Gallup: February Unemployment Hits 10.3% (interviews, polls, compared, status)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would point out that because Clinton changed how unemployment was calculated in in 1994 to save his ass in the '96 Election, once someone gets discouraged and stops looking for work, or is forced to take a part time job because no full time jobs are available, they are no longer counted as unemployed.
WRONG!
The claim that "Clinton changed how unemployment was calculated in in 1994 to save his ass in the '96 Election" as if somehow that change lowered the UE rate is BOGUS. The change that year to BLS methodology was START COUNTING "discouraged workers" in a new UE rate (the U-6 UE rate). Prior to that such folks were not counted AT ALL - so the change Clinton made was to START counting them - not to STOP counting them. From then on they WERE COUNTED in the U-6 rate rather than simply IGNORED (as had been PREVIOUSLY the case). Such folks had NEVER been included AT ALL in ANY UE rate.
Yes, A job and a paycheck, is not a human right.
This is what happens when you let someone else dictate your worth and your destiny.
For the best interest of the nation.
The CEO-Shareholder model is dead
The best way to raise wages and to restore some normalcy is to reduce the workforce and boot out the illegals.
If we could have a one time donation of land to people to work in a farming community to, where they become self sufficient, with no taxes to pay for the land, and no money given either, it might work. Problem is, that the fascist corps would cry to the government and make up something such as health code violations to shut them down.
They need a plentiful worker base groveling at their feet in order to lower wages and benefits
The claim that "Clinton changed how unemployment was calculated in in 1994 to save his ass in the '96 Election" as if somehow that change lowered the UE rate is BOGUS. The change that year to BLS methodology was START COUNTING "discouraged workers" in a new UE rate (the U-6 UE rate). Prior to that such folks were not counted AT ALL - so the change Clinton made was to START counting them - not to STOP counting them. From then on they WERE COUNTED in the U-6 rate rather than simply IGNORED (as had been PREVIOUSLY the case). Such folks had NEVER been included AT ALL in ANY UE rate.
Seems others disagree with you
True Unemployment Rate Higher Than Reported (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors-mainmenu-46/667 - broken link)
But I dont know enough to decide who is correct..
It does beg the question.. When I make payroll, I have to report who I paid, how much they paid, and send payroll taxes into the state.. Why arent they calculated off actual payroll statistics instead of just random surveys?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The BLS ALSO collects and posts "NOT seasonally adjusted" (ie "raw" numbers) - for those who want to see them.
The United States Unemployment Rate (http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp - broken link)
No significant change in 1994 when suddenly the discouraged workers were supposed stripped from the UE count. If that had been the case there would have been a huge drop - and there is no significant drop at all. Even in a GOOD economy the U-6 number is roughly twice the standard (U-3) unemployment rate, consequently stripping those folks out of the U-3 number would have resulted in the U-3 UE rate suddenly dropping to half of what it was - and that simply didn't happen.
Seems others disagree with you
True Unemployment Rate Higher Than Reported (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors-mainmenu-46/667 - broken link)
But I dont know enough to decide who is correct..
It does beg the question.. When I make payroll, I have to report who I paid, how much they paid, and send payroll taxes into the state.. Why arent they calculated off actual payroll statistics instead of just random surveys?
Yes but we are discussing the percentage they publish.. which is based off the seasonally adjusted figures..
Yeah I see that claim posted all over the web - one site copying it from another, but the data doesn't back that up. There WAS no huge drop back in 1994 - and there WOULD have been had half the unemployed suddenly been stripped from the rate.
As I said, it's a BOGUS claim.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From then on they WERE COUNTED in the U-6 rate rather than simply IGNORED (as had been PREVIOUSLY the case). Such folks had NEVER been included AT ALL in ANY UE rate.
