• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Unemployment falls in 37 states in May

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is truly good news for the Obama administration, or is it? Let's read the article, shall we?

Nationally, the unemployment rate dropped to 9.7 percent in May from 9.9 percent in April. But the drop was largely because hundreds of thousands of jobless people stopped searching for work.
That says quite a bit, doesn't it? It used to be that, when the unemployment numbers were crunched, the result included people who were...... UNEMPLOYED - ALL OF THEM. But thanks to our government, there was a change in the way unemployment was calculated.

Back during the Great Depression, all the unemployed were counted, which is why the unemployment rate was calculated to be around 25%. Of course, now they magically drop off the roles of the unemployed after their unemployment benefits run out, or if they give up trying to find a job. Anyone care to venture a guess on what the unemployment picture really is? That is, by using the same method that was used during the Great Depression? You might be surprised to learn that it is much, much higher than the 9.7% the government claims. HINT: Take a look at U-6.

As the old adage goes, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then, there are statistics, or is it statistics promoted by government? Believe all the nice stories the government is telling you, if you want to. But, if you want an honest answer, just take a look around you. Do that, and you can not help but realize that some of the greatest liars in the world are right here in the good ole' USA, and they are running our government.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,043
Reaction score
4,085
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I've always had a problem with the methods of calculating the unemployed. What about all of the construction sub-contractors? They aren't eligible for benefits. They never get counted.
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The way we calculate unemployment is plain stupid. Common sense tells us that when people give up they are still unemployed. I would say that is even WORSE that somebody who is looking for a job.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've always had a problem with the methods of calculating the unemployed. What about all of the construction sub-contractors? They aren't eligible for benefits. They never get counted.
Same for the ones that stop looking for work. I don't get it either.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,301
Reaction score
50,288
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I've always had a problem with the methods of calculating the unemployed. What about all of the construction sub-contractors? They aren't eligible for benefits. They never get counted.
I spent some time one day researching the method of calculating unemployment, when it changed(there was a claim that Clinton changed it to make his unemployment rates look good. It was false), and why it is like it it. Dan answered those questions for the most part, but that leaves one more: why is it we are still using a method every expert agrees is a bad method to calculate unemployment? The answer was that it is not changed back to a more reasonable method is for consistency. Basically, if the official, widely reported method where changed, people would incorrectly compare unemployment rates.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's a little genius from ole Erod.

The number of people not working go in the numerator. The total number of people of working age go in the denominator.

Here's the tricky part: divide the numerator by the denominator, move the decimal to the right two spots, round to the nearest whole number, and put one of them funny percentage thingies on the end.

Voila!

Hope I wasnt moving too fast for anyone.
 

Frozengale

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
161
Reaction score
56
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I spent some time one day researching the method of calculating unemployment, when it changed(there was a claim that Clinton changed it to make his unemployment rates look good. It was false), and why it is like it it. Dan answered those questions for the most part, but that leaves one more: why is it we are still using a method every expert agrees is a bad method to calculate unemployment? The answer was that it is not changed back to a more reasonable method is for consistency. Basically, if the official, widely reported method where changed, people would incorrectly compare unemployment rates.
Wouldn't it just be better to use BOTH methods then? I mean if you know "Number of people looking" (Let's call it "A") "Number of unemployed not Looking" ("B") then we can just add A to B and get C. Total of Unemployed! Then we just use Erod's handy dandy equation and we can have our cake and nom it too.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,301
Reaction score
50,288
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Wouldn't it just be better to use BOTH methods then? I mean if you know "Number of people looking" (Let's call it "A") "Number of unemployed not Looking" ("B") then we can just add A to B and get C. Total of Unemployed! Then we just use Erod's handy dandy equation and we can have our cake and nom it too.
Both numbers are available. The "official" number is the official number for consistency, but you can find both.

 

Frozengale

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
161
Reaction score
56
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
well from that graph it looks like Unemployment has STILL fallen so that's good. Whether it's due to Obama or not I wouldn't know. We'll see.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do these numbers include illegals?

.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's a little genius from ole Erod.

The number of people not working go in the numerator. The total number of people of working age go in the denominator.

Here's the tricky part: divide the numerator by the denominator, move the decimal to the right two spots, round to the nearest whole number, and put one of them funny percentage thingies on the end.

Voila!

Hope I wasnt moving too fast for anyone.
Take 1 - labor participation rate.

I think you'll see why they typically don't use that to track the business cycle.

 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
well from that graph it looks like Unemployment has STILL fallen so that's good. Whether it's due to Obama or not I wouldn't know. We'll see.
Really? So if people give up looking for work because there are no jobs, that is a good thing? Great!! Let's really bring down the unemployment rate. Let's change the method to reflect the number of available jobs.

Not many jobs are available. Almost all of them are filled. So now the unemployment rate is 0.8%. This is great. Never mind that people are losing their homes and starving. The unemployment rate is extremely low, and that is a good thing.

See, I can lie with statistics too. :mrgreen:
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I never believe statistics put out by a Socialist administration, where to give an accurate accounting would prove beyond all resonable doubt that they are lying.

In my estimation i would put the overall percentage of Unemployed at about 17%.

I would in a similar vein put the rate of inflation at around 6%, certainly not the 2% claimed by this administration.
 

Frozengale

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
161
Reaction score
56
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Really? So if people give up looking for work because there are no jobs, that is a good thing? Great!! Let's really bring down the unemployment rate. Let's change the method to reflect the number of available jobs.

Not many jobs are available. Almost all of them are filled. So now the unemployment rate is 0.8%. This is great. Never mind that people are losing their homes and starving. The unemployment rate is extremely low, and that is a good thing.

See, I can lie with statistics too. :mrgreen:
They should totally do it that way next. I'm just saying that according to both formulas (the one that counts not looking and the one that does) both show a decrease. Whether it is right or not who knows. But both formulas agree.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,596
Reaction score
27,840
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is truly good news for the Obama administration, or is it? Let's read the article, shall we?



That says quite a bit, doesn't it? It used to be that, when the unemployment numbers were crunched, the result included people who were...... UNEMPLOYED - ALL OF THEM. But thanks to our government, there was a change in the way unemployment was calculated.

Back during the Great Depression, all the unemployed were counted, which is why the unemployment rate was calculated to be around 25%. Of course, now they magically drop off the roles of the unemployed after their unemployment benefits run out, or if they give up trying to find a job. Anyone care to venture a guess on what the unemployment picture really is? That is, by using the same method that was used during the Great Depression? You might be surprised to learn that it is much, much higher than the 9.7% the government claims. HINT: Take a look at U-6.

As the old adage goes, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then, there are statistics, or is it statistics promoted by government? Believe all the nice stories the government is telling you, if you want to. But, if you want an honest answer, just take a look around you. Do that, and you can not help but realize that some of the greatest liars in the world are right here in the good ole' USA, and they are running our government.

Article is here.
Well you're unemployed if you're not looking for work, or if you don't want to. If you collected a Welfare check, you aren't employed either; I wonder how many of those aren't counted.
 
Top Bottom