Official: Real unemployment rate at 16%

[Wicked Jester]

The unemployment rate was not going to exceed 8%.. WTF???
I feel like I've been had.

Well soggy, are you really surprised?
Obama also said the debt wouldn't get past 7 trillion, and now had to admit it's going around 9 TRILLION.
Yep, you've been had!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nah, he never said that 16% was the "real" number, only pointed out already published numbers readily available to anyone. He never claimed the U6 was "real" and that the U3 was somehow manipulated.

Then you were talking out of your ass. The numbers aren't calculated any differently than in the last 15 years. Ok, based on what definition of unemployment?


Neither Obama nor any of his staff have any access to the numbers until the night before the official release when they get an advance copy of the report. How on earth can you blame anything on him, then? The Commissioner of BLS is a Bush appointee, and the methodology and math hasn't changed under Obama...he doesn't have that authority.

While the U6 is a useful number to look at in the current economy, it is NOT a measure of unemployment since it includes people who are employed. Only a moron would think it the "real" number when it doesn't correspond to anything ever done previously and is incredibly subjective.

This thread has officially ended.

No it hasn't. It's been pointed out that the Obamites like to take soft numbers and present them as some sort of indication that unemployment is decreasing, rather than increasing.

It's actually a good thread. It will quit moving because the left can't refute it. As they haven't.

I guess reading isn't your strong suit then.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hopey Changey's numbers are Bull Chit. There i said it the way it should be said. It's just like Bernanke telling us that the Economy is starting to look just terrific. Gee go figure,right after those ridiculous comments he is reappointed by Hopey Changey. It's all just a sad game in the end. Why should i believe anything Ben Bernanke says? Why should anyone believe anything Ben Bernanke says? He along with corrupt fat cats like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the main players in causing our economic meltdown yet now we're all supposed to believe that they're the same people who are going to fix it? Sorry i'm just not buying that. Until Bernanke,Dodd,and Frank are held accountable,i'm not believing anything from this administration regarding the economy. These corrupt cretins have gotten a free ride and it's just not right. My God,Bernanke actually got reappointed! That doesn't bother anyone? The man gets reappointed for a being a corrupt failure. Start holding these cretins accountable and maybe i'll start believing this administration.

 

[pinqy]

Hopey Changey's numbers are Bull Chit. There i said it the way it should be said.

Then you know nothing about actual arguments and discourse. First, the BLS numbers are not "Obama's." He has nothing to do with them....the Comissioner who is in charge of them is a BUSH appointee.

Second, if the numbers are BS, then prove it. Cite your evidence. Oh wait, your "evidence" is blind hatred. Yeah, that's intelligent and reasonable.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You got to love this change........Real US unemployment rate at 16 pct: Fed official

ozzmdj.

I think we should just stick with the raw numbers.....its much easier, effective, and can't be shot down by honest people.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread-3.html#post1464529

We did lose 250,000 jobs last month, lets see if we gain or lose jobs when the august numbers come out in a week or 2

 

[AllieBaba]

This thread has officially ended.

No it hasn't. It's been pointed out that the Obamites like to take soft numbers and present them as some sort of indication that unemployment is decreasing, rather than increasing.

It's actually a good thread. It will quit moving because the left can't refute it. As they haven't.

I guess reading isn't your strong suit then.

That's not a refutation. Thanks for proving my point.

BTW. Reading comprehension is my strong suit. VERY strong suit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No it hasn't. It's been pointed out that the Obamites like to take soft numbers and present them as some sort of indication that unemployment is decreasing, rather than increasing.

It's actually a good thread. It will quit moving because the left can't refute it. As they haven't.

I guess reading isn't your strong suit then.

That's not a refutation. Thanks for proving my point.

BTW. Reading comprehension is my strong suit. VERY strong suit.

Refute what? If you read this thread, it has been refuted, a number of times, by both liberals and conservatives - U3 and U6 numbers are different numbers, they mean different things. Neither of them is "real" unemployment, and its very disingenuous to compare the two.

 

[ozzmdj]

If you don't know that ONLY people who are getting unemployment are counted not the millions that DO NOT COUNT becaause their unemployment has run OUT then you are a clueless......FT.com / US / Economy & Fed - US jobless claims remain stubbornly high

 

[Vast LWC]

Funny that the right-wing talking heads never talked about "Real" unemployment figures when Bush was in office...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you don't know that ONLY people who are getting unemployment are counted not the millions that DO NOT COUNT becaause their unemployment has run OUT then you are a clueless......FT.com / US / Economy & Fed - US jobless claims remain stubbornly high

You're entirely wrong. The US does NOT use unemployment benefits as a measurement of unemployment. The "standard" unemployment figure (U3) is based on a telephone survey, similar to any other sort of polling, counting people are a.) unemployed, and b.) looking for a job. The "real" unemployment figure (U6), is a that same number, with people who are a.) unemployed but not looking for a job, and b.) people who are employed, but not working as much as they'd like added.

Don't try to claim that you know what you're talking about, since you clearly do not.

 

[KittenKoder]

Funny that the right-wing talking heads never talked about "Real" unemployment figures when Bush was in office...

Meh, I know I did on other forums myself and most of the time they whined ... like the left is here when faced with the real numbers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Funny that the right-wing talking heads never talked about "Real" unemployment figures when Bush was in office...

Meh, I know I did on other forums myself and most of the time they whined ... like the left is here when faced with the real numbers.

It's not that one number is more "real" than the other - they measure different things.