Unemployment Rate Down To 8.2% A Socialist Victory Underway!

[edthecynic]

LOL, I knew the liberals were jizz over this one. Yet the number went down, because the supposed unemployed NON-LOOKERS decided not to look, therefore the unemployment rate goes down.

Let me ask you this. Say you look your job (and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think your work)? Then you search and search, run out your unemployment, at that point or shortly thereafter you still haven't found a job. At that point the GOVERNMENT watchdogs say you have been looking too long now your considered a NON-LOOKER and not classified as unemployed! Since you looked so long we will essentially put you in the employed side!

Notice how since they can't use their "Gallup" rationalization any more they have to come up with an even stupider rationalization. Gallup has the unadjusted unemployment at 8.3%

Sure I can and I will bring that here!

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

Full Time Employed = 64.5%: This means that 35.5% of Americans of majority age are NOT WORKING or UNDER-EMPLOYED. 8.2%, where do these other 27.3% go? What the government says is they are not looking! True for some, such as house-wives, welfare receiptants (even though this group is supposed to be looking), college students and the legally disable. However, the goverment puts BREAD-WINNERS in this group, who are supposedly "NOT LOOKING!" What crap! These people are looking but can't find a job, get an interview or even find open positions in their field to apply for. "Legit not lookers" stated above (house-wives) might make up what 50% of the "NOT LOOKING!" The other 50% are bread-winners unemployed so long the government considers them outside the unemployment ranks for POLITICAL PURPOSES!

Faux unemployment = 8.2% - TRUE Umemployment = 8.2%+ 13.65%= 21.85%%

Notice how when even Gallup's numbers don't support their lies, CON$ervoFascists simply make up a number, 21.85% that doesn't appear in Gallup's report!!!

 

[pinqy]

Because the long time unemployed say "I haven't looked or interviewed or worked in a month" equates to NOT UNEMPLOYED and for stat purposed employed! Logic only a politician or partisan hack could love!

Not at all. People not looking for work are classified as Not in the Labor Force. Where on earth did you get they idea they were considered employed?

 

[pinqy]

Pingy, struggling actors have always taken what ever jobs they can find while they build their careers. These folks actually had careers at one time, their companies shut down or they were laid off.

Exactly my point. Write a definition for Underemployed that would include those who "careers at one time, their companies shut down or they were laid off" and are working below their skill set and exclude actors, art history majors, people with criminal records working below their skill set etc that could be reasonably used in a statistical sample survey to extrapolate to represent the whole population.

It can't be done.

 

[mascale]

Can anyone even guess the impact of the hoodies the survey takers may have been wearing(?)! BLS puts it as follows:

"The establishment payroll survey, known as the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, is based on a survey of approximately 140,000 businesses and government agencies representing approximately 410,000 worksites throughout the United States. The primary statistics derived from the survey are monthly estimates of employment, hours, and earnings for the Nation, States, and major metropolitan areas. Preliminary national estimates for a given reference month are typically released on the third Friday after the conclusion of the reference week; i.e., the week which includes the 12th of the month, in conjunction with data derived from a separate survey of households, the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is the source of statistics on the activities of the labor force, including unemployment and the Nation's unemployment rate."

So Wall Street is banking(?) on a preliminary estimate. Retail Sales soared in March, for example--people stocking up on. . .clothing and apparel. . .or something. Car sales are up. Housing is a disaster--without or without employment.

And then there was the end of basketball season(?)!

The payroll data has so far lagged behind the CPS Survey, in this recovery. Anyone can guess that for several months: That anything three weeks old had to be taken in the context of several reports over time.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(White Eyes value shiny metal more than sacred grounds of Many Nations! First they did genocide of one another, and then genocide of the lighter shaded people after that. Hmmmm!)

 

[DontBeStupid]

Actual unemployment (U6) is 14.5%
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

U6 does not measure just unemployed people.

 

[GHook93]

Notice how since they can't use their "Gallup" rationalization any more they have to come up with an even stupider rationalization. Gallup has the unadjusted unemployment at 8.3%

Sure I can and I will bring that here!

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

Full Time Employed = 64.5%: This means that 35.5% of Americans of majority age are NOT WORKING or UNDER-EMPLOYED. 8.2%, where do these other 27.3% go? What the government says is they are not looking! True for some, such as house-wives, welfare receiptants (even though this group is supposed to be looking), college students and the legally disable. However, the goverment puts BREAD-WINNERS in this group, who are supposedly "NOT LOOKING!" What crap! These people are looking but can't find a job, get an interview or even find open positions in their field to apply for. "Legit not lookers" stated above (house-wives) might make up what 50% of the "NOT LOOKING!" The other 50% are bread-winners unemployed so long the government considers them outside the unemployment ranks for POLITICAL PURPOSES!

Faux unemployment = 8.2% - TRUE Umemployment = 8.2%+ 13.65%= 21.85%%

Notice how when even Gallup's numbers don't support their lies, CON$ervoFascists simply make up a number, 21.85% that doesn't appear in Gallup's report!!!

I understand you don't understand. What I am saying is the official faux unemployment for some reason doesn't think it's important to include the longtime unemployed in their unemployment numbers. I actually think they are the MOST important ones to list!

If 64.5% of the adult population is considered Full Time Employed, then that makes 35.5% of the adult population NOT working or employed. Yet the "OFFICIAL" number listed by the government is 8.2%! Their rationale: There is a segment of the adult population not looking for a job, so they don't count as unemployed!

Now I will admit (AND HAVE ADMITTED IN EACH POST I POSTED ON THE SUBJECT) there are legitimate non-lookers that shouldn't be in the unemployment numbers, such as: (1) House Wives, (2) College Students and (3) Legally Disabled! Fine, take these people out of the number. However, there is still a LARGE portion of the "NOT-LOOKING" category who are bread-winners unable to find a job and are the long-time unemployed! For Political reasons, the government thinks these people should be removed from the unemployment number (and under-employment for that matter) and hence be considered employed. RATIONAL people would say these are the hardest hit unemployed people and should DEFINITELY be in the UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER.

So here is how I came to the calculate:
(1) STEP ONE: Full-Time Workers = 64.5%! Take the total adult population 100% subtract by FTW 64.5% = 35.5% of adults not working
(2) STEP TWO: Estimate that number that are Bread-Winners Longtime Unemployed vs Legit Non-lookers (like house wives) from that total. I estimated liberally at 50/50, but if you want to go more liberal then say 60% are legit and 40% breadwinners. Then take 40% of 35.5 and you get 14.2%.
(3) STEP THREE: Then take the 14.2% of the Bread-winner long-term unemployment add it to the 8.2% Faux Official number any you get 22.4% TRUE UNEMPLOYMENT!!!

It's not rocket science!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actual unemployment (U6) is 14.5%
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

U6 does not measure just unemployed people.

U-6 fell much more than did the official rate, once again putting the lie to all the claims that UE is falling because more and more people are giving up looking for work.

 

[GHook93]

Because the long time unemployed say "I haven't looked or interviewed or worked in a month" equates to NOT UNEMPLOYED and for stat purposed employed! Logic only a politician or partisan hack could love!

Not at all. People not looking for work are classified as Not in the Labor Force. Where on earth did you get they idea they were considered employed?

Not in the Labor Force removes them from the unemployment number so the unemployment number goes down. That is the EQUIVALENT of these longtime unemployed workers be classified as EMPLOYED! Of course in reality they aren't employed and many are struggling so bad it's insulting to them that they just systematically get removed from the labor stats!

If the tiny number of 120K found jobs this month, but so many of the longtime unemployed were unemployed for so long they were considered NOT LOOKING and removed for the labor force, there for the unemployment number went down, the effect is the government is not labeling them as EMPLOYED!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actual unemployment (U6) is 14.5%
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

....5 million fewer jobs than 2007.

Obama in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama

That's an interesting number.

We lost 6 million jobs from December 2007 to May of 2009.

How much of that can you blame on Obama policies?

Obama in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama

It's 'fixed'.

GDP is positive, from having been negative when he took office.

Unemployment is falling, from having been rising when he took office.

Job creation is net positive, from being net negative when he took office.

To analogize, the economy has gone from a patient whose health was steadily deteriorating to a patient whose condition has turned around and is steadily on the mend.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's easy.

Increasing unemployment benefits, raising the minimum-wage, instituting a moratorium on drilling off of our coasts, attacking non-union businesses with lawsuits, etc.

It would be much harder to prove that Obama had anything to do with increased productivity or decreased unemployment.

That's funny. Cite the bills and cite the numbers as to how many jobs were lost because of them and then cite the sources that prove the job losses.

And you do this when challenged.... when?

Why expect compliance to a tighter standard from someone else for something you won't do?

I'm not the one making the claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's easy.

Increasing unemployment benefits, raising the minimum-wage, instituting a moratorium on drilling off of our coasts, attacking non-union businesses with lawsuits, etc.

It would be much harder to prove that Obama had anything to do with increased productivity or decreased unemployment.

That's funny. Cite the bills and cite the numbers as to how many jobs were lost because of them and then cite the sources that prove the job losses.

**** you. You're trying to oversimplify this. Jobs are created or lost according to the economy and all economies are local. Employers are always trying to figure out the bottom-line and the first cost-cutting measure is the work-force. If their overhead becomes too great because of outside influences they start cutting their workers. If wages go up too much or expenses go up too much they cut back or relocate.

I think maybe you need to take a course on economics.

To wit.....Obama has control over regulations. He also has the Department of Justice to enforce his radical agenda. And let's not forget the biggest impediment to expansion.....the EPA and the IRS. But the Dems greased the skids for this long ago when they took over Congress in 07'. Some of it began even before that when they used threats of racism to badger the GOP into allowing an annual increase in the minimum-wage.

The Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

Just name the bills they passed that brought on the recession.

 

[DontBeStupid]

That's funny. Cite the bills and cite the numbers as to how many jobs were lost because of them and then cite the sources that prove the job losses.

**** you. You're trying to oversimplify this. Jobs are created or lost according to the economy and all economies are local. Employers are always trying to figure out the bottom-line and the first cost-cutting measure is the work-force. If their overhead becomes too great because of outside influences they start cutting their workers. If wages go up too much or expenses go up too much they cut back or relocate.

I think maybe you need to take a course on economics.

To wit.....Obama has control over regulations. He also has the Department of Justice to enforce his radical agenda. And let's not forget the biggest impediment to expansion.....the EPA and the IRS. But the Dems greased the skids for this long ago when they took over Congress in 07'. Some of it began even before that when they used threats of racism to badger the GOP into allowing an annual increase in the minimum-wage.

The Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

Just name the bills they passed that brought on the recession.

How do you think he'll feel when I point out housing prices started their decline in early 2006?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only a democrat would recognize 88 million people out of work, a miniscule 120,000 New jobs added, and still think the real unemployment rate is 8.2.

Ok, let's look at those 88 million people:
21,824,000 are 65 years and older, without any disability
22,487,000 are disabled (16 years and older)
11,669,000 are between 16 and 19 years old.
That's most of them taken care of right there.

Next, of those 88 million, they were asked if they wanted a job. 6.3 million said yes (down 79,000 from February).
Those were then asked if they could have accepted a job if offered and if they had looked for work in the last year. 2.4 million said yes to both (down from 2.6 million in Feb)
Those 2.4 million were then asked WHY they stopped looking. 865,000 said it was because they didn't think they'd find a job (down from 1 million in Feb)

So tell me again how dire that 88 million is.

Hey comon now, not working because you're retired?? That is way too complex a concept for KatzDogz to digest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

**** you. You're trying to oversimplify this. Jobs are created or lost according to the economy and all economies are local. Employers are always trying to figure out the bottom-line and the first cost-cutting measure is the work-force. If their overhead becomes too great because of outside influences they start cutting their workers. If wages go up too much or expenses go up too much they cut back or relocate.

I think maybe you need to take a course on economics.

To wit.....Obama has control over regulations. He also has the Department of Justice to enforce his radical agenda. And let's not forget the biggest impediment to expansion.....the EPA and the IRS. But the Dems greased the skids for this long ago when they took over Congress in 07'. Some of it began even before that when they used threats of racism to badger the GOP into allowing an annual increase in the minimum-wage.

The Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

Just name the bills they passed that brought on the recession.

How do you think he'll feel when I point out housing prices started their decline in early 2006?

It is written in the Big Book of Rightwing Mythology, which every conservative is duty bound to believe and repeat as Gospel,

so good luck with that.

 

[mascale]

The foreclosure crisis is first described in Matthew 25::14-30, KJV and Catholic Editions. The low-income market got roundly cast out. Like Lehman, the householder should have been enriched 8 Talents of Siliver, but only got the enirchment of the seven--And so was left short of any promises made.

The first-ever attempt at national cost-of-living adjustment had been in the IRS Tax Reform of 1986. Those were the raised and indexed standard deduction and personal exemptions. Since it was applied in the tax code only, then what it did was to throw 40% of income tax filers off the rolls, aided by the equal amount credits provided by the Clintoneers.

Admittedly, millions had trouble with even the colored mouse, a long time ago.

So the Ivy League, as usual, didn't work. That was in addtion to what they already didn't do. The two tax cuts went to the top 60% and the two phony wars found no terrorists.

The Make Work Pay, Obama-Biden Refundable Tax credit--then became the real lower income market pump-primer stimulus. Instead of creating a tax base, the state and local teachers and bureaucrats--kept the money all to themselve. Justice is poetic, so now they are getting laid off, and are more than the usual drag on the economy. The $400.00 tax credit refund, notice, was payable like in Matthew 20:1-16, regardless if the people had worked all the year or not.

The Ivy League is only of recent times: Looking at the economy--if at all--from a more proper framework: Like in The Free Venice Beachhead(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations know about jobs at many drinking establishments!)

 

[pinqy]

Because the long time unemployed say "I haven't looked or interviewed or worked in a month" equates to NOT UNEMPLOYED and for stat purposed employed! Logic only a politician or partisan hack could love!

Not at all. People not looking for work are classified as Not in the Labor Force. Where on earth did you get they idea they were considered employed?

Not in the Labor Force removes them from the unemployment number so the unemployment number goes down. That is the EQUIVALENT of these longtime unemployed workers be classified as EMPLOYED!

How on earth do you get that? It's not equivalent at all. Again, the UE rate formula is Unemployed / (employed + unemployed) So there's a huge difference between classifiying someone as not in the labor force and classifying them as employed. And what would you say about people who go from Employed to Not in the Labor Force?

Of course in reality they aren't employed and many are struggling so bad it's insulting to them that they just systematically get removed from the labor stats!

The only people who are removed from the labor stats are those who leave the population.

If the tiny number of 120K found jobs this month, but so many of the longtime unemployed were unemployed for so long they were considered NOT LOOKING and removed for the labor force, there for the unemployment number went down, the effect is the government is not labeling them as EMPLOYED!

Again...THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN UNEMPLOYED. THERE'S NO SUCH THINGS AS "CONSIDERED NOT LOOKING," SOMEONE EITHER IS OR IS NOT LOOKING.

And again: THERE ARE THREE, NOT TWO CATEGORIES. Looking at the Labor Force Flows, from Feb to March: 2,102,000 went from Employed to Uneployed, 3,779,000 went from Employed to Not in the Labor Force (not looking) and 24,000 left the population (died, emmigrated, joined the military, went to jail or other institution).

Are you going to say they're the equivalent of Employed as well?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The foreclosure crisis is first described in Matthew 25::14-30, KJV and Catholic Editions. The low-income market got roundly cast out. Like Lehman, the householder should have been enriched 8 Talents of Siliver, but only got the enirchment of the seven--And so was left short of any promises made.

The first-ever attempt at national cost-of-living adjustment had been in the IRS Tax Reform of 1986. Those were the raised and indexed standard deduction and personal exemptions. Since it was applied in the tax code only, then what it did was to throw 40% of income tax filers off the rolls, aided by the equal amount credits provided by the Clintoneers.

Admittedly, millions had trouble with even the colored mouse, a long time ago.

So the Ivy League, as usual, didn't work. That was in addtion to what they already didn't do. The two tax cuts went to the top 60% and the two phony wars found no terrorists.

The Make Work Pay, Obama-Biden Refundable Tax credit--then became the real lower income market pump-primer stimulus. Instead of creating a tax base, the state and local teachers and bureaucrats--kept the money all to themselve. Justice is poetic, so now they are getting laid off, and are more than the usual drag on the economy. The $400.00 tax credit refund, notice, was payable like in Matthew 20:1-16, regardless if the people had worked all the year or not.

The Ivy League is only of recent times: Looking at the economy--if at all--from a more proper framework: Like in The Free Venice Beachhead(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations know about jobs at many drinking establishments!)

"So the Ivy League, as usual, didn't work."

" I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University."
Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's an interesting number.

We lost 6 million jobs from December 2007 to May of 2009.

How much of that can you blame on Obama policies?

Obama in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama

It's 'fixed'.

GDP is positive, from having been negative when he took office.

Unemployment is falling, from having been rising when he took office.

Job creation is net positive, from being net negative when he took office.

To analogize, the economy has gone from a patient whose health was steadily deteriorating to a patient whose condition has turned around and is steadily on the mend.

Since no one can be this ignorant....you must be doing your usual prevarication.
Of course, no one....not anyone...believes one with said reputation.


The Obama budget balances the federal budget.........never. Never.

Obama adds double the debt that the Ryan budget does over the next ten years. Double.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1333738984-MezTahqS4TnpyTHTpnmg+g

 

[DontBeStupid]

Obama in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama

It's 'fixed'.

GDP is positive, from having been negative when he took office.

Unemployment is falling, from having been rising when he took office.

Job creation is net positive, from being net negative when he took office.

To analogize, the economy has gone from a patient whose health was steadily deteriorating to a patient whose condition has turned around and is steadily on the mend.

Since no one can be this ignorant....you must be doing your usual prevarication.
Of course, no one....not anyone...believes one with said reputation.


The Obama budget balances the federal budget.........never. Never.

Obama adds double the debt that the Ryan budget does over the next ten years. Double.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1333738984-MezTahqS4TnpyTHTpnmg+g

So?

 

[edthecynic]

Sure I can and I will bring that here!

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

Full Time Employed = 64.5%: This means that 35.5% of Americans of majority age are NOT WORKING or UNDER-EMPLOYED. 8.2%, where do these other 27.3% go? What the government says is they are not looking! True for some, such as house-wives, welfare receiptants (even though this group is supposed to be looking), college students and the legally disable. However, the goverment puts BREAD-WINNERS in this group, who are supposedly "NOT LOOKING!" What crap! These people are looking but can't find a job, get an interview or even find open positions in their field to apply for. "Legit not lookers" stated above (house-wives) might make up what 50% of the "NOT LOOKING!" The other 50% are bread-winners unemployed so long the government considers them outside the unemployment ranks for POLITICAL PURPOSES!

Faux unemployment = 8.2% - TRUE Umemployment = 8.2%+ 13.65%= 21.85%%

Notice how when even Gallup's numbers don't support their lies, CON$ervoFascists simply make up a number, 21.85% that doesn't appear in Gallup's report!!!

I understand you don't understand. What I am saying is the official faux unemployment for some reason doesn't think it's important to include the longtime unemployed in their unemployment numbers. I actually think they are the MOST important ones to list!

If 64.5% of the adult population is considered Full Time Employed, then that makes 35.5% of the adult population NOT working or employed. Yet the "OFFICIAL" number listed by the government is 8.2%! Their rationale: There is a segment of the adult population not looking for a job, so they don't count as unemployed!

Now I will admit (AND HAVE ADMITTED IN EACH POST I POSTED ON THE SUBJECT) there are legitimate non-lookers that shouldn't be in the unemployment numbers, such as: (1) House Wives, (2) College Students and (3) Legally Disabled! Fine, take these people out of the number. However, there is still a LARGE portion of the "NOT-LOOKING" category who are bread-winners unable to find a job and are the long-time unemployed! For Political reasons, the government thinks these people should be removed from the unemployment number (and under-employment for that matter) and hence be considered employed. RATIONAL people would say these are the hardest hit unemployed people and should DEFINITELY be in the UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER.

So here is how I came to the calculate:
(1) STEP ONE: Full-Time Workers = 64.5%! Take the total adult population 100% subtract by FTW 64.5% = 35.5% of adults not working
(2) STEP TWO: Estimate that number that are Bread-Winners Longtime Unemployed vs Legit Non-lookers (like house wives) from that total. I estimated liberally at 50/50, but if you want to go more liberal then say 60% are legit and 40% breadwinners. Then take 40% of 35.5 and you get 14.2%.
(3) STEP THREE: Then take the 14.2% of the Bread-winner long-term unemployment add it to the 8.2% Faux Official number any you get 22.4% TRUE UNEMPLOYMENT!!!

It's not rocket science!

It's not rocket science because it is pure BULLSHIT!!!!!

And by "estimate" you mean "fabricate." I "estimate" 8.2% because you dishonestly left out the largest number of non-working adults RETIREES!!!!! I "estimate" retirees equal within 8.2% of the sum of the three groups you counted combined. BTW, as of Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired adult workers collecting SS with over 100,000 Boomers retiring each month, so we probably are at 36 million today.

In any case, YOUR "estimate" has nothing to do with Gallup so your original post is a lie from the get go.

Quote: Originally Posted by GHook93

Quote: Originally Posted by edthecynic
Notice how since they can't use their "Gallup" rationalization any more they have to come up with an even stupider rationalization. Gallup has the unadjusted unemployment at 8.3%

Sure I can and I will bring that here!

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment