Why all the talk about dogs and contraceptives?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The real unemployment numbers

People ask, why all the talk about dogs and contraceptives?  The reason is: jobs.

Tomorrow the Labor Department will release its April employment report.  If the rate goes down, the administration will brag a bit, but they won't dwell on it.  They know that the unemployment rate does not reflect the actual number of people who need work.  Did you ever wonder how many of them are really out there?

Let's put it in pre-recession, real numbers perspective. In July 2007, at the peak of the bling-years boom, there were 146.1 million people employed, 7.1 million unemployed, and 4.5 million working part-time "for economic reasons," which, added to the unemployed, gives the number for "underemployed” (U6). There were 78.7 million people not in the labor force. The unemployment rate was 4.6%.

Last month, in March 2012, there were 142 million employed, 12.7 million unemployed, 7.7 million U6, and 87.9 million "not in the labor force". The unemployment rate is now (supposedly) 8.2%.

With 154.7 million in the labor force, 1% represents about 1.55 million people. The unemployment rate is 3.6% higher, so there ought to be about 5.4 million less people working than five years ago. That's not true. There are indeed 5.6 million more unemployed, but there are also a staggering 9.2 million more people "not in the labor force," most often because they can't find a job. That means the total number of additional people actually out of work compared to 2007 is 14.8 million, or 9.7% of the labor force. Add that to the original 4.6%, and the actual rate of unemployment is about 14.3%. Also, there are 3.2 million more people working part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work. Let’s add. Today, there are 18 million more people not working or unable to find the job they want than in 2007. Add in the original 7.1 million already unemployed in 2007, plus the original 4.6 million U6, and the total is 29.7 million.  In a universe of 155 million workers, the real U6 rate is thus approximately 19%. This is all Dept. of Labor data, offering an apples to apples comparison.

These 29.7 million people are anonymous, nameless, faceless.  But the President's team knows they are out there, and that they are highly likely to vote.  So they don't want to talk about jobs.  They want to change the subject.  Hence, more talk about dogs and contraceptives.

LINK

[HeinBallz]

Will be curious if the "look over here - Not over there" strategy will work much longer.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you aren't looking for a job, why should you be counted in a statistic that reflects the difficulty of finding a job? The US government reports the percentage of people who want a job but can't find one.

[HeinBallz]

If you aren't looking for a job, why should you be counted in a statistic that reflects the difficulty of finding a job? The US government reports the percentage of people who want a job but can't find one.

Is there a metric for lazy ass welfare douche bags?  Maybe that stat would fit better there.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you aren't looking for a job, why should you be counted in a statistic that reflects the difficulty of finding a job? The US government reports the percentage of people who want a job but can't find one.

Is there a metric for lazy ass welfare douche bags?  Maybe that stat would fit better there.

I would say take john "teach me how to" dougie's metric for unemployment and subtract the US government's metric from it.

I think that would tell you that approximately 10% of all Americans are lazy ass welfare douche bags. I'm not sure if that would include college students and stay-at-home moms, though. If it does, it's still flawed.

EDIT: I'm also not sure if retirees are counted in John's figure.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

If you aren't looking for a job, why should you be counted in a statistic that reflects the difficulty of finding a job? The US government reports the percentage of people who want a job but can't find one.

They also stop counting people that run out of unemployment benefits after 99 weeks. This is the only reason the U3 number is very slowly going down.

"Joe Blow isn't getting unemployment check anymore, so he must have a job! We just created another job."  This is why the U3 numbers are so ridiculous.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you aren't looking for a job, why should you be counted in a statistic that reflects the difficulty of finding a job? The US government reports the percentage of people who want a job but can't find one.

They also stop counting people that run out of unemployment benefits after 99 weeks. This is the only reason the U3 number is very slowly going down.

"Joe Blow isn't getting unemployment check anymore, so he must have a job! We just created another job."  This is why the U3 numbers are so ridiculous.

Well, I don't honestly believe that anybody is unable to find a job for 99 weeks. Unemployment benefits should run out after 26 weeks at the very longest, imo.

[HeinBallz]

You heartless bastard


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

Seriously, though, if you draw unemployment for nearly 2 years and think you are ever going to get somebody to offer you a good job at any point in your future, you are beyond stupid.

[HeinBallz]

Sorry...   I thought all of the arguments I make for smaller government / less government assistance / vote for Ron Paul would have made it painfully obvious that I was being sarcastic.

[HeinBallz]

why 26 weeks?  12 Max IMO.

[Rage Against the McKee]

why 26 weeks?  12 Max IMO.

12 weeks can be difficult logistically depending on a person's situation and the economy at a given point in time. In a good economy, 12 weeks is more than enough time. In times like these, where many people are living in homes that have been devalued to the point of being worth less than what they owe the bank, it can be very difficult to move, and this makes it harder to find a job. I don't have a problem with extending unemployment benefits, but anything over 6 months in even the worst circumstance is just a bad idea. If a guy can't find a job after actively looking for 6 months, it's time to find a new field.

[HeinBallz]

Maybe I'm a crazy bastard for keeping 3 months worth of bills in my savings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

Maybe I'm a crazy bastard for keeping 3 months worth of bills in my savings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, that's smart. Most Americans are not smart. It's a better deal for everyone to have a program that keeps people on their feet long enough to find a job than it is to have no program and let everyone who gets laid off be devastated.

[HeinBallz]

I didn't say get rid of in unemployment - how devastating is it getting free money for three months?  Sounds pretty rough ridin' awesome to me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ednksu]

wait...I read it quickly....but did they add the unemployment from now and 2007 together to get that 29.7?

And the article is totally false about who is bringing up the contraceptive/war on women issue.