First it is important to understand the author of this piece. He is Jim Clifton, the President and CEO of Gallup and to my knowledge, NOT a political mouthpiece for any party at all. Fact is this article was shocking in its candid approach.

Just read it and how worried should be be, not only about the stats involved but the absence of candid and honest information coming to us...

"Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market."

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

Read it all please, and will leave you with this from the article....just keep in mind, you cannot solve problems if you do not admit you have them.

"And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream."

Originally Posted by Guest

First it is important to understand the author of this piece. He is Jim Clifton, the President and CEO of Gallup and to my knowledge, NOT a political mouthpiece for any party at all. Fact is this article was shocking in its candid approach.

Just read it and how worried should be be, not only about the stats involved but the absence of candid and honest information coming to us...

"Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market."

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

Read it all please, and will leave you with this from the article....just keep in mind, you cannot solve problems if you do not admit you have them.

"And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream."

I may not have gotten off base as far as the point behind your post. If I made a clear miss, I'm apologize.

For some reason I cannot go to the link you provided. Are you suggesting that the way that the unemployed are counted is somehow different that it has been since they started reporting such things? If so, how are they different? Or, are you suggesting that the whole process has been broken since it was established?

I think we might be in agreement that our growth and worth as a nation is strongly focused on a vibrant and attainable middle class. The numbers don't mean much at all if the majority of employed people are not able to set their goal on becoming part of the middle class.

By the way, today on the news it was announced that there are now 341 (I think in the world) new Billionaires in 2014. Doesn't that make us all warm and fuzzy. I wonder how much smaller the middle class has gotten. The wealth of this nation is strongly gathered in the top 2 percent.

Xavier

Originally Posted by Guest

I may not have gotten off base as far as the point behind your post. If I made a clear miss, I'm apologize.

For some reason I cannot go to the link you provided. Are you suggesting that the way that the unemployed are counted is somehow different that it has been since they started reporting such things? If so, how are they different? Or, are you suggesting that the whole process has been broken since it was established?

I think we might be in agreement that our growth and worth as a nation is strongly focused on a vibrant and attainable middle class. The numbers don't mean much at all if the majority of employed people are not able to set their goal on becoming part of the middle class.

By the way, today on the news it was announced that there are now 341 (I think in the world) new Billionaires in 2014. Doesn't that make us all warm and fuzzy. I wonder how much smaller the middle class has gotten. The wealth of this nation is strongly gathered in the top 2 percent.

Xavier

Tried to link it again...

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

It appears to be a systematic problem, not one of current invention, but and this does not apply to just this admin, but it worries me a lot that our leaders, now and in the past, will push what is politically prudent but not in the best interests of our country. Again, this is not restricted to this admin, but to your point on our shrinking middle class, why are we pushing the "good news" and ignoring real issues.


To your other point specifically, there are a number of folks who think that this "shrink" is not really what it appears, ie. What you suggested, but more a shift in the demographics and the measurement used.

"Therefore, isn’t it possible that the “social upheaval” that has taken place over the last decade is really an “upheaval” in the size, composition and characteristics of a typical US “household” and not necessarily an era of reduced economic opportunities and less upward mobility for the middle class? At the very least, in any discussion about the “middle class” and “household income” we have to recognize that an “American household” is a dynamic concept that is constantly evolving and changing over time, and therefore distorts any comparisons between household incomes today to those of a decade or a generation ago."


https://www.aei.org/publication/midd...-demographics/


A number of other studies also point in this direction. Obviously if true this plays havoc with political messages on both sides.

I have said before, we really need to somehow "talk to each other" and identify the problems to solve as it appears the more I read that we are chasing ghosts.

Since you signed yours, I will as well, but think we should both stop as we have been warned not to, and I really want this forum to succeed.

Bucco

Another link that you might find interesting on this subject, in a way. I do not believe that the answer is redistributing the wealth by government action but an acknowledgement that we need reform, in taxes especially and stop measuring new times with old tools.

"How should we define a "decently paid" job today? Perhaps we should define it by the standards of the 1950s when the holder of such a job could buy a median priced home with 2 years of salary and also afford to send his kids to college."


Article: The Origins, and Decimation of, America's Great Middle Class. And What to Do About It | OpEdNews

Simpson Bowles was bold by Obama and I really supported it but it got scrapped. It certainly had not all the answers and maybe none, but the process that was to be used, in my opinion, was correct.

Throw it all on the table....do not measure using old tools. The government does not need to be the one to redistribute the money.....create the environment, challenge the definitions we use and acknowledge the problems

Class envy.

Income inequality may be one of the major issues of the next national election. There are many who are pushing for some mechanism to re-vitalize an American middle class. It is a difficult task as there simply are not now nor will there be again a place where a high school graduate or less is going to get a job with benefits and a pension and enough income to support a family. That is gone and will not return. But we now have an economic system where manual labor is highly taxed and money that involves no labor, just having been invested is not. Why is not all income just income? If there were no capital gains special rate would you not invest? Of course you would or leave it in a savings account getting 0.01% yearly. So the rich get richer and the data is clear on that. Trickle down has still not trickled and it has been 40 years. When does that economic model get discarded?

Originally Posted by Guest

Income inequality may be one of the major issues of the next national election. There are many who are pushing for some mechanism to re-vitalize an American middle class. It is a difficult task as there simply are not now nor will there be again a place where a high school graduate or less is going to get a job with benefits and a pension and enough income to support a family. That is gone and will not return. But we now have an economic system where manual labor is highly taxed and money that involves no labor, just having been invested is not. Why is not all income just income? If there were no capital gains special rate would you not invest? Of course you would or leave it in a savings account getting 0.01% yearly. So the rich get richer and the data is clear on that. Trickle down has still not trickled and it has been 40 years. When does that economic model get discarded?

And you know, until someone reaches across the aisle, and frankly and realistically, it has to be the President...he has the hammer....reaches across the aisle to talk tax reform, etc the problem will continue just as it is.

i was surprised how surprised the CEO of Gallup was by the figures...it should be common sense that if only 5% of the population was unemployed, we would not have 47 million people on food stamps! as scott walker has said, a successful govt is one where fewer are dependent on the govt.

i was surprised how surprised the CEO of Gallup was by the figures...it should be common sense that if only 5% of the population was unemployed, we would not have 47 million people on food stamps! as scott walker has said, a successful govt is one where fewer are dependent on the govt

Are you on Medicare or SS, you are dependent on the government. Do you get some military pension or vet benefits, you are dependent on the government. Do you want the water to be clean, the air to be breathable, the roads to be repaired, the police and fire services to be available, you are dependent on the government. Food stamps are fully available to the working poor. So your surprise that with low unemployment we have millions still needing food stamps means you are not paying attention to the realities of life of our working but struggling families.

Originally Posted by Guest

Are you on Medicare or SS, you are dependent on the government. Do you get some military pension or vet benefits, you are dependent on the government. Do you want the water to be clean, the air to be breathable, the roads to be repaired, the police and fire services to be available, you are dependent on the government....

Wow.

Receiving SS does not automatically equate to dependence on government. It simply means you've paid into it (with no option not to) and would be an idiot to turn it down.

Receiving a military pension and/vet benefits does not automatically equate to dependence on government. It means you've served your country and rightfully receive something in return.

And if you want the water to be clean, the air to be breathable, the roads to be repaired, and police and fire services to be available, that can almost all be done without government. (I think law enforcement needs to be a government function.)

Originally Posted by Guest

Are you on Medicare or SS, you are dependent on the government. Do you get some military pension or vet benefits, you are dependent on the government. Do you want the water to be clean, the air to be breathable, the roads to be repaired, the police and fire services to be available, you are dependent on the government. Food stamps are fully available to the working poor. So your surprise that with low unemployment we have millions still needing food stamps means you are not paying attention to the realities of life of our working but struggling families.

To the letter of the law the statement is acceptable. For what it is intended to infer the statement is 100% incorrect. I look to get my SS check from the government just like I look to a bank. Nothing more than collecting what I have contributed over my many years working.

Those who view it as a gift from the government obviously do not understand that.

The entire post is subject to a specific bias without a doubt...... a valid argument can be presented for each item....just like the one about SS.

Originally Posted by Guest

Are you on Medicare or SS, you are dependent on the government. Do you get some military pension or vet benefits, you are dependent on the government. Do you want the water to be clean, the air to be breathable, the roads to be repaired, the police and fire services to be available, you are dependent on the government. Food stamps are fully available to the working poor. So your surprise that with low unemployment we have millions still needing food stamps means you are not paying attention to the realities of life of our working but struggling families.

Whomever posted this is viewing the world through different lenses than reality,

Hard to tell if it is just another political defense or this poster actually believes this, and i am speaking of context, not factually.

People have the tendency to spin the words in such a way that you become the bad guy if you disagree...not sure if this is a political post OR simply someone who has been brainwashed

CEO Jim Clifton told CNBC he might “suddenly disappear” for telling the truth about the Obama unemployment rate.

Gallup CEO: I May “Suddenly Disappear” For Telling Truth About Obama Unemployment Rate (Video) | The Gateway Pundit