a point when no one was remotely interested.
During most of the early to mid 2000's the US was at or near what is considered "full" employment.

 

[edthecynic]

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Like I have repeatedly shown CON$ always lie in packs.

This lie is easily disproved by "the government's own numbers" which the liar obviously didn't use and were posted here already numerous times so you have no excuse for not knowing you were posting a lie.

The BLS gives the details about the NILF group, including AGE. In April 2012 there were 18,216,000 age 16-24 persons NILF and 23,244,000 age 25-54 persons NILF for a TOTAL of 41,460,000 age 16-54 persons NILF. Now the liar says that 41,460,000 total is 74% of the total people NILF, but that combined 16-54 total is LESS than the 47,419,000 age 55+ persons NILF, which means that the liar's 74% is actually 47%, the liar reversed the numbers!!!! the actual percent over 55 is 53%

The CON$ervoFascist premeditated liar knew that no fellow traveler would bother to check his numbers and would just mindless parrot them and even if confronted with the lie the parrot would simply deny the truth and never check the numbers themselves.

Here are the real government AGE numbers for you CON$ to ignore.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Eddie, this does not wash.
The real numbers do not lie.
What you have posted is nothing but the equivalent of blowing sunshine up the people's asses in order to make Obama look better.
Look, the people across the US know what the real deal is. All they have to do is pay attention to reality and ignore what certain politicians and their useful idiots are telling them what to believe.

I posted the REAL numbers directly from the source the liar claimed to use!!!!!!!!

But thank you for proving I was right in what I posted that is highlighted in red!!!!!

 

[BillyV]

Like I have repeatedly shown CON$ always lie in packs.

This lie is easily disproved by "the government's own numbers" which the liar obviously didn't use and were posted here already numerous times so you have no excuse for not knowing you were posting a lie.

The BLS gives the details about the NILF group, including AGE. In April 2012 there were 18,216,000 age 16-24 persons NILF and 23,244,000 age 25-54 persons NILF for a TOTAL of 41,460,000 age 16-54 persons NILF. Now the liar says that 41,460,000 total is 74% of the total people NILF, but that combined 16-54 total is LESS than the 47,419,000 age 55+ persons NILF, which means that the liar's 74% is actually 47%, the liar reversed the numbers!!!! the actual percent over 55 is 53%

The CON$ervoFascist premeditated liar knew that no fellow traveler would bother to check his numbers and would just mindless parrot them and even if confronted with the lie the parrot would simply deny the truth and never check the numbers themselves.

Here are the real government AGE numbers for you CON$ to ignore.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Eddie, this does not wash.
The real numbers do not lie.
What you have posted is nothing but the equivalent of blowing sunshine up the people's asses in order to make Obama look better.
Look, the people across the US know what the real deal is. All they have to do is pay attention to reality and ignore what certain politicians and their useful idiots are telling them what to believe.

I posted the REAL numbers directly from the source the liar claimed to use!!!!!!!!

But thank you for proving I was right in what I posted that is highlighted in red!!!!!

Yes, you did quote actual totals from BLS; however, that's not what the graph was intended to portray. The graph, as it is labeled, is intended to portray the "Reductions in Workforce Participation by Age Group", or the change in participation between young and old for the period from 2007 and 2012. This was to refute the administration's argument that the change in workforce participation was the result of aging Baby Boomers retiring. The graph indicates that the reduction in participation was mainly occurring in the 16-54 age group. The table supporting this is as follows:

There is a further explanation included in the link that Jroc posted.

 

[pinqy]

You really thought you were going to run me off? Look genius, I do my homework.
Never ask a question to which you do not already have the answer.
Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

From your own link: Note that it says ALL, not "only people receiving benefits as you falsely claimed. Again, benefits have NEVER been part of the definition and they aren't even asked about in the survey.

The BLS has also reduced the number of "available" jobs

What does that even mean? The CPS doesn't deal in any way with "available jobs." The Labor Force is Employed + Unemployed. That can go up or down depending. From March to April it went down because Employed and Unemployed both went down....fewer people working and fewer people looking for work. "Available jobs" is meaningless in this context.

The U-6 is a measure of Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part Time for Economic Reasons as a percent of the Labor Force + Marginally Attached.
Marginally Attached are those who say they want to work and could take a job if offered and have looked in the last year but aren't currently looking for work (last 4 weeks). Because they're not currently looking for work, they are only theoretically available (if you don't apply for a job you can't get hired for it) so they're not classified as Unemployed.
Part Time for Economic reasons are Employed. They're just not working as many hours as they'd like...but they still have jobs.
The U-6 is currently 14.5%, not the 16% you falsely claimed.

I said it's "nearly 16%"....I had not seen the latest update for Q4 of 2011.
Nevertheless. You contradict yourself. First you dismiss U-6 then you quote it.

I don't "dismiss it," it's a useful measure. But it is NOT "real unemployment" especially since it includes people who have jobs.

BLS is not bi-partisan. The people who serve in federal bureaus do so at the pleasure of the President.

You really don't know how the govt works, do you? Civil servants do NOT serve "at the pleasure of the President" except for Presidential appointees. BLS has one appointed position, the Commissioner, and that's been vacant since January. Oh, and the last Commissioner was a BUSH appointee.

U-6 is the closest figure we have to ACTUAL unemployed.

"Actual?" And how and where is that defined? The idea of including people who have jobs as "actual unemployment" is ridiculous.

Oh, the BLS does not count jobs THEY determine to be permanently "lost".

What does that even mean????? How EXACTLY is this done? What's this list of jobs and how is it determined they are "lost?"

Now does the BLS count people not working who the BLS has determined 'no longer looking for work'....

And how do they determine that? And why should someone no longer looking for work be classified as Unemployed?

True employment should be defined as those holding full time or part time jobs where the worker is working a minimum average of 37.5 hours per week.

Why? Why would you count someone who voluntarily works 35 hours/week as Unemployed?

Or long term contract work. Or self employed people working regular hours.

Those are counted as Employed.

Here's the deal, not matter how your side tries to spin this, no matter how much you argue or deny, 15% of us are not working.

A lot more than that. 41.6% of the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population is not working (that's not including prisoners, people in institutions or, for working, the military).
The thing is that 81.9% of those not working DON'T WANT TO WORK and a further 6.3% AREN'T TRYING TO WORK OR COULDN'T TAKE A JOB IF HANDED ONE ON A PLATE. Only 11.8% of the people not working are trying to work (the Unemployed).

And I note you're no longer claiming the UE rate comes from people receiving benefits. Did you finally do your homework for real?