THE BIG LIE!: 5.6% Unemployment from the guy who should KNOW!!!

[pinqy]

From Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup.

If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There's no minimum pay. I don't know where he's getting that $20 number from. And unpaid work in a family business or farm is employed if 15 or more hours.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Why would you count someone who has a job as unemployed?

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

If it was purported or presented to be a measure of suffering then that would be true. But it is not meant to be and no one has ever claimed it is a measure of suffering.

Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

In December, there were 8.3 million people not working but looking for work, 6.2 million not working who said they wanted a job but hadn't looked for work in the last month or were unable to accept a job if offered. And 7 million who want to and could work 35+ hours/week, but worked less than that due to slow business or couldn't find full time job. (all numbers not seasonally adjusted). That's far short of his 6 million.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older.

But about 3/4 of those who work part time are voluntary, not due to economic reasons.

Your "3/4" who work guesstimate way off.. FACTS where are yours?

A-25. Persons at work 1 to 34 hours in all and in nonagricultural industries by reason for working less than 35 hours and usual full- or part-time status 25.3 million usually work part time, 5.2 for economic reasons, 20.1 non-economic.

Through the first six months of the year, 13.2 percent of U.S. workers were in voluntary part-time jobs
Is Obamacare causing a surge in part-time work - CBS News[/QUOTE]
That's of ALL workers. By that, only 3.6% of all workers are part time for economic reasons.
I said 3/4 of part timers, not all workers.

 

[Iceweasel]

Numbers are made the same way as in the Bush and Clinton administrations. So if these are lies, then all the figures during those administrations were lies. Get over it, wingnuts, under President Obama we are pulling out of the Great Republican Recession.

Liar.


USA TODAY
So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is changing how it records long-term unemployment.
Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

The move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

 

[edthecynic]

Numbers are made the same way as in the Bush and Clinton administrations. So if these are lies, then all the figures during those administrations were lies. Get over it, wingnuts, under President Obama we are pulling out of the Great Republican Recession.

Liar.


USA TODAY
So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is changing how it records long-term unemployment.
Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

The move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Now hold on a minute there Slick, by keeping someone listed as unemployed 3 years longer rather than listing them as not in the workforce after 2 years, like Bush did, would INCREASE the UE rate. So the Obama standard makes the UE rate higher so Obama's "real" rate is probably under 5% if calculated the same as Bush's rate!!!!

 

[pinqy]

Numbers are made the same way as in the Bush and Clinton administrations. So if these are lies, then all the figures during those administrations were lies. Get over it, wingnuts, under President Obama we are pulling out of the Great Republican Recession.

Liar.


USA TODAY
So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is changing how it records long-term unemployment.
Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

The move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

The change had no effect on the Unemployment rate or level. The upper limit simply meant that anyone stating they were unemployed longer than 2 years was recorded as being unemployed 2 years...in effect, the category was "2 or more years." That was changed in 2011 to allow answers up to five years.

THE UPPER LIMIT DID NOT AND DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYONE UNEMPLOYED LONGER WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED!

The only number the change affected was the mean duration of unemployment.

 

[Iceweasel]

Numbers are made the same way as in the Bush and Clinton administrations. So if these are lies, then all the figures during those administrations were lies. Get over it, wingnuts, under President Obama we are pulling out of the Great Republican Recession.

Liar.


USA TODAY
So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is changing how it records long-term unemployment.
Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

The move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

The change had no effect on the Unemployment rate or level. The upper limit simply meant that anyone stating they were unemployed longer than 2 years was recorded as being unemployed 2 years...in effect, the category was "2 or more years." That was changed in 2011 to allow answers up to five years.

THE UPPER LIMIT DID NOT AND DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYONE UNEMPLOYED LONGER WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED!

The only number the change affected was the mean duration of unemployment.

...which changed the unemployment rate. Otherwise there was no reason to do it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 5.6% UE number is not a lie. The way it's calculated is made clear by the BLS.

 

[AceRothstein]

Gallup, the same organization that blew the 2012 election?

 

[GHook93]

The Clinton's administration changed the way we calculated the unemployment number in order to LOWER the unemployment rate under Slick Willie's administration. Bush kept it in place, because his numbers would have looked much worse. Now Obama is taking full advantage of this fucked up way of calculating the unemployment rate. Consider the following.

30 million people fall into the so-called leaving the workforce (because none of these people need to eat or pay the bills) or the under-employed group.

The Big Lie 5.6 Unemployment
None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

This is what under-employed means!

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Then you have the record number of people on social security disability. As of last year that number hit 11 million. Guess what, these people are NOT considered unemployed when calculating the number, they are treated the same way the longterm unemployed are treated -AS A POSITIVE NUMBER IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE!!! Any keep this in mind, SS Disability pays DICK! These people are living in poverty!

Record-breaking 11M receive Social Security disability benefits New York Post
A record number of Americans — nearly 11 million — pocketed Social Security disability benefits last month, according to newly released government data.

The figure exceeds the total population of Greece, according to CNSNews.com, which first reported the statistic Tuesday.

38 year low labor participation rate! Back in the 60s and 70s there were a TON more stay-at-home mothers and at ton more people that retired in their 50s. Today it's much more common for both parents to work and it's much more common for people to put off retirement until their 70s and beyond. Yet we have record low labor participation rate!

Labor Participation Rate Drops To Fresh 38 Year Low Record 92.9 Million Americans Not In Labor Force Zero Hedge
Another month, another attempt by the BLS to mask the collapse in the US labor force with a goalseeked seasonally-adjusted surge in waiter, bartender and other low-paying jobs. Case in point: after a modest rebound by 0.1% in November, the labor participation rate just slid once more, dropping to 62.7%, or the lowest print since December 1977.

The ratio of part-time employment to full-time employment still remains higher pre-recession (aka before Obama), heck it remains highest since we started recording this number in 1968.

Ratio of Part-Time Employed Remains Higher Than the Pre-Recession Level
The Labor Department has been collecting this since 1968, a time when only 13.5% of US employees were part-timers. That number peaked at 20.1% in January 2010. The latest data point, approaching five years later, is only modestly lower at 18.7% last month. If the pre-recession percentage is a recovery target, we still have a long way to go.

Sorry to burst the faux liberal bubble, but when you take the below list into effect, our economy and job market is a fuck mess and NOTHING to brag about.
(1) 30 million people in the so called leaving the work-force and under-employed group.
(2) 11 million people on SSN disability, record high.
(3) Highest ever part-time to full-time ratio
(4) Lowest work force participation in 38 years. 92 million people not participating.

Take in record food stamps and record welfare and you see a horrible job market!

 

[Moonglow]

I've been looking for a part time job and all that is available is full time....

 

[Moonglow]

Gallup, the same organization that blew the 2012 election?

Yep, but they should know, since it fits into the political narrative...

 

[Stephanie]

When you have Gruber, who they hired to help fool/dupe/lie you into buying OscamCare going around calling YOU Stupid.

you just wonder how ANYONE can still believe a word out of this administrations mouth. If you still take them at their word, then you deserve to be DECEIVED by them

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This oughtta hit the low-information crowd right in balzak....

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is the U-3 number which clearly defines what it is attempting to measure and what methodology is used, so I'm not sure where the "lie" part comes in especially since they have all been going down.

You are up against rightwing propagandists, who are ordered by wingnut central to spin every item of interest possible into some sort of indictment against Obama, Democrats, and/or liberals.

 

[pinqy]

Numbers are made the same way as in the Bush and Clinton administrations. So if these are lies, then all the figures during those administrations were lies. Get over it, wingnuts, under President Obama we are pulling out of the Great Republican Recession.

Liar.


USA TODAY
So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is changing how it records long-term unemployment.
Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

The move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

The change had no effect on the Unemployment rate or level. The upper limit simply meant that anyone stating they were unemployed longer than 2 years was recorded as being unemployed 2 years...in effect, the category was "2 or more years." That was changed in 2011 to allow answers up to five years.

THE UPPER LIMIT DID NOT AND DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYONE UNEMPLOYED LONGER WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED!

The only number the change affected was the mean duration of unemployment.

...which changed the unemployment rate. Otherwise there was no reason to do it.

How on earth would that change the unemployment rate? It didn't change who was counted as unemployed, it only changed the allowable answers.
Before 2011, when the respondent was asked how long s/he had been unemployed, any answer of more than 2 years was recorded as 2 years...the person was still classified as unemployed. Since then, anyone who says more than 2 but less than 5 years is recorded as the number they state.

In no way would that affect who is classified as unemployed.

The reason for the change was that long term unemployment got so bad that the mean duration was off. To be more accurate, which made the mean duration of unemployment higher. It didn't change the median or the total number unemployed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The current U-6 unemployment number is 11.2%. Does that make you happier, RWnuts?

 

[Iceweasel]

How on earth would that change the unemployment rate? It didn't change who was counted as unemployed, it only changed the allowable answers.
Before 2011, when the respondent was asked how long s/he had been unemployed, any answer of more than 2 years was recorded as 2 years...the person was still classified as unemployed. Since then, anyone who says more than 2 but less than 5 years is recorded as the number they state.

In no way would that affect who is classified as unemployed, just what slot for duration.

Jesus Christ dude. If it's moved up to 5 years that's a big difference. So yes, it absolutely changes the rate. Also many people are part time now and lost good full time jobs. The stats don't take that into account. A good job lost and two shitty part time jobs gained is two jobs gained.

 

[pinqy]

How on earth would that change the unemployment rate? It didn't change who was counted as unemployed, it only changed the allowable answers.
Before 2011, when the respondent was asked how long s/he had been unemployed, any answer of more than 2 years was recorded as 2 years...the person was still classified as unemployed. Since then, anyone who says more than 2 but less than 5 years is recorded as the number they state.

In no way would that affect who is classified as unemployed, just what slot for duration.

Jesus Christ dude. If it's moved up to 5 years that's a big difference. So yes, it absolutely changes the rate..

How? How are you thinking that would change the rate? Before, if a person was unemployed for 4 years, he would be recorded as being unemployed for 2 years. Now he would be recorded as being unemployed for 4 years. Either way he's still classified as unemployed. Duration of unemployment has no role in the rate...that's just total unemployed. Someone unemployed 6 years would have been recorded as being unemployed 2 years, now it's 5 years.

How do you think that affects total unemployed?

 

[pinqy]

Also many people are part time now and lost good full time jobs. The stats don't take that into account. A good job lost and two shitty part time jobs gained is two jobs gained.

No, that would be one job gained....but only in the Establishment survey. For the Household survey, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate, a person is only counted once no matter how many jobs s/he has.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The economy remains mediocre. Forget the talking heads, politicians and partisans, and pay attention to the yield of 10-year Treasuries.

Last month at this time it was at a ridiculously low 2.03%. As of this writing it's at 1.82%.

A foundation is there, but there is little dynamic pressure upwards.

.

 

[g5000]

Has the methodology for the measurement of unemployment changed in the past ten years?

No?

Okay then.

Funny how the rubes weren't parsing the shit out of the unemployment figures when the white guy was in office.