What are the chances Trump will tell us what the REAL unemployment number is?

[yiostheoy]

There is no way to know what the real unemployment rate is right now.

For 8 years the BHO White House would not release real data.

There is no reason to expect that the GOP Government (White House, Senate, US House) would or will do so now either.

Measured unemployment is around 4% which means employers are having a hard time finding their prime already employed candidates so they can steal them away.

In my state it is under 3%.

So there are lots of help wanted ads right now.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no way to know what the real unemployment rate is right now.

For 8 years the BHO White House would not release real data.

There is no reason to expect that the GOP Government (White House, Senate, US House) would or will do so now either.

Measured unemployment is around 4% which means employers are having a hard time finding their prime already employed candidates so they can steal them away.

In my state it is under 3%.

So there are lots of help wanted ads right now.

Who told you that BHO wouldn't/didn't release employment data? That is bunk.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Now that the BLS number is out, like the ones that for months Trump and his cult invariably claimed were doctored, rigged, faked, or something of that sort,

will Trump once again set us straight on how fake the 4.7% number is?

His real number should be what? About 39%? Based on his past 'truth telling'?

The orange job creator in chief has drained the swamp of fake statistics so from now on you can believe everything the government tells you

Looks like you just don't want murica to become great again

 

[easyt65]

Ummm, no. He is right. Obama did not report the real number, but are snowflakes suggesting unemployment has gone UP...after the biggest jobs boom in over 10 years (reportedly) in one month? Seriously?

 

[pwjohn]

The slight bump in the monthly jobs report did happen on trumps watch but he had absolutely nothing to do with it. The numbers were coming anyway b

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ummm, no. He is right. Obama did not report the real number, but are snowflakes suggesting unemployment has gone UP...after the biggest jobs boom in over 10 years (reportedly) in one month? Seriously?

Nobody said it went up, loser. It went down. It is 4.7%. That's the number we use. It's called a fact.

Now....lets hope that it doesn't go up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ummm, no. He is right. Obama did not report the real number, but are snowflakes suggesting unemployment has gone UP...after the biggest jobs boom in over 10 years (reportedly) in one month? Seriously?

First of all, presidents don't report the numbers, the BLS does. Secondly, the number that Trump is now crowing about is the same number you accuse Obama of falsely reporting.

Thirdly, Goddam you are stupid.

 

[pinqy]

Ummm, no. He is right. Obama did not report the real number, but are snowflakes suggesting unemployment has gone UP...after the biggest jobs boom in over 10 years (reportedly) in one month? Seriously?

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the BLS during the Obama administration lied about the data, but those same people now are releasing the real data, which shows no statistically significant change in unemployment?

 

[Bush92]

Now that the BLS number is out, like the ones that for months Trump and his cult invariably claimed were doctored, rigged, faked, or something of that sort,

will Trump once again set us straight on how fake the 4.7% number is?

His real number should be what? About 39%? Based on his past 'truth telling'?

We have not had "real" unemployment numbers since the 1980's when labor department added military into the whole equation. Congressman Lane Evans (D Illinois) tried to pass the "Truth in Unemployment Statistics Act" in 1983. It failed.

 

[pinqy]

Now that the BLS number is out, like the ones that for months Trump and his cult invariably claimed were doctored, rigged, faked, or something of that sort,

will Trump once again set us straight on how fake the 4.7% number is?

His real number should be what? About 39%? Based on his past 'truth telling'?

We have not had "real" unemployment numbers since the 1980's when labor department added military into the whole equation. Congressman Lane Evans (D Illinois) tried to pass the "Truth in Unemployment Statistics Act" in 1983. It failed.

The resident military population was included in the labor force from 2984 to 1994 and two official rates were published: the U5a and U5b. The U5a was generally ignored in favor of the civilian unemployment rate and the military were excluded as of the 1994 changes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Too difficult to determine who you are quoting here--it appears somebody is responding to my post but it got really messed up in there.

Yeah, I mistyped on one of the quote tags.

But no, a full time college student would not necessarily be listed among the unemployed UNLESS he/she was one of many many college students who need part time jobs to help with their expenses in college. I worked at some kind of paying job continuously when I was in college as my kids as their scholarships and our helping out always fell short of their actual needs. But between all three income sources, we were able to keep their student loans at a manageable level that they were able to pay off fairly easily once they were out of college.

Need has nothing to do with it....work activity takes precedence, so if someone is looking for work, s/he is unemployed regardless of whether or not they're students or retired. An exception would be if a student is looking for a post-student job and is looking now for a job starting in May or June. S/he would not be considered unemployed because they're not available for work now.

Nor do we count as unemployed somebody like me who could still be running my business but chose instead to fully retire and enjoy something different.

Correct...a lot of those claiming "real unemployment rate" are including people who don't want/need a job.

But I know at least a dozen people personally right now who are adults and not yet ready to retire who are not working at permanent full time jobs and want to be. None are drawing unemployment so they don't count in the official unemployment rate.

Huh? The official unemployment rate is not based on unemployment insurance benefits. If you are looking for a job and are available to start now, then you are unemployed. Doesn't matter if you've ever had or applied for benefits or if you ever had a job.

Well we'll just disagree on most of that. I myself do NOT count as unemployed as I am beyond normal working age and am retired. I don't count in the work force out of work either. The person who has exhausted his unemployment benefits and is just sitting a home sending out resumes is not counted as among the official unemployed but he/she is counted in the real unemployed. Regardless of status--unemployed but wanting work or unemployed and not looking for work he/she is counted as a working age adult who is not working.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You are counted as unemployed as long as you are 16+ age and are looking for a job (U3), U6 simply adds under-employed and discouraged workers to U3 numbers.

You can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts.

The U.3 numbers--the official unemployment rate- reflect those drawing unemployment and those actively seeking full time work through the unemployment offices in the last four weeks.. The underemployed and unemployed who have sought full time jobs in the last year but not in the last four week are rated 'discouraged' and are rolled over to the U.6 class which is larger than the official rate. And those of working age among the discouraged, the unemployed, underemployed who have been in that situation for more than one year make up the REAL unemployment rate.

In December 2014 for instance, the official unemployment rate was 5.6%. The U.6 rate was 11.2% and the real rate was 23%.

And that is not opinion. Rebut it if you can.

 

[pinqy]

Too difficult to determine who you are quoting here--it appears somebody is responding to my post but it got really messed up in there.

Yeah, I mistyped on one of the quote tags.

But no, a full time college student would not necessarily be listed among the unemployed UNLESS he/she was one of many many college students who need part time jobs to help with their expenses in college. I worked at some kind of paying job continuously when I was in college as my kids as their scholarships and our helping out always fell short of their actual needs. But between all three income sources, we were able to keep their student loans at a manageable level that they were able to pay off fairly easily once they were out of college.

Need has nothing to do with it....work activity takes precedence, so if someone is looking for work, s/he is unemployed regardless of whether or not they're students or retired. An exception would be if a student is looking for a post-student job and is looking now for a job starting in May or June. S/he would not be considered unemployed because they're not available for work now.

Nor do we count as unemployed somebody like me who could still be running my business but chose instead to fully retire and enjoy something different.

Correct...a lot of those claiming "real unemployment rate" are including people who don't want/need a job.

But I know at least a dozen people personally right now who are adults and not yet ready to retire who are not working at permanent full time jobs and want to be. None are drawing unemployment so they don't count in the official unemployment rate.

Huh? The official unemployment rate is not based on unemployment insurance benefits. If you are looking for a job and are available to start now, then you are unemployed. Doesn't matter if you've ever had or applied for benefits or if you ever had a job.

Well we'll just disagree on most of that. I myself do NOT count as unemployed as I am beyond normal working age and am retired. I don't count in the work force out of work either. The person who has exhausted his unemployment benefits and is just sitting a home sending out resumes is not counted as among the official unemployed but he/she is counted in the real unemployed. Regardless of status--unemployed but wanting work or unemployed and not looking for work he/she is counted as a working age adult who is not working.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You are counted as unemployed as long as you are 16+ age and are looking for a job (U3), U6 simply adds under-employed and discouraged workers to U3 numbers.

You can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts.

The U.3 numbers--the official unemployment rate- reflect those drawing unemployment and those actively seeking full time work through the unemployment offices in the last four weeks..

False. The Census Bureau interviews a sample of 60,000 households every month. People are classified as unemployed if they did not work the previous week but looked for work in the last four weeks and and could start work if offered.
Where'd you get that nonsense about collecting unemployment and full time work and unemployment offices.

The underemployed and unemployed who have sought full time jobs in the last year but not in the last four week are rated 'discouraged'

Also false. Those who want a job, could start work if offered, and looked for work in the last year but not the last 4 weeks are classified as Marginally Attached to the labor force. The subset who stopped looking because they believe they would be unsuccessful are classified as discouraged.

Again, full time is irrelevant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Too difficult to determine who you are quoting here--it appears somebody is responding to my post but it got really messed up in there.

Yeah, I mistyped on one of the quote tags.

But no, a full time college student would not necessarily be listed among the unemployed UNLESS he/she was one of many many college students who need part time jobs to help with their expenses in college. I worked at some kind of paying job continuously when I was in college as my kids as their scholarships and our helping out always fell short of their actual needs. But between all three income sources, we were able to keep their student loans at a manageable level that they were able to pay off fairly easily once they were out of college.

Need has nothing to do with it....work activity takes precedence, so if someone is looking for work, s/he is unemployed regardless of whether or not they're students or retired. An exception would be if a student is looking for a post-student job and is looking now for a job starting in May or June. S/he would not be considered unemployed because they're not available for work now.

Nor do we count as unemployed somebody like me who could still be running my business but chose instead to fully retire and enjoy something different.

Correct...a lot of those claiming "real unemployment rate" are including people who don't want/need a job.

But I know at least a dozen people personally right now who are adults and not yet ready to retire who are not working at permanent full time jobs and want to be. None are drawing unemployment so they don't count in the official unemployment rate.

Huh? The official unemployment rate is not based on unemployment insurance benefits. If you are looking for a job and are available to start now, then you are unemployed. Doesn't matter if you've ever had or applied for benefits or if you ever had a job.

Well we'll just disagree on most of that. I myself do NOT count as unemployed as I am beyond normal working age and am retired. I don't count in the work force out of work either. The person who has exhausted his unemployment benefits and is just sitting a home sending out resumes is not counted as among the official unemployed but he/she is counted in the real unemployed. Regardless of status--unemployed but wanting work or unemployed and not looking for work he/she is counted as a working age adult who is not working.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You are counted as unemployed as long as you are 16+ age and are looking for a job (U3), U6 simply adds under-employed and discouraged workers to U3 numbers.

You can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts.

The U.3 numbers--the official unemployment rate- reflect those drawing unemployment and those actively seeking full time work through the unemployment offices in the last four weeks..

False. The Census Bureau interviews a sample of 60,000 households every month. People are classified as unemployed if they did not work the previous week but looked for work in the last four weeks and and could start work if offered.
Where'd you get that nonsense about collecting unemployment and full time work and unemployment offices.

The underemployed and unemployed who have sought full time jobs in the last year but not in the last four week are rated 'discouraged'

Also false. Those who want a job, could start work if offered, and looked for work in the last year but not the last 4 weeks are classified as Marginally Attached to the labor force. The subset who stopped looking because they believe they would be unsuccessful are classified as discouraged.

Again, full time is irrelevant.

Whether full time is relevant or irrelevant is determined by the one holding the job. I am pretty confident that I have it right on this. You obviously have a different opinion.

And so it goes.

 

[Lakhota]

Now that the BLS number is out, like the ones that for months Trump and his cult invariably claimed were doctored, rigged, faked, or something of that sort,

will Trump once again set us straight on how fake the 4.7% number is?

His real number should be what? About 39%? Based on his past 'truth telling'?

As high as 42%.

 

[nat4900]

Now that the BLS number is out, like the ones that for months Trump and his cult invariably claimed were doctored, rigged, faked, or something of that sort,

will Trump once again set us straight on how fake the 4.7% number is?

His real number should be what? About 39%? Based on his past 'truth telling'?

Well, Trump DID help in lowering the unemployment rate by hiring those private investigators to go to Hawaii to check out Obama's BC....I mean, let's be fair here.......LOL

 

[AntonToo]

Too difficult to determine who you are quoting here--it appears somebody is responding to my post but it got really messed up in there.

Yeah, I mistyped on one of the quote tags.

But no, a full time college student would not necessarily be listed among the unemployed UNLESS he/she was one of many many college students who need part time jobs to help with their expenses in college. I worked at some kind of paying job continuously when I was in college as my kids as their scholarships and our helping out always fell short of their actual needs. But between all three income sources, we were able to keep their student loans at a manageable level that they were able to pay off fairly easily once they were out of college.

Need has nothing to do with it....work activity takes precedence, so if someone is looking for work, s/he is unemployed regardless of whether or not they're students or retired. An exception would be if a student is looking for a post-student job and is looking now for a job starting in May or June. S/he would not be considered unemployed because they're not available for work now.

Nor do we count as unemployed somebody like me who could still be running my business but chose instead to fully retire and enjoy something different.

Correct...a lot of those claiming "real unemployment rate" are including people who don't want/need a job.

But I know at least a dozen people personally right now who are adults and not yet ready to retire who are not working at permanent full time jobs and want to be. None are drawing unemployment so they don't count in the official unemployment rate.

Huh? The official unemployment rate is not based on unemployment insurance benefits. If you are looking for a job and are available to start now, then you are unemployed. Doesn't matter if you've ever had or applied for benefits or if you ever had a job.

Well we'll just disagree on most of that. I myself do NOT count as unemployed as I am beyond normal working age and am retired. I don't count in the work force out of work either. The person who has exhausted his unemployment benefits and is just sitting a home sending out resumes is not counted as among the official unemployed but he/she is counted in the real unemployed. Regardless of status--unemployed but wanting work or unemployed and not looking for work he/she is counted as a working age adult who is not working.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You are counted as unemployed as long as you are 16+ age and are looking for a job (U3), U6 simply adds under-employed and discouraged workers to U3 numbers.

You can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts.

The U.3 numbers--the official unemployment rate- reflect those drawing unemployment and those actively seeking full time work through the unemployment offices in the last four weeks.. The underemployed and unemployed who have sought full time jobs in the last year but not in the last four week are rated 'discouraged' and are rolled over to the U.6 class which is larger than the official rate. And those of working age among the discouraged, the unemployed, underemployed who have been in that situation for more than one year make up the REAL unemployment rate.

In December 2014 for instance, the official unemployment rate was 5.6%. The U.6 rate was 11.2% and the real rate was 23%.

And that is not opinion. Rebut it if you can.

Fox, you can take your alt-facts and shove them up your ass.

You are deeply misinformed and are spending your time misinforming others.

Read up, so you can stop making a total fool of yourself: How the Government Measures Unemployment

 

[pinqy]

Yeah, I mistyped on one of the quote tags.

Need has nothing to do with it....work activity takes precedence, so if someone is looking for work, s/he is unemployed regardless of whether or not they're students or retired. An exception would be if a student is looking for a post-student job and is looking now for a job starting in May or June. S/he would not be considered unemployed because they're not available for work now.

Correct...a lot of those claiming "real unemployment rate" are including people who don't want/need a job.

Huh? The official unemployment rate is not based on unemployment insurance benefits. If you are looking for a job and are available to start now, then you are unemployed. Doesn't matter if you've ever had or applied for benefits or if you ever had a job.

Well we'll just disagree on most of that. I myself do NOT count as unemployed as I am beyond normal working age and am retired. I don't count in the work force out of work either. The person who has exhausted his unemployment benefits and is just sitting a home sending out resumes is not counted as among the official unemployed but he/she is counted in the real unemployed. Regardless of status--unemployed but wanting work or unemployed and not looking for work he/she is counted as a working age adult who is not working.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

You are counted as unemployed as long as you are 16+ age and are looking for a job (U3), U6 simply adds under-employed and discouraged workers to U3 numbers.

You can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts.

The U.3 numbers--the official unemployment rate- reflect those drawing unemployment and those actively seeking full time work through the unemployment offices in the last four weeks..

False. The Census Bureau interviews a sample of 60,000 households every month. People are classified as unemployed if they did not work the previous week but looked for work in the last four weeks and and could start work if offered.
Where'd you get that nonsense about collecting unemployment and full time work and unemployment offices.

The underemployed and unemployed who have sought full time jobs in the last year but not in the last four week are rated 'discouraged'

Also false. Those who want a job, could start work if offered, and looked for work in the last year but not the last 4 weeks are classified as Marginally Attached to the labor force. The subset who stopped looking because they believe they would be unsuccessful are classified as discouraged.

Again, full time is irrelevant.

Whether full time is relevant or irrelevant is determined by the one holding the job. I am pretty confident that I have it right on this. You obviously have a different opinion.

And so it goes.

You claimed that only those looking for full time work are classified as unemployed. That is wrong: Table A-10 1.47 million unemployed who want part time jobs.

And the methodology is not a mater of opinion: https://www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#concepts[/url

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Republicans Suddenly Love The Jobs Report — After 77 Months Of Growth!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The US economy added many more jobs than expected last month Mar. 4, 2016, 8:30 AM

Data out Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that nonfarm payrolls grew by 242,000. Economists had estimated a gain of 195,000.