Sure, as soon as you document your claim that the calculation of U-3 unemployment has changed since Reagan. TIA
Sheik, my head is fully above ground and my eyes open, Obama's policies have been a failure and the results show it. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. you have a lot invested in the hated of Bush and ignorance of the data choosing to post percentage change vs. actual numbers.
There's no way your head can be above ground without understanding what I posted. The truth (something you're allergic to) is that you just don't want to accept it./COLOR]
Already have, discouraged workers weren't counted as unemployed after 1994. There was no calculation for U-6 numbers during the Reagan years or prior to 1994
I have no problem with the U-3 rate except when you make the statement that no Republican President had a better performance than Obama especially when you ignore that the U-3 rate in the 80's was different than the U-3 rate after 1994. how about some intellectual honesty from a liberal? Reagan's unemployment, GDP growth, employment, and revenue growth to the govt. were much better than Obama's and the economy worse
unfortunately I know exactly what you are posting and how you are distorting the numbers to make Obama look better than he really is. The question is why do you support the Obama policies and what he is doing?
I know what you claim. You claim a lot of things that aren't actually true. What I want to see is the evidence supporting your claim.
To gain an understanding of how the revised CPS survey differed from the former CPS, a parallel survey using the new questionnaire was administered to roughly 12,000 households over an 18-month period. The new CPS yielded an overall unemployment rate of 7.3 percent compared with 6.8 percent under the old survey. The new questionnaire also indicated higher unemployment among women, teenagers and the elderly. The unemployment rate for women, for instance, was 7.1 percent under the new survey compared to 6.4 percent under the old CPS.
I know what you claim. You claim a lot of things that aren't actually true. What I want to see is the evidence supporting your claim.
BUMP
No response? Not going to document your claim, Con?
I wonder why?
Maybe it's because the 1994 bls changes actually resulted in a HIGHER unemployment rate relative to the old methodology -- not a lower rate, as you claim?
Employment and unemployment data: dramatic changes of key indicators | Government Finance Review | Find Articles
No what you want is proof that you will ignore. Research discouraged workers and the U-6 rate, that way you will actually learn something
Proof I will address. Your unsubstantiated assertions I shall continue to ignore.
The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs. Its continuing divergence from the official rate (the “U-3″ unemployment measure) indicates the job market has a long way to go before growth in the economy translates into relief for workers.
The U-6 rate is now the highest since the Labor Department started this particular data series in 1994
You tryin' to pull a fast one, Con?You will continue to play your games then? Fact, bls did not calculate U-6 numbers prior to 1994 and you cannot find any U-6 numbers for that period of time.That says it all
Broader U-6 Unemployment Rate Hits 17.5% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Was the GDP higher or lower in 2011 vs. 2010? That question has not been answered. Why is this called the worst recovery from a recession in history?
You will continue to play your games then? Fact, bls did not calculate U-6 numbers prior to 1994 and you cannot find any U-6 numbers for that period of time.That says it all
Broader U-6 Unemployment Rate Hits 17.5% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
You tryin' to pull a fast one, Con?
Where does that say the U3 calculation in 1982 is the same methodology used to calculate the U6 rate now?
You still fighten this loosing battle ?I thought with a good nites sleep this woulda seemed like a bad dream to you.:2wave:
The Methodology is the same, the numbers after 1994 exclude the discouraged workers whereas they didn't prior. You seem unable to grasp that reality
By the way a very powerful message from someone living through what you are supporting here
The PJ Tatler » Hannan to U.S.: Stop Trying to Catch Up with the EU
The Methodology is the same, the numbers after 1994 exclude the discouraged workers whereas they didn't prior. You seem unable to grasp that reality
By the way a very powerful message from someone living through what you are supporting here
The PJ Tatler » Hannan to U.S.: Stop Trying to Catch Up with the EU
That is bull****, as the link I already provided proved. In fact they calculated pre-1994 employment using the old and new methods and the current, post-'94 methodology resulted in a HIGHER unemploment rate. Why? Because there were many changes in the methodology -- not just changes to discouraged workers, as you imply.
Are you playing a game like Adam or do you really believe that what Obama is doing is right for America? Results apparently don't matter. here is something more to think about
The PJ Tatler » Hannan to U.S.: Stop Trying to Catch Up with the EU
I know you know the U6 includes more than just discouraged workers.
Why are you moving the goal post to Europe?The United States isn't good enough for you?Why the hatred for the USA?:shock:
Better question is why would you support a President that is attempting to convert our economy to the European model?
no, that isn't Bull**** except to point out the extreme ignorance of liberals. U-6 is calculated by the BLS and wasn't done prior to 1994. Your loyalty to a liberal economic model is quite telling.
One woulda thought that you would wait until the afternoon for the moving of goalpost.Gees...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?