Unemployment True Figure: 9.6% as Obama Cooks The Books

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Finally, we're starting to get more publicity about Obama's scam called the unemployment rate. (Bold emphasis mine)
EDITORIAL: Obama’s cooked jobs books
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES-
The Washington Times
Monday, April 9, 2012

In March, 120,000 jobs were created, while more than 330,000 people dropped out of the workforce. For self-serving reasons, the Obama administration spins this as good news.
According to government math, March unemployment declined by .1 percent even though more Americans were out of work. This is because the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) doesn’t count people as officially unemployed if they are not looking for a job. So even though the “not in labor force” figure is at a record high of nearly 88 million people, the administration can keep reporting a drop in unemployment by counting only those it wants to count.
A growing number of analysts are realizing that these subjective government figures don’t reflect reality in the workplace. An analysis from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Global Research shows that the percentage of employed Americans has basically flatlined for the past two years while the reported unemployment rate has been dropping. This is unprecedented; these two figures have reliably tracked together for at least the past 20 years. The only reason they have decoupled recently is because the Obama administration has stopped counting millions of out-of-work Americans as part of the official workforce. This widening gap is the smoking gun behind the phony unemployment numbers.
Election-year politics have something to do with the growing disconnect. A January report that appeared in the Zero Hedge website noted that if the logic of reporting progressively fewer labor-force participants continued, “America will officially have no unemployed when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5 percent, which should be just before the presidential election.” Three months later, the trend continues. Clearly, skewing the data is an easier way to lower the unemployment rate than investing billions of dollars in failing green-energy firms.
Congress is beginning to take notice. Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, California Republican, has proposed the Real Unemployment Calculation Act, which would require “the federal government [to] cite, as its official unemployment calculation, the figure that takes into account those who are no longer looking for work.” BLS already calculates this number - known as the U-5 rate - but it usually isn’t highlighted publicly. This more cohesive jobless indicator currently stands at 9.6 percent, which is more in line with reality based on the other objective data.
The government naturally wants to put as good a face on the ostensible recovery as possible, but the official unemployment figures are painfully out of step with reality. If three Americans are quitting the workforce for every one who finds a job, this is not a recovery. It is a national jobs crisis.
If Bush or any other GOP president had pulled this fraud the mainstream media would have turned it into a national scandal. This report makes me want to subscribe to the Washington Times.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Baloney. I don't believe it for a minute. Factor in all the ones who have run out of their four years of unemployment and those who gave up and all the others Obama's bums have hidden away to avoid looking so bad and the real number is double digit and probably into the teens.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
You think Obama invented the scam unemployment rate? That's funny right there.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Last numbers I heard, using government numbers that used to be used to calculate unemployment but no longer are, while the"official" unemployment rate was 8%+, the actual was well into the teens. So I doubt the difference between official and actual has closed like that.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Pretty sure nobody mentioned Obama inventing it but you. I just pointed out they are doing it and doubted their lie.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
considering we expediters aren't even counted at all in any numbers......we don't work and you all are are a bunch of lazy bums...lol....10's of thousands that have jobs don't show up in them numbers. if i were a betting guy I'd say the underground economy is stronger then ever....
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Baloney. I don't believe it for a minute. Factor in all the ones who have run out of their four years of unemployment and those who gave up and all the others Obama's bums have hidden away to avoid looking so bad and the real number is double digit and probably into the teens.

The U-6 unemployment is the one no one wants to talk about is the total, and as of March it stands at an unajusted 16.7%......here is a chart that shows all of the Gov's numbers....

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Pretty sure nobody mentioned Obama inventing it but you. I just pointed out they are doing it and doubted their lie.
The OP directly implied it in the Subject Title and in his first sentence.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Yeap all politicians have cooked the books on anything that needs to look better to benefit them...but the fact is barry is the one in office, he was the one that said he was going to "change the way thongs were none in Washington and he was going to be more "transparent" and be upfront with the people..but beyond that it is simply that he is the one doing the "cooking" NOW...so while he isn't the 1st, won't be the last, its him and HIS numbers that are "dishonest"....at this time....to make it look better for "HIM"....no one n the past or the next person, just him.....
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yeap all politicians have cooked the books on anything that needs to look better to benefit them...but the fact is barry is the one in office, he was the one that said he was going to "change the way thongs were none in Washington and he was going to be more "transparent" and be upfront with the people..but beyond that it is simply that he is the one doing the "cooking" NOW...so while he isn't the 1st, won't be the last, its him and HIS numbers that are "dishonest"....at this time....to make it look better for "HIM"....no one n the past or the next person, just him.....
Congratulations. You've just made one of the strongest cases to justify political hypocrisy I've seen yet. LOL
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Originally Posted by LDB "Pretty sure nobody mentioned Obama inventing it but you. I just pointed out they are doing it and doubted their lie."
The OP directly implied it in the Subject Title and in his first sentence.
I'm not privy to all the statistical intricacies that have been used over the years to come up with the published unemployment rates; if someone else has all these details and formulas, then please enlighten us all. Regardless, it's fair to say they've always been massaged to some extent - especially in election years. However, let me point out a couple of key sentences in the article that were emphasized in red:

"This is unprecedented; these two figures have reliably tracked together for at least the past 20 years. The only reason they have decoupled recently is because the Obama administration has stopped counting millions of out-of-work Americans as part of the official workforce."

Are the Obama numbers more fuzzy than the previous ones? That certainly appears to be the case and the author supplies the data to support his claim. If anyone has any hard evidence that proves otherwise, let's see it.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
I'm not privy to all the statistical intricacies that have been used over the years to come up with the published unemployment rates; if someone else has all these details and formulas, then please enlighten us all. Regardless, it's fair to say they've always been massaged to some extent - especially in election years.

Here's some history:
an old article found at http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=5182
Corsi explained that the Clinton administration changed the way BLS calculates unemployment statistics by excluding “discouraged workers,” those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be found.

Since the Clinton years, discouraged workers looking for a job for more than one year are not counted as “unemployed” because they are considered to have dropped out of the labor force.

The BLS still includes in “U6 Unemployment” calculations short-term discouraged workers, as long as they have been looking for a job less than one year.

This definition permits the Obama administration to under-report “U3 unemployment” at 10.2 percent when real unemployment as calculated before the Clinton administration redefinition is twice that amount, Red Alert contends, and U6 unemployment lies somewhere in between.

These differences are illustrated in the following chart that Williams produces in the “Alternative Data” section of his website named “Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting.”

As it says, there is a chatty on that page, and more of the article.

From http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts (a government watchdog group):
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.


From http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north738.html
UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

First, let's consider the unemployment rate. The latest figure is 9.5%. It is widely expected to rise to 10% by the end of the year. No one in a position of authority is predicting a major reduction of this rate by the end of 2010.

The unemployment rate is not well understood. It is not the ratio of people out of work to adults in the economy. It is the ratio of people out of work compared to the total labor force. The Bureau of Labor Statistics explains.

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed. People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

. . . The sum of the employed and the unemployed constitutes the civilian labor force.

Let's follow through on this. Joe gets fired. He is unemployed. He looks for a new job. He is still in the labor force. So, the unemployment rate rises: the ratio between those out of work in comparison with the total labor force.

Joe looks for a job. His unemployment insurance runs out. He stops looking for work. Or he starts looking for jobs that pay in cash. In either case, he is removed from the labor force. He is therefore also removed from the unemployment rolls.

As an unemployed person, he had a greater weight in the numerator (fewer people, total) than he did in the denominator. So, when he gets removed from both, the unemployment rate goes down. Victory for the stimulus! But the victory is purely statistical.




--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
16.7% sounds far more realistic and I'm sure is far closer to the truth.
 
Top