The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

[ProVobis]

States do sometimes base their unemployment rate on unemployment benefits.

The connection between receiving benefits and the unemployment rate is that in order to receive benefits,people are required to be seeking employment,and the government counts
as unemployed only those who claim to be seeking employment. So when people are dropped from unemployment benefits,it may mean they have given up looking for work or it
may cause them to give up looking for work,and they will not be counted as unemployed.

High unemployment numbers beg the federal government to extend benefits. Also the Fed likes the higher numbers so that they can justify printing of money. I’m not sure why anyone would want to manipulate the numbers down unless there’s perhaps a close election race anticipated.

 

[RACJ]

No, the unemployment rate is determined by the department of labor, the department of labor does not take people receiving benefits into account in any way. The point is, that some receiving benefits, were only looking for work to receive benefits. So they never should have been counted as unemployed in the first place, they had no intention of getting a job. The lapsing of the program did one of two things, it either spurred some to find work, or influenced some to drop out of the labor force. But it is in no way used to calculate the unemployment rate.

Cat, let’s assume the real rate is 5.6%, which it is not. How many people do you know are now considered “employed” b/c they have one, two or three low-paying part-time jobs, without benefits? There are many millions who fail to earn more than a small fraction of what they once earned, thanks to the Obama socialist economy. And, it will NEVER get better, as long as people the ilk of Obama win elections. Rob :bigyikes:

 

[RACJ]

High unemployment numbers beg the federal government to extend benefits. Also the Fed likes the higher numbers so that they can justify printing of money. I’m not sure why anyone would want to manipulate the numbers down unless there’s perhaps a close election race anticipated.

It’s to put the people to sleep, and convince them that their own desperate financial situation is the exception, AND that good fortune for THEM may be just around the corner. As long as the press doesn’t cover the tragedies, they don’t exist. That is the strategy anyway, and it seems to work.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Cat, let’s assume the real rate is 5.6%, which it is not.

What is it then?

How many people do you know are now considered “employed” b/c they have one, two or three low-paying part-time jobs, without benefits?

I only know one such person.

There are many millions who fail to earn more than a small fraction of what they once earned, thanks to the Obama socialist economy. And, it will NEVER get better, as long as people the ilk of Obama win elections. Rob :bigyikes:

I know several people who are making more money now than they ever have. I am not sure how Obama has affected them one way or another. The Obama socialist economy is really not that different than the Bush socialist economy. We are all socialists now, and have been for the past 80 years at least.

 

[RACJ]

I only know one such person.

You are not living in Scranton, for sure. Do you live in the DC Metro area, by any chance? That area seems to be the only one that is booming, outside fracking regions.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I only know one such person.

You are not living in Scranton, for sure. Do you live in the DC Metro area, by any chance? That area seems to be the only one that is booming, outside fracking regions.

The problem that Scranton seems to have is that area (Lackawanna County) has lost about half of its manufacturing jobs since 1998. Total jobs have been fairly stable, but the manufacturing jobs were probably replaced with lower paying jobs.

 

[RACJ]

The problem that Scranton seems to have is that area (Lackawanna County) has lost about half of its manufacturing jobs since 1998. Total jobs have been fairly stable, but the manufacturing jobs were probably replaced with lower paying jobs.

Exactly. Lower paying and part-time jobs.

Anyone out there live in booming areas, aside from Washington??

 

[styrgwillidar]

Exactly. Lower paying and part-time jobs.

Anyone out there live in booming areas, aside from Washington??

Nah, less jobs and more competition for what jobs there are with the illegals.

 

[zz912]

I wouldn’t necessarily call it a lie.

The people who use the statistics know what the figures mean.

The people who know what the figures mean are using the number to give a misleading and false impression to Americans.

 

[zz912]

High unemployment numbers beg the federal government to extend benefits. Also the Fed likes the higher numbers so that they can justify printing of money. I’m not sure why anyone would want to manipulate the numbers down unless there’s perhaps a close election race anticipated.

After six years they can no longer blame Bush for the economy, so they are trumpeting every minimally good piece of news to give the impression that socialism works. The utter destruction left in Obama’s wake is hard to hide, and they can’t have people thinking of that when he is trying to push more socialism.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

The Obama socialist economy is really not that different than the Bush socialist economy. We are all socialists now, and have been for the past 80 years at least.

Do you know where I can see some statistics on a yearly breakdown of the deficit and total debt for the US from an official website?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Do you know where I can see some statistics on a yearly breakdown of the deficit and total debt for the US from an official website?

census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment.html

 

[anthony022071]

No, the unemployment rate is determined by the department of labor, the department of labor does not take people receiving benefits into account in any way.

State governments also measure unemployment within states. That is what I was referring to.

The point is, that some receiving benefits, were only looking for work to receive benefits. So they never should have been counted as unemployed in the first place, they had no intention of getting a job.

They should be counted as unemployed because they are. Their lack of intention to get a job is not a good reason to not count them as unemployed.

For a just calculation of the unemployment rate,anyone who can and should be employed but is not should be counted as unemployed.

The lapsing of the program did one of two things, it either spurred some to find work, or influenced some to drop out of the labor force. But it is in no way used to calculate the unemployment rate.

It may not be used to calculate,but it still affects the results.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

They should be counted as unemployed because they are. Their lack of intention to get a job is not a good reason to not count them as unemployed.

For a just calculation of the unemployment rate,anyone who can and should be employed but is not should be counted as unemployed.

Technically everyone age 16 and up can and should be employed. Why should people who don’t want to be employed and/or have no intention of being employed be counted in a metric intended to measure the health of the job market for those who do want to be employed and are looking for work?

 

[Ridgerunner]

A national rate tells us some things, but it doesn’t tell us all things, because any kind of averaged number evens things out.

In the area where I live, unemployment might be negative in a way. It’s not at all hard to get a job and there are plenty of illegals working, so in a way it’s a “negative unemployment rate”. But I will also say that if one is white collar and loses his job, he’s going to have a very tough time getting another. The same is true of very highly skilled technical people. There’s plenty of work, but since businesses are not expanding, they just don’t have that much pull for highly skilled people who direct expansion.

Among those who have jobs, pay hasn’t progressed very much in several years, if at all, though I don’t think it has declined.

I read an article in which the author claimed that Social Security Disability is absorbing a lot of the unemployed. People who are 50 or older don’t have much trouble getting SSD nowadays. So if one loses a good job and can’t find anything that pays better than SSD, he goes on SSD and gathers a little income here and there to the extent allowed. When people go on SSD, they are definitely not counted in the unemployment numbers. Someone younger (or perhaps not even younger) takes that person’s place, and the unemployment number goes down by one.

 

[RGCheek]

Technically everyone age 16 and up can and should be employed. Why should people who don’t want to be employed and/or have no intention of being employed be counted in a metric intended to measure the health of the job market for those who do want to be employed and are looking for work?

Because people who have given up in despair are still victims of this corporate dominated economy.

Once they reduce us all to the same level of desperation that illegal immigrants are in they might close the border.

 

[anthony022071]

Technically everyone age 16 and up can and should be employed. Why should people who don’t want to be employed and/or have no intention of being employed be counted in a metric intended to measure the health of the job market for those who do want to be employed and are looking for work?

They should be counted because they exist,and unemployment statistics should accurately reflect the amount of people who can and should be employed but are not. The condition of the job market and the amount of people who want or don’t want employment are different matters. Unemployment statistics are not made public with the understanding that only those who are looking for work are counted.

 

[RGCheek]

They should be counted because they exist,and unemployment statistics should accurately reflect the amount of people who can and should be employed but are not. The condition of the job market and the amount of people who want or don’t want employment are different matters. Unemployment statistics are not made public with the understanding that only those who are looking for work are counted.

Yeah, I thought I was unemployed because I am on disability.

Now I know it is just because I am lazy.

Who knew?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Unemployment statistics are not made public with the understanding that only those who are looking for work are counted.

Yes they are. The BLS has always stated in the employment situation summaries that those who have not searched for work within a certain number of weeks leading up to the survey are not counted. And why should they be? Unemployment statistics wouldn’t have any value at all if you’re lumping in retirees and other people who either don’t want to work or just aren’t looking for work. What would be the use-case for a such a statistic?

 

[BobCatholic]

If they are looking for work, they are counted in the unemployment statistics. Yes, I would call anyone who wants a job and refuses to look for one lazy.

The U3 unemployment ONLY counts those collecting unemployment benefits as unemployed.

If they’re out of work more than 6 months, they no longer can collect unemployment, game over, they drop out of the unemployment rate. Even though they are still looking for work.

And someone who wants a job but can’t find one so they give up because they’re having serious soul-crushing issues after being out of work so long, is not lazy. Long term unemployment puts some depression on someone who grew up thinking they’d be a productive member of society (and they want to be!) but are not allowed to because there are no jobs.

Sounds like you never were laid off in your lifetime and cannot understand the suffering many unemployed people have. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that every single unemployed person is on “funemployment” sitting around watching Jerry Springer during the day.