• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The real unemployment rate........ 22%?

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Needless to say, our government likes statistics, but there is some evidence that the REAL unemployment rate, that is, people actually out of work, is around 22%, just 3% lower than it was during the Great Depression.

Read this article.

So, what is the real unemployment rate, and what are factors that makes any figure today different than the Great Depression number of 25%?

Discussion?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
109,426
Reaction score
54,380
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Needless to say, our government likes statistics, but there is some evidence that the REAL unemployment rate, that is, people actually out of work, is around 22%, just 3% lower than it was during the Great Depression.

Read this article.

So, what is the real unemployment rate, and what are factors that makes any figure today different than the Great Depression number of 25%?

Discussion?

U6 is the "real" unemployment rate. In June, it was 16.5 %. Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

BY the way, U6 is calculated by the government...

Edit: Hey look, apparently the page I linked to timed out or something. But anyway, BLS tracks U6 unemployment, and has June at 16.5.
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's difficult to make the comparison because durring the time of the great depression, the elderly still worked in large numbers which could skew the numbers.

I think it's probably some where between 16%-25%.
 

The Dane

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
253
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yeah the real unemployment rate is higher. But why count people who aren't looking for a job. I mean if they really can afford to just not look for a job then why count them? The acurate unemployment rate is the one currently being used. It measures how weak or strong the labor pool is and is much more useful for both economists and politicians in both negative and positive ways.

It is very difficult to measure an economy's health from unemployment. A better rate is how many people were added to the payrolls on a monthly or yearly basis.
 

dontworrybehappy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
1,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yeah the real unemployment rate is higher. But why count people who aren't looking for a job. I mean if they really can afford to just not look for a job then why count them? The acurate unemployment rate is the one currently being used. It measures how weak or strong the labor pool is and is much more useful for both economists and politicians in both negative and positive ways.

It is very difficult to measure an economy's health from unemployment. A better rate is how many people were added to the payrolls on a monthly or yearly basis.

Because those people could have just gotten frustrated and stopped looking after failing for a long time. Just because they quit looking doesn't mean they have a job thus they should be included.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,844
Reaction score
12,895
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yeah the real unemployment rate is higher. But why count people who aren't looking for a job. I mean if they really can afford to just not look for a job then why count them? The acurate unemployment rate is the one currently being used. It measures how weak or strong the labor pool is and is much more useful for both economists and politicians in both negative and positive ways.

It is very difficult to measure an economy's health from unemployment. A better rate is how many people were added to the payrolls on a monthly or yearly basis.

Because the US unemployment number is basically a poll and not an actual counting of unemployed persons. That is why it is highly inaccurate to show actual unemployment and has been for decades. Also the US unemployment number base number (as in the number who can work) changes dramatically every month. It is not just adding newly educated or young people and removing pensioners and dead people.. it is also if you have not found a job after X time, then you are classified as "not looking for work" and hence are taken out of the statistics. Now you chances are you are still looking for work but the statistics dont show it. Hence unemployment numbers in the US are not representative of actual fact (not even remotely) and that is especially during a crisis when finding jobs is hard.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
54,852
Reaction score
34,750
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah the real unemployment rate is higher. But why count people who aren't looking for a job. I mean if they really can afford to just not look for a job then why count them? The acurate unemployment rate is the one currently being used. It measures how weak or strong the labor pool is and is much more useful for both economists and politicians in both negative and positive ways.

It is very difficult to measure an economy's health from unemployment. A better rate is how many people were added to the payrolls on a monthly or yearly basis.

It depends on why they aren't looking for a job. If they wish they had a job yet still aren't looking, we should count them. If they don't have a job and don't want a job, we should not count them.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's difficult to make the comparison because durring the time of the great depression, the elderly still worked in large numbers which could skew the numbers.

I think it's probably some where between 16%-25%.

I think another difference is that, in the 1930's, most women were not part of the workforce, as they are today.
 
Top Bottom