The September 2009 Unemployment Rate is........

[Vast LWC]

I'm going to predict it will FALL again. I'm going to say 9.2 or under. I do not think we will break Ronald Reagan's record of 10% unemployment in this recession.

Wishful thinking David S, but it's just a sign that many have given up looking or been dropped off the unemployment count. The real unemployment number in some communities is well over 10%, 14% in the state of Michigan.

Why Did the Unemployment Rate Drop? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

But by the same token, the "real" unemployment number would have been much higher in the Reagan era.

The official figures said 10.4% in Feb of 1983, just like the official figures say 9.7% right now.

 

[Vast LWC]

Unemployment went from 4.8% in Feb of 2008 to 8.1% in Feb of 2009.

Thats a 3.3% difference in one year, or 1.65% in a 6 month period.

In the 6 months since Obama took over, the unemployment rate rose to 9.7%, or 1.6% in a 6 month period.

Thus there has been a slight dip in the growth rate of unemployment.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[pinqy]

And that information came straight from the unemployment department.

NO, it didn't....it came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."

Exactly...nothing in there about eligibility for UI. Perhaps you should go with the full definition:

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

If they don't have a job, they aren't actively looking, they don't count them as among the labor force.

Because they're not. Why would you want to include retirees, full time students, stay at home spouses etc as participating in the labor force?

Ppl whose unemployment has run out,... and don't qualify for UC don't count.

Give your source genius. Oh right, despite multiple cites, you still argue and you have zero alternate evidence (because it's not true).

It's the exact same way the unemployment department determines who is eligible for UC or not.

No it's not. Why do you keep claiming it is, when we've laid it out for you. And who the hell is the "unemployment department?"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The truth is the job loss is falling, but the rate of actual unemployment is probably closer to 15 or 16%.

That is the bitter truth. Many people have simply stopped looking for a job.

Now, the really weird part. Republicans will try to use "lack of jobs" against Obama, but for years, Republicans have been slashing spending on education.

Somehow, using reasoning I fail to understand, Republicans feel you should be able get a "job" even though you have no education. So, the obvious question is, "What kind of a job can you get without any education?" Can someone please explain this to me? If you don't even have a GED, name the job you are looking for.

The best paying jobs require a college education. Why? Because the jobs are difficult.

The real question - do Republicans believe that you could design a bridge without an engineering degree? Or a dam? Or a water treatment plant? or a Nuclear Power plant? or even a regular hydraulic power plant?

I just don't understand what they are expecting.

How do Republicans slash funding for education when the States run education?

 

[DiveCon]

The truth is the job loss is falling, but the rate of actual unemployment is probably closer to 15 or 16%.

That is the bitter truth. Many people have simply stopped looking for a job.

Now, the really weird part. Republicans will try to use "lack of jobs" against Obama, but for years, Republicans have been slashing spending on education.

Somehow, using reasoning I fail to understand, Republicans feel you should be able get a "job" even though you have no education. So, the obvious question is, "What kind of a job can you get without any education?" Can someone please explain this to me? If you don't even have a GED, name the job you are looking for.

The best paying jobs require a college education. Why? Because the jobs are difficult.

The real question - do Republicans believe that you could design a bridge without an engineering degree? Or a dam? Or a water treatment plant? or a Nuclear Power plant? or even a regular hydraulic power plant?

I just don't understand what they are expecting.

How do Republicans slash funding for education when the States run education?

hell, i want to know how they "slash" spending while still spending MORE than the previous years

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And that information came straight from the unemployment department.

NO, it didn't....it came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."

Exactly...nothing in there about eligibility for UI. Perhaps you should go with the full definition:

[qutoe]If they don't have a job, they aren't actively looking, they don't count them as among the labor force.

Because they're not. Why would you want to include retirees, full time students, stay at home spouses etc as participating in the labor force?

Ppl whose unemployment has run out,... and don't qualify for UC don't count.

Give your source genius. Oh right, despite multiple cites, you still argue and you have zero alternate evidence (because it's not true).

It's the exact same way the unemployment department determines who is eligible for UC or not. [/qutoe]No it's not. Why do you keep claiming it is, when we've laid it out for you. And who the hell is the "unemployment department?"

Ok explain how one loses 300 THOUSAND jobs and has no numbers for supposed new job growth YET unemployment goes down? Come on Genius EXPLAIN that to us.

 

[Toro]

Ok explain how one loses 300 THOUSAND jobs and has no numbers for supposed new job growth YET unemployment goes down? Come on Genius EXPLAIN that to us.

More people drop out of the labor force than lose jobs and the unemployment rate goes down.

Answers are here.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

pinqy is correct.

 

[pinqy]

Ok explain how one loses 300 THOUSAND jobs and has no numbers for supposed new job growth YET unemployment goes down? Come on Genius EXPLAIN that to us.

Well, first "jobs" and "employed" are two seperate things from different surveys. One person can hold more than one job. The "job loss" numbers are from the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES), which is a payroll survey of non-farm business that contribute to UI. So excluded are the self-employed, domestic workers, and unpaid family workers. The businesses are surveyed for the number of employees, so if one person works for two (or more) different businesses, they could be counted twice. The Unemployment rate is from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which is a household survey which includes everyone (except military, those in prison, or in institutes, or under 16). So for August, the number of non-farm jobs was 131,223,000 while the total employed was 139,649,000.

For the CPS, Unemployed are those who didn't work, but actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. The Unemployed plus the Employed constitutes the Labor Force, and the Unemployment rate is Unemployed/Labor Force. So it's entirely possible for both Employed to go up (more people working) and Unemployed to go up (more people looking for work, such as graduates, and other entrants/re-entrants to the labor force), or both go down. In July, both went down...fewer people worked, and fewer people were looking for work. So the overall Labor Force went down. It's simple math that if the denominator goes down by more than the numerator, then the percentage also goes down. Remember, Unemployed does NOT mean "lost your job," it means lost your job, or quit your job, or never worked before and just starting looking or haven't worked for a while and started looking again.

 

[Neubarth]

Ok explain how one loses 300 THOUSAND jobs and has no numbers for supposed new job growth YET unemployment goes down? Come on Genius EXPLAIN that to us.

Well, first "jobs" and "employed" are two seperate things from different surveys. One person can hold more than one job. The "job loss" numbers are from the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES), which is a payroll survey of non-farm business that contribute to UI. So excluded are the self-employed, domestic workers, and unpaid family workers. The businesses are surveyed for the number of employees, so if one person works for two (or more) different businesses, they could be counted twice. The Unemployment rate is from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which is a household survey which includes everyone (except military, those in prison, or in institutes, or under 16). So for August, the number of non-farm jobs was 131,223,000 while the total employed was 139,649,000.

For the CPS, Unemployed are those who didn't work, but actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. The Unemployed plus the Employed constitutes the Labor Force, and the Unemployment rate is Unemployed/Labor Force. So it's entirely possible for both Employed to go up (more people working) and Unemployed to go up (more people looking for work, such as graduates, and other entrants/re-entrants to the labor force), or both go down. In July, both went down...fewer people worked, and fewer people were looking for work. So the overall Labor Force went down. It's simple math that if the denominator goes down by more than the numerator, then the percentage also goes down. Remember, Unemployed does NOT mean "lost your job," it means lost your job, or quit your job, or never worked before and just starting looking or haven't worked for a while and started looking again.

Just more of Anal Ignoramus and his crazy crap that he wants you to believe. Now, some of the stuff that he posts is factual (i.e. people can work more than one job and therefore the number of unemployed and the number of jobs lost are not in identical lockstep like the old prison lines. They are close enough that there can be some logical correlations drawn therefrom.) BUT, the stuff that AI says that is real, mixed in with all the government lies does not compensate for all of the lies. Government doublespeak like that is pure and total crap when it comes out of the DOL. I have addressed this issue for over a dozen years in numerous speaking opportunities. This reporting corruption has been growing over the years. What the DOL has morphed into reporting is gibberish that has no correlation to reality, and is deliberately intended to deceive. They want you to learn to love Big Brother.

 

[pinqy]

BUT, the stuff that AI says that is real, mixed in with all the government lies does not compensate for all of the lies.

And yet you've never pointed out a single lie. You keep claiming the government lies, but you have never identified a single one.

Government doublespeak like that is pure and total crap when it comes out of the DOL. I have addressed this issue for over a dozen years in numerous speaking opportunities. This reporting corruption has been growing over the years. What the DOL has morphed into reporting is gibberish that has no correlation to reality, and is deliberately intended to deceive. They want you to learn to love Big Brother.

Specifics please. You keep complaining, but you stick to the vague. Where's the corruption? Who exactly is doing it and how? I mean, come on, you claim the entire CPS doesn't even exist because no one you've ever talked to ever mentioned that they had participated. That's weak. And nation wide figures don't match your local experience? What about the local numbers? You don't mention those much.