Recession or Depression which one are we in?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really wonder if we can trust the Govts figures and numbers on this too, I mean it would be in their interest to ‘fudge’ the numbers and always talk positive about the economy, even if its not in great shape.
Supposedly, the unemployment rate is 6.1%. But, we’ve got close to a hundred million Americans who are not working, and that number goes up every month. The only way the unemployment numbers can come down while the number of Americans not working keeps going up is by not counting as “unemployed” those who have given up trying to find a job and have left the workforce.

According to the BLS, June employment rose by 288,000 jobs. In reality, close to 500,000 full-time jobs were lost in June while close to 799,000 low-paying part-time jobs were created. Look for the BLS to -]revise/-] make up new numbers in subsequent reports.
 
:bighanky:
Supposedly, the unemployment rate is 6.1%. But, we’ve got close to a hundred million Americans who are not working, and that number goes up every month. The only way the unemployment numbers can come down while the number of Americans not working keeps going up is by not counting as “unemployed” those who have given up trying to find a job and have left the workforce…
Erich, your onto something. These numbers are very high yet we are not being given the correct data about True unemployment. I don’t know where they get their numbers but I know *it’s not *all the truth. There is a lot of people being not being including in the government count. So many people left out. E.g. those no longer receiving U. insurance, those that could no longer find work, those gone homeless because of lack of work and many more. My guestimate would be unemployment rate as high as 25% in at least California to name a few.
 
:bighanky:

Erich, your onto something. These numbers are very high yet we are not being given the correct data about True unemployment.
What do you consider to be the “correct data” and what is it currently?

In June, 2.0 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 554,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Among the marginally attached, there were 676,000 discouraged workers in June, a decrease of 351,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in June had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
 
What do you consider to be the “correct data” and what is it currently?

In June, 2.0 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 554,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Among the marginally attached, there were 676,000 discouraged workers in June, a decrease of 351,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in June had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
👍👍 so true!
 
What do you consider to be the “correct data” and what is it currently?

In June, 2.0 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 554,000 from a year earlier. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
If I’m reading this correctly, the true unemployment numbers should be not 6% as mentioned in some places but higher. What have you found out to be the true unemployment #? What does this data say?
 
If I’m reading this correctly, the true unemployment numbers should be not 6% as mentioned in some places but higher. What have you found out to be the true unemployment #? What does this data say?
In June the number of unemployed persons decreased by 325,000 to 9.5 million.

so that is 9.5M/155.74M = 6.1%

if we add back the 2 million who are "marginally attached:

11.5M/155.74M = 7.4% 🤷

Here is an article from January of 2012 that talks about the labor force.
forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/02/06/unemployment-8-3-or-11-or-15-1-2/
 
This might help.

bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

From what I have read on invester sites we are in a slow world wide recovery.

“We detail how, after years of slightly disappointing 2% real growth,
the U.S. in 2014–2015 faces cyclical risks tilted toward better-than-trend growth for the first time since the onset of the global financial crisis. Our economic outlook, in short, is one of resiliency.”

pressroom.vanguard.com/content/nonindexed/Updated_Vanguard_economic_and_investment_outlook_January_2014.pdf

Macroeconomic backdrop: Global economic growth is slow—but steady—with a mixed outlook among countries and regions.

fidelity.com/viewpoints/market-and-economic-insights/market-update-third-quarter2014-key-takeaways
 
The headline that’s not being reported is the following:

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate drops to 62.8% in June 2014

The labor force participation rate indicates the proportion of the available “working age” population that is willing and able to work and is either employed or actively seeking employment. It is found by dividing the labor force (total civilian labor force) by the population (total noninstitutionalized civilian population).

In other words, 37.2% of the population is either unemployed, underemployed, employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), or only marginally attached to the labor force (i.e. not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months – but not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey).
 
In other words, 37.2% of the population is either unemployed, underemployed, employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), or only marginally attached to the labor force (i.e. not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months – but not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey).
More history on that:
businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-not-a-problem-2014-1

as of 2012 (Let’s try to find more timely data) More people are retiring and out of the force. About the same disabled. Other reasons about the same.

philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/research-rap/2013/on-the-causes-of-declines-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate.pdf
 
During Obama’s first term in office, 8.5 million Americans have left the labor force.

Another way of looking at this is, at the start of Obama’s first term, the economy had jobs for 8.5 million people who at the start of his second term did not have them. You could also say that the number of jobs available has also decreased by a number that approximates that. It wouldn’t be exact, but it’s close.

And, what about the simple fact that there are more working-age people in the US now than there were six years ago? All of those high school and college graduates in the last seven years that entered the job market, but haven’t gotten jobs.

Apparently, Obama has decided that the only way to lower the unemployment rate is to kill off jobs.
 
As delicious as it might seem to blame Obama for all our woes, it is not nearly that simple. There are global and national business cycles and the Federal Reserve does all it can to smooth them out.

How do you see Obama killing jobs?
 
How do you see Obama killing jobs?
Seriously?

The official unemployment rate is 6.2%. These are the total unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. But when you add in all those who are marginally attached to the labor force, plus those who are employed part time for economic reasons, discouraged, etc, that number goes up to 12.2% using the BLS’s own numbers! The difference represents the number of full-time jobs that no longer exist.

The U.S. economy lost 523,000 full-time jobs in June. This was offset by an enormous surge of 799,000 part-time jobs. That gives us what the media is bizarrely reporting as “300,000 jobs created.” There’s no “robust growth” here. It’s a massive jump in the ongoing transformation of American into a part-time economy. It’s awful news, the sort of thing that would be making Americans howl for new leadership and new ideas, if it was reported accurately. So, why don’t these folks have full-time jobs? Obamacare, which has become the poster child for bait-and-switch, is certainly a factor. Never mind “No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase” and “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits” and all the rest.

From The Washington Post: The CBO previously estimated that the economy would have 800,000 fewer jobs in 2021 as a result of the law. In that analysis, the CBO looked primarily at how employers would respond to a new penalty for failing to offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. That response would include cutting people’s hours, hiring fewer workers and lowering wages for new jobs.

On Tuesday, the agency released a more detailed estimate that includes how ordinary Americans would react to those changes by employers. Some would choose to keep Medicaid rather than take a job at reduced wages. Others, who typically do not work full-time, would delay returning to work in order to keep subsidies for private insurance that are provided under the law.

As a result, by 2021, the number of full-time positions would be reduced by 2.3 million, the report said.

The reduction in employment from the health care law “includes some people choosing not to work at all and other people choosing to work fewer hours than they would have in the absence of the law,” the CBO said.
But it’s not just Obamacare. Obama’s plan to combat so-called “climate change” is predicted to force more than a third of the nation’s coal-fired power capacity to close by 2030, resulting in economic losses of $50 billion a year and the elimination of 224,000 more jobs.

BLS numbers have been cooked to show that the US regained all the jobs that were lost over the past six years… but that perspective doesn’t take into account the number of new people in the labor force or address the labor market gap created by those new people. The Urban Institute says we needed to create seven million jobs* just to keep up with the population growth*. Obviously that didn’t happen.

The facts speak for themselves.
 
The headline that’s not being reported is the following:

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate drops to 62.8% in June 2014

The labor force participation rate indicates the proportion of the available “working age” population that is willing and able to work and is either employed or actively seeking employment. It is found by dividing the labor force (total civilian labor force) by the population (total noninstitutionalized civilian population).

In other words, 37.2% of the population is either unemployed, underemployed, employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), or only marginally attached to the labor force (i.e. not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months – but not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey).
👍👍 That’s what I have found to be the case in my area.
 
Michael Mayo;12219472:
In June the number of unemployed persons decreased by 325,000 to 9.5 million.

so that is 9.5M/155.74M = 6.1%

if we add back the 2 million who are "marginally attached:

11.5M/155.74M = 7.4% 🤷

Here is an article from January of 2012 that talks about the labor force.
forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/02/06/unemployment-8-3-or-11-or-15-1-2/
Thanks for the #
The BLS’s own report states that the U6 unemployment rate (“Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force”) was 12.1% in June, and 12.2% in July.

Not 7.4%

Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.
 
New Mexico Bishops agree we are in a Depression era. I must agree too!

NM Catholic Bishops: SNAP work requirement program ‘unconscionable’

Updated: 08/14/2014 3:40 PM | Created: 08/14/2014 3:38 PM
By: Blair Miller, KOB.com

The New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement Thursday blasting the state legislature’s possible plan to require 20 hours of work a week to qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

“These administrators believe they are acting in the state’s best interests, and in a strong economy their idea might be defensible. However, in one of the worst economies since the Great Depression, it is unconscionable.”

Human Services Secretary Sidonie Squier told a congressional panel in July that she was “pretty sure New Mexico is going to be involved” in the work requirement program.

“The administration of the State wants to deny food benefits to those who cannot find a job in a market that isn’t producing any,” the Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a release.

New Mexico ranks 48th out of all states in job growth, and U.S. Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-Albuquerque, noted in July that the city is still in the midst of a double dip recession.

The state currently provides food stamps to 400,000 New Mexicans.

New Mexico would have to apply for the work requirement program. The Human Services Department says it’s still considering whether or not to apply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top