Unemployment rate?

[Guest]

CBS News stated that 11 million people (not included in the unemployment rate of 8.3%) are either under-employed or got so discouraged that "they dropped out of the job market." Dropped out???

Why won't they just say that "11 million people are no longer counted because they've lost their unemployment benefits and still can't find a job?" The truth.

This brings the unemployment rate up to about 10% intstead of 8.3%. And this is a good number?? 10%???

Jobs numbers give Obama reason to smile - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57371250-503544/jobs-numbers-give-obama-reason-to-smile/)

[Guest]

That is how to do it. If the statistics don't show what you want to show - make up your own statistics.

[Guest]

And the stock market didn't really close at 12,862 yesterday, highest since May 2008.

[Guest]

That is how to do it. If the statistics don't show what you want to show - make up your own statistics.

Did you watch the link that I provided???:ohdear:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57371250-503544/jobs-numbers-give-obama-reason-to-smile/

And the stock market didn't really close at 12,862 yesterday, highest since May 2008.

And was I talking about the stock market?

[Guest]

Political manipulation of national statistics by either party may providing talking points for their political campaigns but does little in effecting sound solutions. Ask any lawyer and he will tell you that juries can pretty much tolerate most misgivings concerning a witness but they can't and won't tolerate or forgive a liar for obvious reasons. This primrose path politicians are leading us all on is creating a quagmire for American stability.

I for one have expressed, in writing, my anger and disappointment everytime a politician is caught in a lie.

[Guest]

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low


"http://www.prisonplanet.com/record-1-2-million-people-fall-out-of-labor-force-in-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-to-fresh-30-year-low.html"

[Guest]

Republicans just hate good news. Virtually every economist on the planet said Friday's numbers were a very positive employment report from almost any angle. The unemployment rate has fallen five months in a row, the first time that has happened since 1994. Of course you probably didn't hear that on Fox News or in The Villages Daily Sun or from the republican leadership in the house.

Because of optimism about the economy, the jobs report triggered a spasm of buying on Wall Street.

We can only imagine how much lower the unemployment rate would be if the republican house would pass President Obama's jobs bill.

[Guest]

Republicans just hate good news. Virtually every economist on the planet said Friday's numbers were a very positive employment report from almost any angle. The unemployment rate has fallen five months in a row, the first time that has happened since 1994. Of course you probably didn't hear that on Fox News or in The Villages Daily Sun or from the republican leadership in the house.

Because of optimism about the economy, the jobs report triggered a spasm of buying on Wall Street.

We can only imagine how much lower the unemployment rate would be if the republican house would pass President Obama's jobs bill.

janmcn: "Republicans just hate good news"....No Republicans, in fact most reasonable people must prefer factual and supportable data. It has become commonplace/habitual for Obama and his Administration to promulgate misinformation. The simple fact is that so many good people have totally given up looking for employment that they have been removed from the unemployment statistics. Further if the economy does not begin to rebound some of these folks whol have been out of work for so long will have lost their sellable skills...and unfortunately it goes downward from there.

Finally not wanting to appear selfish. I want Obama to succed because my life savings are bing hammered and the less risky investments CD, etc don't pay interest because the Fed has mis-manipulated monetary policy much too long. The "average Joe" is taking a licking and we won't be able to keep on ticking much longer

[Guest]

janmcn: "Republicans just hate good news"....No Republicans, in fact most reasonable people must prefer factual and supportable data. It has become commonplace/habitual for Obama and his Administration to promulgate misinformation. The simple fact is that so many good people have totally given up looking for employment that they have been removed from the unemployment statistics. Further if the economy does not begin to rebound some of these folks whol have been out of work for so long will have lost their sellable skills...and unfortunately it goes downward from there.

Finally not wanting to appear selfish. I want Obama to succed because my life savings are bing hammered and the less risky investments CD, etc don't pay interest because the Fed has mis-manipulated monetary policy much too long. The "average Joe" is taking a licking and we won't be able to keep on ticking much longer

You don't call the Labor Department a purveyor of factual and supportable data? Did it ever occur to you that many of the long term unemployed have succombed to starvation since republicans refuse to extend unemployment benefits? Since when did republicans ever worry about the long term unemployed?

The stock market has gone from 8000 in 2009 to 12,862 yesterday. I can't comment on the Fed. I'm not an economist.

[Guest]

You don't call the Labor Department a purveyor of factual and supportable data? Did it ever occur to you that many of the long term unemployed have succombed to starvation since republicans refuse to extend unemployment benefits? Since when did republicans ever worry about the long term unemployed?

The stock market has gone from 8000 in 2009 to 12,862 yesterday. I can't comment on the Fed. I'm not an economist.

You are right on the DOL and in fact can extend that same criticism to many other government agencies.

However, from my point of view republicans are very concerned about unemployment as the paramount creatorrs of jobs they are very interested in staffing their business with quality and suficient number of employees to ensure the success of their ventures. Whereas Democrats have historical increased the welfare state since the FDR days Johnsson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.....I opine you decide

[Guest]

Did it ever occur to you that many of the long term unemployed have succombed to starvation since republicans refuse to extend unemployment benefits?

Ummm...aren't you talking about the exact same group of people that I was referring to in my original post?

The long-term unemployed people who are no longer eligible to collect unemployment so they are not counted in the unemployment statisitics?

The same group of people that the Buggy one claimed that I was "making up statistics on"?

Former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao says, “Real Unemployment Numbers Are Double. All of us have friends or family members who have been unemployed so long they don’t show up on the government indicators. Those only track NEW unemployment claims."

[Guest]

janmcn: "Republicans just hate good news"....No Republicans, in fact most reasonable people must prefer factual and supportable data. It has become commonplace/habitual for Obama and his Administration to promulgate misinformation. The simple fact is that so many good people have totally given up looking for employment that they have been removed from the unemployment statistics. Further if the economy does not begin to rebound some of these folks whol have been out of work for so long will have lost their sellable skills...and unfortunately it goes downward from there.

Finally not wanting to appear selfish. I want Obama to succed because my life savings are bing hammered and the less risky investments CD, etc don't pay interest because the Fed has mis-manipulated monetary policy much too long. The "average Joe" is taking a licking and we won't be able to keep on ticking much longer


Wow! If your life savings are being hammered as badly as you suggest try one of the following:

1) Fire your investment manager and hire one who knows what he's doing

2) If you are managing your own investments, stop immediately and hire someone who knows what he/she is doing.

[Guest]

Did it ever occur to you that many of the long term unemployed have succombed to starvation since republicans refuse to extend unemployment benefits?

Ummm...aren't you talking about the exact same group of people that I was referring to in my original post?

The long-term unemployed people who are no longer eligible to collect unemployment so they are not counted in the unemployment statisitics?

The same group of people that the Buggy one claimed that I was "making up statistics on"?

Former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao says, “Real Unemployment Numbers Are Double. All of us have friends or family members who have been unemployed so long they don’t show up on the government indicators. Those only track NEW unemployment claims."

Hunger the third rail in the entitlement debate. Few candidates Democrat, Republican or Indepndent would even question this conventional wisdom on this particular issue because that would make them look indifferent .............

The US government spends close to $1 trillion a year providing cash, food housing medical care and services to the poor or near poor. Of that amount $111 billion is spent on food in federal and state programs. yet despite spending stories of rampart hunger persist.. In a published report last September by the Heritage Foundation researchers Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield ....found that according to the Census Bureau data for 2009 (the most recent statistics available) of the almost 50 million Americans classified as poor 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty -three percent of poor families reported having enough to eat and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at anytime during 2009 due to lack of food or money

The Myth of Starving Americans by Warren Kozak, author WSJ Monday 1/30/12

[Guest]

[quote=ceejay;448844]

Hunger the third rail in the entitlement debate. Few candidates Democrat, Republican or Indepndent would even question this conventional wisdom on this particular issue because that would make them look indifferent .............

The US government spends close to $1 trillion a year providing cash, food housing medical care and services to the poor or near poor. Of that amount $111 billion is spent on food in federal and state programs. yet despite spending stories of rampart hunger persist.. In a published report last September by the Heritage Foundation researchers Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield ....found that according to the Census Bureau data for 2009 (the most recent statistics available) of the almost 50 million Americans classified as poor 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty -three percent of poor families reported having enough to eat and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at anytime during 2009 due to lack of food or money

The Myth of Starving Americans by Warren Kozak, author WSJ Monday 1/30/12

Truthfully, Rubicon...I didn't take the "succombing to starvation" literally.

My thoughts are just about the actual number of unemployed in our country and how inaccurate the reporting is.

[Guest]

I certainly can tell what the talking points were on Fox News today; Don't give President Obama any credit at all; keep talking about the poor long term unemployed. The republicans haven't given a fig about the long term unemployed for the last three years, but suddenly they've turned into bleeding heart liberals shedding crocodile tears for the long term unemployed. Where were they when it came time to extend long term unemployment benefits?

[Guest]

I certainly can tell what the talking points were on Fox News today; Don't give President Obama any credit at all; keep talking about the poor long term unemployed. The republicans haven't given a fig about the long term unemployed for the last three years, but suddenly they've turned into bleeding heart liberals shedding crocodile tears for the long term unemployed. Where were they when it came time to extend long term unemployment benefits?

Excuse me...the link that I provided in my original post came from CBS News.

I would just like to hear accurate reporting from all sides. If you're going to report statistics, report the truth.

What is the actual number of ALL the unemployed in our nation including all the new filers, the present filers and past filers who are still not employed?

We know d**n well that it is much greater than 8.3-8.5%.

[Guest]

It does seem to me that to some of you anything that does not support the republican mantra is not factual,not supportive and based on misinformation. It is really too bad that your thinking is so narrow-minded and so predictable that it is very hard to take you serious.

[Guest]

Excuse me...the link that I provided in my original post came from CBS News.

I would just like to hear accurate reporting from all sides. If you're going to report statistics, report the truth.

What is the actual number of ALL the unemployed in our nation including all the new filers, the present filers and past filers who are still not employed?

We know d**n well that it is much greater than 8.3-8.5%.

You know what would help all the new filers, the present filers, and the past filers??? - the republican leadership in the house allowing an up or down vote on President Obama's Jobs Bill.

And the statistics I report are from the Department of Labor.

[Guest]

It does seem to me that to some of you anything that does not support the republican mantra is not factual,not supportive and based on misinformation. It is really too bad that your thinking is so narrow-minded and so predictable that it is very hard to take you serious.

Listen...I am not bashing Obama...I am not bashing the democrats.

I am not narrow-minded and I certainly am not predictable.

I would just like to know the accurate percentage of unemployed in the United States.

I could care less if you take me seriously.

I just want to hear the truth.

[Guest]

As I said before, if the statistics do not come up with the results you want - make up your own statistics.

Unemployment went down to 8.3. Not a large drop but still down.

[Guest]

And the statistics I report are from the Department of Labor.

I have read through your posts on this particular thread twice...and I haven't seen any statistics that you have posted from the Department of Labor.

Could you please steer me to that statistical post?

[Guest]

As I said before, if the statistics do not come up with the results you want - make up your own statistics.

Unemployment went down to 8.3. Not a large drop but still down.

Yes, Buggy one, you have said that before.

Can you please tell me which statistic I made up?

[Guest]

"U6" is the statistic that includes long-term unemployed.

If you want to see a chart of how U6 has been going:

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)

[Guest]

I have read through your posts on this particular thread twice...and I haven't seen any statistics that you have posted from the Department of Labor.

Could you please steer me to that statistical post?

From the front page of today's newspaper; Unemployment Rate 8.3 percent, 243,000 Jobs added in January; 12,862.23 Dow Jones close on Friday, its highest since May 2008; 12.8 million Unemployed Americans

The article also went on to say "The unemployment rate came down by two notches from December. It has fallen five months in a row, the first time that has happened since 1994, two economic booms and two recessions ago".

As much as I would like to continue, I have to sign off and get ready to watch the caucus results.

[Guest]

"U6" is the statistic that includes long-term unemployed.

If you want to see a chart of how U6 has been going:

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)Here's an even better chart! (http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1328283090)

Source Page: Alternate Unemployment Charts (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts)

[Guest]

Thank you djplong and skyguy. I am not very computer savvy and you knew exactly where to look. I appreciate your efforts very much. :bigbow:


Sooo...if I am reading the charts correctly...the unemployment rate which includes practically everybody is 15.1%. Correct? And it is dropping, which is a very, very good thing.

That's all I was really interested in.

Buggy one, Jan and Wayne...I really do hope that you have a chance to look at the charts. Very interesting reading!

[Guest]

"U6" is the statistic that includes long-term unemployed.

If you want to see a chart of how U6 has been going:

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)

Here's an even better chart! (http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1328283090)

Source Page: Alternate Unemployment Charts (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts)

How about this chart that shows that a record 1.2 MILLION people fell out of the labor force in one month. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the Bureau of Labor & Statistics is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. That should bolster Obama's dog and pony act of increased employment.

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-)

[Guest]

Richie does have a great sense of humor. 63% unemployment in the US? Why not count in all the retired people, people under 18 years old, federal employees, state employees, union workers, community activitists, and social workers to make it up to over 70%?

[Guest]

:agree:Republicans just hate good news. Virtually every economist on the planet said Friday's numbers were a very positive employment report from almost any angle. The unemployment rate has fallen five months in a row, the first time that has happened since 1994. Of course you probably didn't hear that on Fox News or in The Villages Daily Sun or from the republican leadership in the house.

Because of optimism about the economy, the jobs report triggered a spasm of buying on Wall Street.

We can only imagine how much lower the unemployment rate would be if the republican house would pass President Obama's jobs bill.
:agree:

[Guest]

the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7%


Richie does have a great sense of humor. 63% unemployment in the US?I trust you misread Richie's statement :ohdear:!

[Guest]

I trust you misread Richie's statement :ohdear:!

It wouldn't be the first time that my friend Buggy didn't know what he was talking about. Defend Obama first, ask questions later.

I'd be willing to wager much that he never looked at the link.

[Guest]

Republicans just hate good news. Virtually every economist on the planet said Friday's numbers were a very positive employment report from almost any angle. The unemployment rate has fallen five months in a row, the first time that has happened since 1994. Of course you probably didn't hear that on Fox News or in The Villages Daily Sun or from the republican leadership in the house.

Because of optimism about the economy, the jobs report triggered a spasm of buying on Wall Street.

We can only imagine how much lower the unemployment rate would be if the republican house would pass President Obama's jobs bill.


Really??????; VIRTUALLY every economist on the planet??????? Wow, where do you get your info? EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIST?????.......WOW!!

[Guest]

Really??????; VIRTUALLY every economist on the planet??????? Wow, where do you get your info? EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIST?????.......WOW!!

And what factual source would you point to to refute the statement? Why can't you understand that good news can happen, even if it doesn't march to the tune of the candidates who cringe at the fear of good news!

[Guest]

And what factual source would you point to to refute the statement? By what authority do you believe it's OK to change "virtually" to "every single"? Why can't you understand that good news can happen, even if it doesn't march to the tune of those who cringe at the fear of it!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest]

[quote=ceejay;448844]

Hunger the third rail in the entitlement debate. Few candidates Democrat, Republican or Indepndent would even question this conventional wisdom on this particular issue because that would make them look indifferent .............

The US government spends close to $1 trillion a year providing cash, food housing medical care and services to the poor or near poor. Of that amount $111 billion is spent on food in federal and state programs. yet despite spending stories of rampart hunger persist.. In a published report last September by the Heritage Foundation researchers Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield ....found that according to the Census Bureau data for 2009 (the most recent statistics available) of the almost 50 million Americans classified as poor 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty -three percent of poor families reported having enough to eat and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at anytime during 2009 due to lack of food or money

The Myth of Starving Americans by Warren Kozak, author WSJ Monday 1/30/12

If this is true why are there so many soup kitchens and food pantrys in the local area? My village, including myself, gives to a misson that helps the Ocala forest people.

Just look outside the bubble......

[Guest]

Wow! If your life savings are being hammered as badly as you suggest try one of the following:

1) Fire your investment manager and hire one who knows what he's doing

2) If you are managing your own investments, stop immediately and hire someone who knows what he/she is doing.

Mtr. Mark: Actually my portofolio earned well this past year. However, it still hasn't return to its highest level since Obama took the reins and the Fed continues to manipulate the wrong monetary policy. We need a pro growth administration. Many retirees are running out of time. I am one of those individuals that wants to leave as much of my inheritance to my kids

So perhaps you view what the market can return is different than mine And, perhaps its in how we view beta risk

[Guest]

[quote=rubicon;448864]

Truthfully, Rubicon...I didn't take the "succombing to starvation" literally.

My thoughts are just about the actual number of unemployed in our country and how inaccurate the reporting is.

ceejay: I actually agree with what you said. I failed to make clear that my posting of these stats does dispel the myth of starving people on the one hand and the movement toward more of a welfare state on the other. You are correct in that we need to get people back to work and many of these folks want to return to caring for themselves.

These stats also speak volumes about how being poor in America is so different to many other nations where people are literally starving to death.

Above all we need a pro-growth pro energy Administration and Congress

Personal Best Regards

[Guest]

Once again the 99%/1% phenomenon is present. Fully 99% of Americans are unemployed and only 1% are. How's that Repubs? Now you can say even Obama's jobs bill won't help. We are doomed. Who's going to take America back? And who the hell took it in the first place?:a040:

[Guest]

Mtr. Mark: Actually my portofolio earned well this past year. However, it still hasn't return to its highest level since Obama took the reins and the Fed continues to manipulate the wrong monetary policy. We need a pro growth administration. Many retirees are running out of time. I am one of those individuals that wants to leave as much of my inheritance to my kids

So perhaps you view what the market can return is different than mine And, perhaps its in how we view beta risk

Might want to check your facts. Portfolios, yours mine and everyone else went to hell in 2008. Believe Obama took the oath of office on 1/20/2009. Not real sure, but wouldn't that have made GWB the president of record when your portfolio went to hell in a hand basket?

[Guest]

And what factual source would you point to to refute the statement? Why can't you understand that good news can happen, even if it doesn't march to the tune of the candidates who cringe at the fear of good news!

I don't need factual sources to tell me that "virtually every economist" hasn't thought Obama's actions resulted in great employment recovery to refute Jan's post. I only need to be able to reason and understand the language.

[Guest]

I wish both parties would stop spending 40% more than we bring in. Then we would really see what a mess this country is in.

[Guest]

Once again the 99%/1% phenomenon is present. Fully 99% of Americans are unemployed and only 1% are. How's that Repubs? Now you can say even Obama's jobs bill won't help. We are doomed. Who's going to take America back? And who the hell took it in the first place?:a040:

I wonder if The Buggy One will come back and accuse you of making up statistics because you don't believe the actual numbers.:a040:

[Guest]

I wonder if The Buggy One will come back and accuse you of making up statistics because you don't believe the actual numbers.:a040:

Ya know if I looked as hard as the right-wingers did I could probably find a link that would support what I posted. And some of them would believe it. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

Ya know if I looked as hard as the right-wingers did I could probably find a link that would support what I posted. And some of them would believe it. :icon_wink:

Ummm...this link was posted by djplong. I think he would be very insulted if you were to call him a "right-winger".

"U6" is the statistic that includes long-term unemployed.

If you want to see a chart of how U6 has been going:

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

Do you even READ the previous posts before you make one of your inane comments? Just wonderin'....:icon_wink:

[Guest]

Ummm...this link was posted by djplong. I think he would be very insulted if you were to call him a "right-winger".



Do you even READ the previous posts before you make one of your inane comments? Just wonderin'....:icon_wink:

Dale, like lots of libs, deal in feelings and not facts. It's the "nice thoughts" and "good intentions" that count and not the ramifications of what's imposed.

Supporting views with documentation and reported results and an eye toward history would just clutter the mind and stifle the creativity.

[Guest]

I'm still a little confused about how they count people that have stopped looking for work. I collected unemployment insurance several times during my career, and never once do I remember anyone calling and saying "How you doing Jan, still looking for work?" after my benefits ended.

Are they sophisticated enough to match social security numbers from unemployment benefit recipients to newly hired workers? Anybody know?

[Guest]

Richie (and others) - that 63.7% employment number also reflexts the number of RETIRED people.

Of course there will be more people not working than any time in the last 30 years - the huge demographic bubble known as the Baby Boomers is hitting retirement age (that's why the annual Social Security Surplus no longer exists).

The chart that Richie posted a link to doesn't break out the reasons WHY someone is no longer in the labor force. It simply refers to "non-institutional population"
(meaning not in prison or otherwise institutionalized from what I gather in context)

[Guest]

There are about 3.3 MILLION fewer jobs now than when Obama assumed office. We've had lots of people enter the work force since Obama took office and that figure has to be of concern. The "new jobs" created is a smoke and mirrors illusion of progress.

No wonder the President always points at others for this failure.

Current Employment Rate | UnemploymentData.com (http://unemploymentdata.com/charts/current-employment-data/)

Obama Economy Facts | Keith Hennessey (http://keithhennessey.com/2010/08/16/obama-economy-facts/)

[Guest]

http://cdn.gigya.com/wildfire/i/CIMP.gif?CXNID=2000002.0NXC
It wouldn't be the first time that my friend Buggy didn't know what he was talking about. Defend Obama first, ask questions later.

Richie (and others) - that 63.7% employment number also reflexts the number of RETIRED people.
Richie, it appears that Buggy is not the only one having trouble comprehending what you said and what was in the article you provided a link for. In reading the above quote you'd think that ALL retirees are now back in the work force. To be sure though, I think I better contact my retirement system about this. I haven't received a notice yet that I'm no longer retired!

http://th1141.photobucket.com/albums/n598/patty-dee/emotions/th_panicbutton.gif

[Guest]

Sky - my intent was to point out that the 63.7% sounds low because it REFLECTS (not 'includes') retired people - meaning that they are out of the work force, hence the reason the number appears surprisingly low.

[Guest]

Sky - my intent was to point out that the 63.7% sounds low because it REFLECTS (not 'includes') retired people - meaning that they are out of the work force, hence the reason the number appears surprisingly low.OK, I'll accept that what you wrote is not what you meant! I do have to ask though, how do you know that the potentially employable figures (the base figure for calculating the percentage) includes retired people or an accurate figure of retired people that could go back into the workforce? Irregardless of the answer to that question, I don't personally have any confidence that any unemployment figure is accurate or anywhere near accurate. In some cases the figures are derived from polling just like with the presidential polls; and you know those are all over the place.

In another case the figures are derived from the Department of Labor. In this case the gathering of data has to be extremely difficult and highly exposed to legitimate or not so legitimate errors. Also, there are at least as many potential opportunities for manipulation as there are states and territories reporting, and that includes political manipulation. And, I don't even want to begin to get into or understand the different types and theories of unemployment.

Anyway, thanks for explaining what your original statement could not communicate! I now "think" I know what you were attempting to say!