Unemployment down this month.............NOT SO FAST

[Vteckidd]

The UE numbers came out today and they reported that its DOWN to 8.3%! YAY! or is it..............

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and the CBO, The govt is SERIOUSLY fudging the UE numbers. We lost 2.5 MILLION JOBS IN 1 month, the way they are achieving POSITIVE GROWTH is by shrinking the labor force DRASTICALLY.

Put it this way, if you have 100 people employed, and 10 get laid off, you now have 10% UNEMPLOYED (UE) Correct?

Well, if no jobs are created, and all of the sudden your UE rate goes to 5%, should you be happy? not if 5 out of the 10 people looking for work give up and decide to just not work and be homeless. SO instead of 100 people in the work force (90 working 10 not) you now have 90 people working a 5 not. They count that as a POSITIVE GAIN even though its really not.

Our labor force is at an all time HIGH as far as people who are NOT participating.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...ifferent_story

as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7%

in 1 month we saw the largest number of people leaving the work force in the last 30 YEARS~!!!!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record...-rate-tumbles-

[bu villain]

I agree that the method used to calculate unemployment yields a bullshit number but how do you think it should be determined? You can't simply start counting all unemployed people because many people are retired, students, stay at home parents, etc. How do you calculate the number of people who want a job but aren't looking for a job?

[BanginJimmy]

I agree that the method used to calculate unemployment yields a bullshit number but how do you think it should be determined? You can't simply start counting all unemployed people because many people are retired, students, stay at home parents, etc. How do you calculate the number of people who want a job but aren't looking for a job?

No way to determine it accurately. My best guess would be to use the number of people collecting unemployment checks every week.

[RL...]

The government is all about fudging numbers to make them look nice. They just use the parts of information they want to. Oh well nothing we can do about it. It looks like the general election is going to be romney vs. obama and I honestly don't know which I dislike more....it's about equal.

[.blank cd]

No way to determine it accurately. My best guess would be to use the number of people collecting unemployment checks every week.

That number is far from an accurate way to gauge unemployment. There are employed people collecting checks and there are unemployed people not collecting checks

[Sinfix_15]

That number is far from an accurate way to gauge unemployment. There are employed people collecting checks and there are unemployed people not collecting checks

I'd be willing to bet the number of unemployed people not collecting checks is much higher than anyone would guess.

[WhiteAccord]

Funny the numbers have gotten better, despite the holidays, but 9 months before re-election.

Anyone else here about Obama not being on the GA Ballot?

[BanginJimmy]

I'd be willing to bet the number of unemployed people not collecting checks is much higher than anyone would guess.

I agree but at the same time it is the only way I can see to get an measurable number. But as already posted there are a lot of people that collect that should and even more that ran out or were not eligible for it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[BanginJimmy]

Funny the numbers have gotten better, despite the holidays, but 9 months before re-election.

The biggest reason the unemployment percentage has gotten better is the number of people leaving the work force.

The reason the jobs numbers are going back up is because as we pull out of the recession people need things they have been putting off for 4 years.

Look at new car sales. How many people truly think those numbers aren't more about the people that have wanted a new car for 3+ years and it just got to the point their current car was no longer economical? I have no way to know but IMO sales will be fairly high for about 6 months then see a drastic dropoff.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Browning151]

Look at new car sales. How many people truly think those numbers aren't more about the people that have wanted a new car for 3+ years and it just got to the point their current car was no longer economical? I have no way to know but IMO sales will be fairly high for about 6 months then see a drastic dropoff.

That's exactly what's happening. 3-4 years ago the cars that were coming in on trade were 2-3 yr models or less old, low mileage and in good shape. For the past year or so I have noticed a drastic change in the quality of trade vehicles, many that are 7-10 yrs old, high mileage and in rough shape. People are holding onto things longer now and replacing when necessary, not just when they want to anymore and that goes for more than just cars. There will be a slight uptick for the economy as more and more people begin to replace things out of pure necessity, but it won't be sustained growth.



As far as the unemployment numbers go, if we were somehow able to accurately count the number of people collecting unemployment benefits along with the number of people who have simply given up looking for a job and those that are underemployed the number would probably be staggering.

[Vteckidd]

We should use u6 to determine unemployment accurately which would put us in 15% ish right now.

If UE is a pie chart, you can't use the same numbers if the pie gets smaller. When Somone runs out of 99 week benefits and still can't find a job, they don't count that person in the UE numbers.

People employed part time but want full time and can't find it are also counted as "employed"

That's just flat out misrepresentation

[bu villain]

We should use u6 to determine unemployment accurately which would put us in 15% ish right now.

If UE is a pie chart, you can't use the same numbers if the pie gets smaller. When Somone runs out of 99 week benefits and still can't find a job, they don't count that person in the UE numbers.

People employed part time but want full time and can't find it are also counted as "employed"

That's just flat out misrepresentation

But if you use U6 and count "underemployed" then saying it represents the "unemployment rate" is also misrepresentation. As long as the metrics used for determining the number are clear, I don't see why U6 is any better unless you just want to have a method that yeilds the highest number possible.

[Vteckidd]

The numbers are so false that the CBO said the govt figures should really be 1.25-1.5% higher (9.4-9.7)