By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Unemployment rate in USA drops below 8%? I am calling bull on this...

this is a lie, the real unemployment rate is around 20% over 21 million Americans are currently out of work. that 7% number just tells us one side of the story that is how many people are still looking for work. While millions of people have dropped out of the work place and have stopped looking for work.



Around the Network
mrstickball said:
binary solo said:
ECM said:
richardhutnik said:
I am not saying that this is some evil Obama plot doing it, just that the measures to me seem pretty much broken.

This has been a problem for a lot longer than Obama, and there are no signs it'll be fixed, since it's always going to benefit one party when it's 'their turn', so there's no incentive to actually do anything about it. (And as long as there's 'play' in the numbers, they're going to be massaged extra carefully, especially during a presidential election year.)

So what you're saying is that the Bureau of Labour Statistics deliberately massages these numbers in an election year to make the president look good? Is corruption in the USA really that deep? If so why bother even going through the sham of having elections?

Is the Bureau, like everything else in the US govt, staffed by political appointees at the senior levels? This would mean in every presidential election year the stats put out by the bureau will favour the president of the day.


Its really not that the BLS massaged the numbers for Obama, but the fact that they've massaged the numbers for decades. I believe it was in the 1960's that we adjusted how we calculate unemployment, because the government thought it was too high.

Gallup's underemployment, the BLS U-6 number, as well as labor participation rates are usually the best three metrics to use, as they provide a very broad-based approach to employment. Having said that, all three are generally bad, and not recovering very quickly.


From my understanding, the last time the methodology was changed was in 1994; but it was also changed several times before that. The changes have been consistent in that they have all changed how unemployment was calculated by removing people from being considered unemployed.



Like I said in the other thread... I'm about 90% sure now, that we calculate the jobs number seasonal adjusted... and the unemployment rate isn't.

Though yeah, unemployment rate is stupidly calculated because it doesn't take into account participation rate.

Also, the people rushing to call Richard a conservative make me laugh. Really shows who pays attention in the off topic and who doesn't.



spaceguy said:
NightDragon83 said:
Moonhero said:
My work has added 8 new people last month. We plan to add more. Yes, this is real.
Obama 2012!

So are you saying that if a Republican was in office you guys wouldn't have hired those 8 new people?

The economy is slowly recovering and adding jobs IN SPITE of Obama's policies, not because of them.  If Obama really was the reason for the decrease in unemployment and the overall improvement of the economy, we should have been well below 7% unemployment at this time, because that's what his administration's models predicted would happen after the stimulius and other policies were initiated.  They also said that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%... it took nearly 4 years just to get BELOW 8%, and there's no guarantee it'll stay below 8% after the holiday season is over.


Really! they didn't expect the Senate to filabustered the most bills in history and also didn't expect a house that is useless. They shut the government down on purpose. So really if the Republicans where not involved we would be well below 7%.

Thank you. You beat me to it.

Obama 2012!



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

Kasz216 said:
Like I said in the other thread... I'm about 90% sure now, that we calculate the jobs number seasonal adjusted... and the unemployment rate isn't.

Though yeah, unemployment rate is stupidly calculated because it doesn't take into account participation rate.

Also, the people rushing to call Richard a conservative make me laugh. Really shows who pays attention in the off topic and who doesn't.



July, august where adjusted and added jobs.  ADP that does pay rolls said last month that there where 200,000 jobs and they are usually right. Will jobs report came out and said 98,000. THey have adjusted it up to 180,000 or so, don't quote me. However you seem to be like every other, in denial. You always find negatives and say it isn't true when it doesn't favor your position. Seems most of my debates have been right and you will deny that too!!!

 

Make sure to catch rush limbaugh monday, he will deny it too.



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:
Flanneryaug said:
Not another Republican conspiracy theory...

Have you seen my posting history on here?  If so, you won't find it that.  And I decided to reply here, to be able to address that angle.  There are some who make it out to be some sort of Obama plot.  I was calling the measures being broken, and calling attention to it.  Also, I am not doing it based on some personal level now in my life.  I did post before about myself looking at landing work and starting in November, with a 1 year contract.  So, it is about the measures being wrong.

I'm not saying that you have a history of posting conspiracy theories, just saying that in general there have been too many Republican conspiracy theories recently.



Nintendo Network ID: Flanneryaug

Friend Code: 4699 - 6552 - 3671

Add me! :)

spaceguy said:
Kasz216 said:
Like I said in the other thread... I'm about 90% sure now, that we calculate the jobs number seasonal adjusted... and the unemployment rate isn't.

Though yeah, unemployment rate is stupidly calculated because it doesn't take into account participation rate.

Also, the people rushing to call Richard a conservative make me laugh. Really shows who pays attention in the off topic and who doesn't.



July, august where adjusted and added jobs.  ADP that does pay rolls said last month that there where 200,000 jobs and they are usually right. Will jobs report came out and said 98,000. THey have adjusted it up to 180,000 or so, don't quote me. However you seem to be like every other, in denial. You always find negatives and say it isn't true when it doesn't favor your position. Seems most of my debates have been right and you will deny that too!!!

 

Make sure to catch rush limbaugh monday, he will deny it too.

Hunh?   What i'm suggeting is that far more people were actually hired then the 114,000 listed mentioned.  Though said number is "reduced" when reported due to seasonal adjustments which tries to normalize monthly job growth for things like holiday seasonal hiring paterns.

That would be considered a postive for Obama... and more or less the last thing Limbaugh would want to say.

Seasonally adjusted unemployment is higher then unadjusted unemployment because of this.

 

Rush limbaugh will likely say it's a conspiracy and complain about the participation rate, while still at dangerous lows, wasn't really a factor this jobs report.



The unemployment rate is a false metric because it only includes individuals actively seeking employment. It does not include those such as working mothers, or those who have given up on looking for a job but would still like one. Never read into it.



PSN: Saugeen-Uwo     Feel free to add me (put Vg Chartz as MSG)!

Nintendo Network ID: Saugeen-Uwo

Iveyboi said:
The unemployment rate is a false metric because it only includes individuals actively seeking employment. It does not include those such as working mothers, or those who have given up on looking for a job but would still like one. Never read into it.

Why would you consider working mothers as unemployed?

Perhaps you mean stay at home mothers? If so they should be excluded from the unemployment stats because they do have a job, just not one that pays: being a mother to their kids. Long term stay at home mothers could be argued to have a very beneficial effect on society and the economy, if they do a good job of parenting.

Unemployment figures are meant to be an indicator of the health of the economy, stay at home mothers (99% of them by choice) / part-time working mothers are not a negative indicators of the health of the economy. The stay at home mother would be staying at home in good economic times and bad. So to add them to the unemployment figure would cause the unemployment figure to be misleading as economic measure, and arguably cause false negative imnpressions of the economic situation. If 10% unemployment is a psychological barrier in economic measurement then having stay at home mothers push the unemployment figure above 10% would create an unnecessarily negative view of the economy.

Those who have given up looking for work are a different matter. They indicate severe economic problems because in a good economic climate you should have very few people who have lost all hope of finding work. In some resepcts only recording the number of peole who have given up hope of finding work is a very good state of the nation metric. If that number is climbing then things are bad and getting worse, if the number is dropping then things might still be bad (if the number is high) but they are improving.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

That percentage doesn't include homeless, people that are underemployed, or have stopped looking for work. The actual amount of unemployed individuals in the U.S. is actually closer to 20-25%.

The number that gets thrown around is always politics and misinformation.