The real unemployment rate

[FaninAma]

Which is the U6 + long term discouraged workers. That's how it was traditionally calculated until 1994. Gee, who was President then?
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

[badger]

Well, at least the altered stats don't go by the entire population... because dag nabbit, my toddler and my retired grandparents aren't working so they're unemployed

NO THEY ARE NOT :D

[FaninAma]

Badger, are you saying the U6 numbers included retirees and children? Or are you being your normal humorous self? I assume the latter.

[badger]

Badger, are you saying the U6 numbers included retirees and children? Or are you being your normal humorous self? I assume the latter.

I'm saying that your link is more legit than the usual ones that complain about unemployment numbers being fudged, because unlike places that claim millions more are "unemployed" by comparing it to the total population (which, as I stated, includes granny and great-grandchild), it is actually talking about people that are employable.

I do think that unemployment numbers need to be done in a more accurate way due to underemployment or discouraged workers. But, simply including under 16s and over 65s to create shock numbers doesn't do the cause justice.

[Sooner8th]

Which is the U6 + long term discouraged workers. That's how it was traditionally calculated until 1994. Gee, who was President then?
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Really? Was it? This is where you get called an ignorant dumbass lemming. Didn't bother to look it up - GOOGLE IT! The "change" you stated was made by a study that was started in 1986 - Gee, who was President then? Dumbass.

First off it was NEVER U6 + long term discouraged workers it was always U5. ALWAYS. Now for the big gooberment cookin' the books to make bammi look better - the only thing that changed was the name of what the "official unemployment rate" from U5 to U3. That's it! Nothing else changed.


1994 revisions[edit]
As a result of research that started in 1986, a complete overhaul of how the CPS was administered and what type of questions were asked occurred.[12] Prior to 1994, the alternate measures of unemployment had different names because the BLS drastically revised the questions in the CPS and renamed the measures: U3 and U4 were eliminated; the official rate U5 remained the same measure but was renamed U3; U6 and U7 were revised and renamed U5 and U6.[13]

CPS alternate measures of unemployment before 1994:

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Unemployed persons aged 25 and older, as a percent of the civilian labor force aged 25 and older (the unemployment rate for persons 25 and older)
U-4 Unemployed persons seeking full-time jobs, as a percent of the full-time labor force (the unemployment rate for full-time workers)
U-5 Total unemployed persons, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-6 Total persons seeking full-time jobs, plus one-half of persons seeking part-time jobs, plus one-half of persons employed part-time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force less one-half of the part-time labor force
U-7 Total persons seeking full-time jobs, plus one-half of persons seeking part-time jobs, plus one-half of persons employed part-time for economic reasons, plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers less one-half of the part-time labor force
CPS alternate measures of unemployment after 1994:

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part-time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work in the recent past. In addition, marginally attached workers have actively sought work in the past 12 months (e.g. they replied to a "wanted" ad) but have not actively sought work in the past 4 weeks.

Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job (e.g. they believe that no work was available). This group is about 50 percent smaller than the marginally attached group."[14]

Persons employed part-time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

Here is the link to the study that made the change - http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

This is why you people are a bunch of dumbass ignorant lemming rubes. You will believe ANYTHING the right puts out there, BLINDLY. jack welch can suck obama's dick. Fvck people, LOOK THINGS UP before you take them as gospel.

[FaninAma]

Really? Was it? This is where you get called an ignorant dumbass lemming. Didn't bother to look it up - GOOGLE IT! The "change" you stated was made by a study that was started in 1986 - Gee, who was President then? Dumbass.

.

My, you're an agry little elf! Do you need a hug?

[Sooner8th]

My, you're an agry little elf! Do you need a hug?


My, you're an ignorant little idiot! Do you need to lean to think for yourself?

YES

[FaninAma]

I'm saying that your link is more legit than the usual ones that complain about unemployment numbers being fudged, because unlike places that claim millions more are "unemployed" by comparing it to the total population (which, as I stated, includes granny and great-grandchild), it is actually talking about people that are employable.

I do think that unemployment numbers need to be done in a more accurate way due to underemployment or discouraged workers. But, simply including under 16s and over 65s to create shock numbers doesn't do the cause justice.

Gotcha. I never understood why the BLS would drop the long term unemployed simply because they ran out of unemployment benefits. I also think counting part timers is very misleading and very intentional.

Sooner8th, I am just going by what was reported on the graph I linked. Sorry it initiated such an angry response. It must be miserable to be so emotionally tied to a personality and party like you are and then have said personality and party thoroughly rejected by the rest of the country a few short weeks ago.

[Sooner8th]

Gotcha. I never understood why the BLS would drop the long term unemployed simply because they ran out of unemployment benefits. I also think counting part timers is very misleading and very intentional.

Sooner8th, I am just going by what was reported on the graph I linked. Sorry it initiated such an angry response. It must be miserable to be so emotionally tied to a personality and party like you are and then have said personality and party thoroughly rejected by the rest of the country a few short weeks ago.


oooohhhhhhh ama you don't have the capacity to get me angry. I find it funny that people like you who think they are so smart and want to copy and paste their way into the ignorant circle jerk aren't even smart enough to look things up and find out the truth.

Now don't you feel stupid and silly for believing jack and all the other rightwingnuts and feel stupid and silly for posting it?


personality and party thoroughly rejected by the rest of the country a few short weeks ago

You mean that "rest of the country" that is 36% of REGISTERED VOTERS? You mean the lowest turnout since 1942? It's not like let's say 2008 and 2012 where the registered voter participation rate (see how I snunk in that slam?) at OVER 60% voted OVERWHELMINGLY for BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA? You mean that rest of America?

Now admit your little ignorant chart was wrong and the unemployment rate calculation has not changed since 1940.

[Sooner in Tampa]

My, you're an agry little elf! Do you need a hug?

You're just now noticing this?

[FaninAma]

So Soonere8th, you call people names and hurl insults at them when you're not angry? Holy cow, you must be the life of the party. I bet you only do it on a message board, don't you? I have suspicions about your other aliases on the board and I think I am right. I do not think you are KC reincarnated as Ol Vet does.. Even he didn't try to be as offensive and obnoxious as you. But by all means, if this is how you get your jollies please continue...in other words, sicem buddy!

[REDREX]

He is not a real people person

[Turd_Ferguson]

It's not like let's say 2008 and 2012 where the registered voter participation rate (see how I snunk in that slam?) at OVER 60% voted OVERWHELMINGLY for BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA? You mean that rest of America?

You mean when all the white guilters like your ignernt ***, plus all the busloads of ghetto peeps that you white guilters could bus into the precincts, went and voted for the black man? And, to make sure the black man didn't turn out to be a 1 term prez, you and the busloads turned out again?

The majority voted him in because he's black. Period. Now that all you white guilters got him in, isn't it funny that he is the most racist/polarizing person to ever be elected. ***** *** lib.

[dwarthog]

You mean that "rest of the country" that is 36% of REGISTERED VOTERS? You mean the lowest turnout since 1942? It's not like let's say 2008 and 2012 where the registered voter participation rate (see how I snunk in that slam?) at OVER 60% voted OVERWHELMINGLY for BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?


How do you know 60% "overwhelmingly" voted for BO? Perhaps only 36% did and the other 24% didn't "overwhelmingly" vote but were more in the category of just "gushing" and this time around the "gushing" people moved into the "underwhelmed" category and found something better to do than vote.

[Sooner8th]

So Soonere8th, you call people names and hurl insults at them when you're not angry? Holy cow, you must be the life of the party. I bet you only do it on a message board, don't you? I have suspicions about your other aliases on the board and I think I am right. I do not think you are KC reincarnated as Ol Vet does.. Even he didn't try to be as offensive and obnoxious as you. But by all means, if this is how you get your jollies please continue...in other words, sicem buddy!

You and ol vet are just showing how stupid you are. You have not clue who I am, nor anything about me.

[Sooner8th]

You mean when all the white guilters like your ignernt ***, plus all the busloads of ghetto peeps that you white guilters could bus into the precincts, went and voted for the black man? And, to make sure the black man didn't turn out to be a 1 term prez, you and the busloads turned out again?

The majority voted him in because he's black. Period. Now that all you white guilters got him in, isn't it funny that he is the most racist/polarizing person to ever be elected. ***** *** lib.

If they voted they, then they are AMERICAN CITIZENS. If you are a "ghetto peeps or a white guilters" they don't count? Only conservatives huh? Just like when your party keeps trying to take away voting rights to American citizens.

You know nothing about me - I don't have a bit of "white guilters" in me.

You are just an ignorant racist redneck bigot.

[Sooner8th]

How do you know 60% "overwhelmingly" voted for BO? Perhaps only 36% did and the other 24% didn't "overwhelmingly" vote but were more in the category of just "gushing" and this time around the "gushing" people moved into the "underwhelmed" category and found something better to do than vote.

How do I know? You are kidding me right? Are you really this stupid to ask that question? Google registered voter turnout in 2008 and 2012 they average ~60%. Then google percent obama won by and how it was the largest voter percentage back to back wins since the ike in '56.

[dwarthog]

How do I know? You are kidding me right? Are you really this stupid to ask that question? Google registered voter turnout in 2008 and 2012 they average ~60%. Then google percent obama won by and how it was the largest voter percentage back to back wins since the ike in '56.

You are the wind beneath my wings...

[SoonerorLater]

You and ol vet are just showing how stupid you are. You have not clue who I am, nor anything about me.

I bet they know your mama has troll for a son.

[olevetonahill]

I bet they know your mama has troll for a son.

Naw his Momma gave birth and took a dump at the same time ., the baby died, pile of crap lived.

[Sooner8th]

You are the wind beneath my wings...

Just as dumb as a sack of hammers.

[FaninAma]

Does it really matter if we know exactly which other names you post under? Isn't it enough to know you are a troll which is pretty pathetic in and of itself?

[Sooner8th]

Does it really matter if we know exactly which other names you post under? Isn't it enough to know you are a troll which is pretty pathetic in and of itself?

Just shows you people know nothing.

Tell me again how the unemployment rate has been manipulated the unemployment rate to make it look better. It never was.

[FaninAma]

Yeah, like the information on Obamacare. The government would never, ever lie to us or try to mislead us.

[badger]

If you like your lies you can keep your lies

[Sooner8th]

If you like your lies you can keep your lies

LOL too funny. Go read, it was never ever changed. Keep beliving the lies told to you so the economy won't look good and growing under obama.