Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:21 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: How many people are actually unemployed in this country? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,620
Points:2,856,030
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 11:06:29 AM

How many people are actually unemployed in this country?

Look off to the far right side of the chart to see the hopefully not ever-increasing numbers of unemployed in this country.

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707

Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

If the "State of the Union is stronger (and getting stronger)" it will show up in these numbers. Use this topic to post links and opinions regarding Obama's (and Congress') handling of the economy as it relates to employment in this country.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,610
Points:44,240
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 8:38:00 AM

Many are unemployed, under-employed or unemployable since they're UNAVAILABLE or UNWILLING to work various jobs, hours, mornings, nights, weekends, days, 2nd/3rd shifts, rotating shifts, on-call, on-the-road, out-of-town, at changing locations etc.

Many employers cull out the majority of job applicants due to availability alone.

More and more employers want to see very wide availability, even from part-timers.

Many lose their jobs due to availability as well.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 8:16:19 AM

"undereducated
undertrained
unqualified
unfit
unwilling
unresponsive
irresponsible

In other words...undesirable by employers"

Ah, there's a believer in the '47%' myth!
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,086
Points:2,117,660
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 12:31:59 AM

" Topic: How many people are actually unemployed in this country?'

.....

Unemployed??? Don't you mean Unemployable...seems more accurate to me.

Words best describing todays unemployed:

undereducated
undertrained
unqualified
unfit
unwilling
unresponsive
irresponsible

In other words...undesirable by employers



[Edited by: KansasGunman at 9/25/2014 12:35:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:57:10 PM

Whoa. Neat trick...

Somehow your link in the other thread reb allows me to make a post under your name in this thread.

:P

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 9/24/2014 9:58:06 PM EST]
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,020
Points:2,398,100
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:56:42 PM

OK reb, I'll repost here;

"Wrong Weasel, these numbers have been around for a long time, you might like to check the government web site..."

LOL, certainly the number have 'been around' however nobody was talking about them under W when his unemployment rate was at 5.0% when he left Office, yet now that the unemployment rate is back down to 6.1% (from a peak of 10.0% in '09) the only thing the Right can talk about now is 'Actual Unemployment' or 'work force participation' to try to deflect negatively.

Convenient.

"This link shows unemployment rate at 6.1% in August, but people "participating in work at 62.8""

The participation rate has been declining since 2000 when it was at 67.3% - prior to that it increased steadily since ~1966. Now that the Baby Boomers are retiring (for one)... For comparison, Post-WWII levels of work force participation were ~59%, FYI. Unemployment was also below 3% - I don't recall anybody complaining then either.

"Though that might require some...thought."

I agree ;)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:49:40 PM

"Read the story. They quit counting them. Duh. Thanks for being REDUNDANT again, as well as WRONG again."

Again;

"From the link in the OP as of 9/2014;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638"

Compare the numbers from when the OP was posted - it can't be debated."

;)
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,020
Points:2,398,100
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:48:48 PM

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recovery




"The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to more than 6 percent unemployment five years after the recession officially ended, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work. The drop in unemployment since 2009 is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. Demographic factors explain less than one-quarter of the decreased labor force participation. The rest comes from increased school enrollment and more people collecting disability benefits. Over 6 percent of U.S. adults are now on Social Security Disability Insurance. This is no time to make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs."





Obama Adviser Says Policy Can Boost Workforce Participation





"Betsey Stevenson, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the administration is working to enhance labor force participation, which has fallen to multi-decade lows, in part by increasing the incentives for discouraged workers to again enter the market. In addition, she cited policies targeted directly at helping disadvantaged members of minorities, who have much higher unemployment rates than the general population."



"Some of the recent decline is due to the retirement of baby boomers, but Ms. Stevenson said “not all of the decline in participation we have seen is the result of natural and good developments. In fact, the long-term trend of declining participation in employment rates for many groups, such as prime-age men, and particularly young black men, is troubling, and merits a policy response.” she said.

The jobless rate for young black Americans aged 16 to 24 was 24.8% in July, compared with a 12.2% rate for white youths in the same age group."

Lot a people not participating....
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,020
Points:2,398,100
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:36:43 PM

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recovery




"The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to more than 6 percent unemployment five years after the recession officially ended, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work. The drop in unemployment since 2009 is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. Demographic factors explain less than one-quarter of the decreased labor force participation. The rest comes from increased school enrollment and more people collecting disability benefits. Over 6 percent of U.S. adults are now on Social Security Disability Insurance. This is no time to make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs."





Obama Adviser Says Policy Can Boost Workforce Participation





"Betsey Stevenson, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the administration is working to enhance labor force participation, which has fallen to multi-decade lows, in part by increasing the incentives for discouraged workers to again enter the market. In addition, she cited policies targeted directly at helping disadvantaged members of minorities, who have much higher unemployment rates than the general population."



"Some of the recent decline is due to the retirement of baby boomers, but Ms. Stevenson said “not all of the decline in participation we have seen is the result of natural and good developments. In fact, the long-term trend of declining participation in employment rates for many groups, such as prime-age men, and particularly young black men, is troubling, and merits a policy response.” she said.

The jobless rate for young black Americans aged 16 to 24 was 24.8% in July, compared with a 12.2% rate for white youths in the same age group."

Lot a people not participating....



[Edited by: reb4 at 9/24/2014 9:41:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 8:52:38 AM

Read the story. They quit counting them. Duh. Thanks for being REDUNDANT again, as well as WRONG again.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 8:42:47 AM

"You can count them any way you want to, but you can't hide the truth."

Correct - directly for the OP's link;

"From the link in the OP as of 9/2014;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638"

Compare the numbers from when the OP was posted - it can't be debated."

;)

"There you go, chuckles. Fewer people unemployed, based on how you count them (just don't count them)."

Strange, since this is the number which is supposedly represented by the "Actual Unemployed" number you and so many others have been touting for years in your constant need to find something to rant about. Wassamatta, even that old go-to is no longer a viable source for criticism since it has dropped by ~4 million over the last year+?

LOL!!!
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 7:57:49 AM

You can count them any way you want to, but you can't hide the truth.
Here's a news piece, just out this morning:
Jobless rates drop across the Miami Valley
"In Montgomery County, the unemployment rated dropped from 6.2 percent in July to 5.5 in August — the first time the rate has lowered in the past five months."
Wow, that's good news, right? A drop in the unemployment rate of .7% in just one month?
Not so fast. There's a but. And it's a really BIG BUT:

"The sharp drop had more to do with people dropping out of the labor force rather than new jobs created, experts said."

There you go, chuckles. Fewer people unemployed, based on how you count them (just don't count them)

Here's more news: Kmart to close Fairborn store, costing 66 jobs

But that's over in the next county, so it doesn't matter. Right?



[Edited by: I75at7AM at 9/24/2014 7:58:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 2:21:35 PM

"I am a broad-based thinker. The fact that you still don't understand that shows who the narrow thinker is."

I 100% believe that you have sold yourself on that ;)

You'll be darned if somebody shows you something that challenges your reality, there is almost certainly a way to justify discrediting said information! For example;

"From the link in the OP as of 9/2014;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638"

Compare the numbers from when the OP was posted - it can't be debated.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 9/18/2014 2:22:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:52:57 AM

I am a broad-based thinker. The fact that you still don't understand that shows who the narrow thinker is. Nice try.....(not really)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:50:10 AM

"My answers show just how narrow the view of the supposed "experts" can be."

I should think your answers show just how narrow your political POV is...
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:47:21 AM

But Mark.......they're poor...........
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,610
Points:44,240
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:47:04 AM

Some reasons more and more apply for welfare benefits is that they're easier to apply for, recertification is easier, income/asset limits have increased, work requirements have been dropped and more and more people have less and less shame applying for and using benefits.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,610
Points:44,240
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:38:35 AM

<<Wealth inequality is even greater than income inequality.
- We have addressed this phenomenon in the Wealth Inequity thread. Lower income people tend to live paycheck to paycheck and don't save much if at all. Wealth inequality is as much a measure of poor financial practice as anything else. If lower income people, even poor people, would become regular savers, they would do better and this measure of "inequality" would go down. The assignment of importance to "wealth inequality" presupposes that we should have equal outcomes in this country. No such thing was ever envision, promised, nor intended in this country. Egalitarianism is Communism.>>

Many of our relatives, employees, tenants and customers are benefit rich and cash poor.

They receive tens of thousands in benefits annuallly between $X,000 tax credits, housing subsidies, daycare subsidies, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, HEAP, Emergency HEAP, free furnaces/boilers, breakfasts/lunches, temporary/emergency assistance, local and private assistance.

Although many have a lot of disposable income (since they have few living expenses) they have a small, zero or negative net worth since they lack budgeting, saving, spending and investment discipline.

Much of what they buy consists of disposable junk, services, depreciating assets, non necessities and excesses. The more money they make, the more they waste on these things.

Here in New York many low and poor income smokers spend 25% of their income on cigarettes alone!

When they're hard up for cash they'll often sell off the few things of value that they own for pennies on the dollar.

To add insult to injury, many purchase their services, disposable junk and depreciating assets via high interest financing, or they stop paying other bills so they can afford beer, cigarettes, weed, scratch-offs, junk food fast food, take-out, delivery, upper tier cable, upper tier broadband, smart phones, prepaid minutes, rent-to-own furniture, appliances, electronics - too much to list.

Most poor I know don't take good care of their stuff and/or their stuff is uninsured, so it doesn't last long, doesn't hold its value, or they can't afford to replace it. This is something we often see on a daily basis when servicing furnaces, boilers, water heaters, equipment, computers etc.
Lower income customers almost never perform regular preventative maintenance and almost never pay for extended warranties, service contracts etc.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:16:49 AM

Paul Krugman? Seriously?

My answers show just how narrow the view of the supposed "experts" can be.
They are not measuring what they think they are measuring. Some people like to point out how "poor" the poor in America are compared with the "rich" in America when the reality is that the "poor" in American enjoy standards of living that most of the rest of the world envies. And you don't understand the difference. All this "wealth inequality" comparison is just garbage, I pointed out that it is garbage, I will continue to point out that it is garbage, and you pointing over to some economists who have their heads (and arses) firmly implanted doesn't change the objective reality, which I have pointed out for you.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:03:01 AM

Strange then, I75, how Nobel laureates in Economics agree with what I posted, yet you seem to have all of the answers (excuses)...

No?
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,020
Points:2,398,100
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:02:07 AM

"Why more and more people wil continue to need progams like SNAP"

Weasle, please explain the description you gave for the link...

5 facts about economic inequality



I am in total agreement with this article. and actually this is a condemnation of the lies that Obama has perpetrated to the masses... and it was the middle class ... not the rich that are paying for the handouts... But thats not the reason for the SNAP increases and you know it .... or maybe you are just not as smart as you think you are...
And the immigration of Gap Between Rich, Poor Americans Widened During Recovery

*** This link may not work... may need to search for article to read it ***

"Average, or mean, pretax income for the wealthiest 10% of U.S. families rose 10% in 2013 from 2010, but families in the bottom 40% saw their average inflation-adjusted income decline over that period, according to the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, which is conducted every three years.

The report showed little change in average take-home pay for middle- and upper-middle-class families, who "failed to recover the losses experienced between 2007 and 2010," it said."





So, who is responsible for it Weasle???



[Edited by: reb4 at 9/17/2014 9:04:53 AM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 8:43:59 AM

From weasle's link:
1. By one measure, U.S. income inequality is the highest it’s been since 1928.
- Completely meaningless. The disparity is obviously skewed by a few mega-earners. The real measure is how the working classes are doing. They could be doing better, but doing better is largely a self-directed exercise.

2. The U.S. is more unequal than most of its developed-world peers.
- Again, completely meaningless. Our "developed-world peers" don't have those mega-earners at the top, so their earners profile appears less steeply graded than ours. We are even more unequal after factoring in transfer payments? What kind of criteria is that? To show that we need even larger amounts of transfer payments to certain people? Most of those payments are scheduled according to previous earnings of the recipients.

3. The black-white income gap in the U.S. has persisted.
- You would have to carefully examine the demographic makeup of such households. How many adult breadwinners are in the household? Single parent households would tend to skew down a group that includes a larger percentage of them. And who has been the President during the downturn in black family income?

4. Americans are relatively unconcerned about the wide income gap between rich and poor.
- As it should be. "Yet barely half (47%) of Americans think the rich-poor gap is a very big problem." A very subjective question, and a very subjective criteria to say that 47% (a very familiar number...) is somehow a watershed group, one way or the other.

5. Wealth inequality is even greater than income inequality.
- We have addressed this phenomenon in the Wealth Inequity thread. Lower income people tend to live paycheck to paycheck and don't save much if at all. Wealth inequality is as much a measure of poor financial practice as anything else. If lower income people, even poor people, would become regular savers, they would do better and this measure of "inequality" would go down. The assignment of importance to "wealth inequality" presupposes that we should have equal outcomes in this country. No such thing was ever envision, promised, nor intended in this country. Egalitarianism is Communism.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 9/17/2014 8:46:19 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 3:07:33 PM

Why more and more people wil continue to need progams like SNAP
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,020
Points:2,398,100
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:41:18 AM

Food Stamp Sign-ups outnumber Jobs created in Obama's Illinois

"Among the many metrics that show Obama's home state is struggling to break the Great Recession, a new report shows that applications for food stamps in Illinois is greater than its creation of jobs.
Illinois has had the worst recovery from the recession of any state in the country, the Illinois Policy Institute reported this month: "There are nearly 300,000 fewer Illinoisans working today than in January 2008, and 170,000 fewer payroll jobs. "




"For every post-recession job created in Illinois, nearly two people have enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps," the Institute wrote. “In the recession era, the number of Illinoisans dependent on food stamps has risen by 745,000."
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:17:16 AM

"The population has increased by ten million. As about 60% of the adults in the nation work, we needed six million new jobs."

So you are doing a direct correlation between population growth and job creation?

Let me know when the adults start their conversation. In the mean time, keep connecting those dots...

Unemployed is unemployed. Period. Any other discussion is smoke and mirrors. Keep parroting those tea party talking points though ;)
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:52:46 PM

The adults in the country are having a conversation. If you're not following along, that's your ignorance showing. There is no "excuse making" in my post. The population has increased by ten million. As about 60% of the adults in the nation work, we needed six million new jobs. Reported employment numbers show an increase of much less than that. The rest of the employment numbers are just smoke and mirrors.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 4:59:41 PM

"And the number of people employed in the country clearly is not keeping up with population growth."

LOL!!! Wow, what a fantastic excuse! Which talking head are you parroting?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,620
Points:2,856,030
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 2:15:36 PM

The longer Obama is president the better Bush Jr. looks.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 12:52:49 PM

And the number of people employed in the country clearly is not keeping up with population growth. Not even close. So Liberals and 0bama apologists continue to attempt to lie with statistics while the truth is staring us in the face - there is a tremendous segment of under-employed people in this country, yet the southern border remains open to all comers based on some strange notion that we need those people here.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 10:47:59 AM

From the link in the OP;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638

It can't be debated. In the past year since the thread was started unemployment is clearly trending down - regardless of which metric one wishes to use ('Official' vs. 'Actual').
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2014 11:23:45 AM

About 68,000 fewer people are employed in the entertainment industries, according to this BLS report.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 9/11/2014 11:25:08 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,736
Points:14,885
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:52:42 AM

Wow. I think it would be simple to understand.

The Left loves to tout the "unemployment" rate. However, that isn't the number they like to pretend it to be.

The number that needs to be looked at is the Labor Participation Rate: In other words, how many people are actually working.

So, in Jan 2009, there were 142,187,000 employed.

Then, in October 1012, there were 143,384,000 employed.

A net gain of 1.1 million people participating in the labor force.

What's wrong with that? Why would that be a bad thing?

Again. It's simple. The population of the US increased by 9.2 million people.

To keep pace, the labor market need to add 6 million jobs, yet the "unemployment rate" declined.

And that's really not the entire problem. We reached "peak employment" - the largest number of people in the labor force in March 2007.

In order for the Labor Participation Rate to remain constant, we would have had to add 8.6 million jobs by Oct '12, but the number of jobs decreased by 3 million from March of 2007 until October of 2012.

So, more people, less jobs does not equal a "lower unemployment rate" unless you fudge the numbers.

So, suppose a person gets laid off and can't find a job within 12 months. So, they stop looking. The Government simply drops them from the official Unemployment Rate, and they simply disappear.

So, to summarize:

There are less jobs.

There are more people.

The Labor Participation Rate - the number of people working - has declined.

We are at least 9 million to 10 million jobs behind where we were in '07.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:39:50 AM

"While I think it is getting a little bit better than it was 2 years ago, it's still not what I would call "great" or even "mediocre"."

You're about 2 years behind. 4 years ago it was better than 2 years previous, but not yet mediocre. It is definitely mediocre now, and trending positive.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:37:17 AM

"Yep, they do except it's not a pretty picture ...."

How is a consistently declining unemployment rate "not a pretty picture"?

While not perfect, it certainly isn't ugly...
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,868
Points:3,426,920
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jun 28, 2014 11:05:09 PM

I understand that "real" unemployment rates are somewhere between 8 and 14% right now, not the 6% Obama want's to tout. The problem is that those who have been unemployed over 6 months have not been dropped from the unemployment rolls and no longer are counted. And it is not that they're necessarily lazy or "not trying", it's still a very tough labor market. While I think it is getting a little bit better than it was 2 years ago, it's still not what I would call "great" or even "mediocre".
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,020
Points:2,398,100
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 10:38:46 PM

All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants - Number of U.S.-born not working grew by 17 million




" Actual or Offcial , they both paint the same picture kiddo."

Yep, they do except it's not a pretty picture ....



[Edited by: reb4 at 6/27/2014 10:41:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 2:50:11 PM

"I made the point, months ago in this thread, that the "actual" unemployment number is ten million above the "official" unemployment number, and that gap has not gotten any smaller. Since the "actual" number is fully twice the "official" number, and you posted the numbers, you should be able to deduce that the "official" numbers are highly erroneous."

'Actual' or 'Offcial', they both paint the same picture kiddo.

"Perhaps if you looked at what is actually happening in this country you could get past your obvious love of 0bama and your obvious partisan views."

Like when I voted for W? Feel free to wipe that egg off of your face ;)

And for the hundredth time, no, I do not agree with everything that Obama has done. Clearly he is fallible, but not the anti-Christ you and those of your ilk like to make him out to be. Neither was W....
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 2:08:00 PM

I made the point, months ago in this thread, that the "actual" unemployment number is ten million above the "official" unemployment number, and that gap has not gotten any smaller. Since the "actual" number is fully twice the "official" number, and you posted the numbers, you should be able to deduce that the "official" numbers are highly erroneous.

Perhaps if you looked at what is actually happening in this country you could get past your obvious love of 0bama and your obvious partisan views. That's why no one takes your posts seriously.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 6/27/2014 2:08:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 1:48:30 PM

"No, you posted the unemployment data on June 10 at 1:15PM. I "analyzed" it at 1:37PM."

Exactly. Thank-you. Your analysis showed positive results from 'my' data. Perfect.

"You claim that the data show the economy is getting better."

Most rational people without a political axe to grind would agree that 3+ million jobs added in just over a year would be a positive sign.

"I say "not much better" and "the data from the BLS is highly suspect" (and contains the letters BLS plus a few more)."

Of course you do - that is the only thing you could possibly say without agreeing that your hated Obama is not making a negative impact... Which is why none of your posts are taken seriously. You can't get past your own partisan views.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 1:39:03 PM

No, you posted the unemployment data on June 10 at 1:15PM. I "analyzed" it at 1:37PM.

You claim that the data show the economy is getting better.

I say "not much better" and "the data from the BLS is highly suspect" (and contains the letters BLS plus a few more).
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 1:27:09 PM

"The economy is still fairly stagnant, most of the "new" jobs are getting outsourced out of the country or sucked up by immigrants (did you see the new post or not?)."

3.2 million net jobs gained since 2/28/13 is stagnant? Do you even know the meaning of outsourced?

"So don't try to put words in my mouth..."

You posted the positive data, not me...
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 1:18:25 PM

No, I don't support 0bama or anything he has done to this country. The economy is still fairly stagnant, most of the "new" jobs are getting outsourced out of the country or sucked up by immigrants (did you see the new post or not?).
The Department of Labor Statistics continues to lie with statistics, nothing they report can be taken with any accuracy. There are millions of people who want to work full-time but can't find suitable employment. Many of them remain on welfare programs (hey, it beats starving) when they would really rather not be.

So don't try to put words in my mouth, you have enough trouble choosing your own.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 6/27/2014 1:18:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 11:37:31 AM

"Oh, and everyone know that unemployment will never reach "zero" and that at about 5% most economists consider to be "full employment"."

Outstanding - finally, some realistic info from you.

"I put up a red herring and you failed to spot it."

I saw '0 percent unemployment' - why would I need to dig further into your erroneous, fictional calculations?

"The decline in unemployment from the date in 2013 to the date in 2014 should be calculated as 22,344,803 - 19,057,431 = 3,287,372 a substantial decrease..."

So then you now approve of Obama on this subject, given the substantial decrease. Understood.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 11:30:02 AM

Oh, and everyone know that unemployment will never reach "zero" and that at about 5% most economists consider to be "full employment".

I don't agree with them at that number. Currently North Dakota is at about 2.5% and I'm surprised it's listed as that high.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 11:28:32 AM

I have given up responding to your "debates"? I put up a red herring and you failed to spot it.

The decline in unemployment from the date in 2013 to the date in 2014 should be calculated as
22,344,803 - 19,057,431 = 3,287,372
a substantial decrease, at a rate which if continued would eliminate unemployment in 6.79 years, not 43.48 years. I posted the fact that I had posted a red herring on my whiteboard that day, June 10, it's still there, and you failed to take the ball and run with it.

Don't accuse me of not responding to the debate, you get a great big FAIL in this one.

:)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 11:17:01 AM

"You can draw your own conclusions."

I have concluded that you once again have given up responding to our debates, since you couldn't answer when unemployment was last at zero...

The status-quo remains intact. Time to initiate the next smoke screen.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 10:44:41 AM

The Center for Immigration Studies has done an exhaustive scholarly report on how immigration affects employment of natives. The title describes the results:
Study: All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants
"According to a major new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), net employment growth in the United States since 2000 has gone entirely to immigrants, legal and illegal. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, CIS scholars Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler found that there were 127,000 fewer working-age natives holding a job in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000, while the number of immigrants with a job was 5.7 million above the 2000 level."

"The supply of potential workers is enormous: 8.7 million native college graduates are not working, as are 17 million with some college, and 25.3 million with no more than a high school education.
According to the study, 58 million working-age natives are not employed."

The study reaches three conclusions. See link.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Some here will draw erroneous conclusions, such as "immigrants will do jobs Americans won't do" and "they're here, it's a reality, might as well let them work and become citizens" and "we're a nation if immigrants, how can you be against it now"

Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,571
Points:2,097,165
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Jun 25, 2014 9:10:06 PM

Put me in this group
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 25, 2014 2:39:26 PM

"At that rate, it will take 43.48 years (each year being 16 months) to reduce unemployment to zero."

When has it EVER been zero?

Gotta love hyperbole... too bad there is no Nobel for that category.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,508
Points:3,009,245
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 1:37:56 PM

"Um, the Recession didn't just stop his first day in Office." Nope. It did end, by official statistics (the economy stopped shrinking and began to grow) in Summer 2009. Since then, it's all been good, right?

2/28/13:
Official Unemployed: 12,299,707
Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803 ----> difference of 10,045,096

6/10/14:
Official Unemployed: 9,533,290
Actual Unemployed: 19,057,431 ---> difference of 9,524,141

10,045,096- 9,524,141 = 520,955 fewer unemployed now than Feb.2013. Out of 22 million plus unemployed, an astounding reduction of 2.3%!

At that rate, it will take 43.48 years (each year being 16 months) to reduce unemployment to zero.

Wonderful! Barack 0bama is an economic Genius! He should win a Nobel Prize for Economics!

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 6/10/2014 1:38:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,864
Points:534,085
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 1:15:36 PM

"That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office."

Um, the Recession didn't just stop his first day in Office. What is with this ridiculous propaganda?

"So why does the "official unemployment rate" keep going down?"

Simple - people are getting jobs. Stop making it a complicated conspiracy theory.

2/28/13:

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707

Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

6/10/14:

Official Unemployed: 9,533,290

Actual Unemployed: 19,057,431

Bottom Line. Need me to do the math for you? I75 had a hard time figuring this one out too ;)
Post a reply Back to Topics