Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Most precise unemployment rate (as of Oct 2011): 16.2%

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-05-11 11:21 PM
Original message
Most precise unemployment rate (as of Oct 2011): 16.2%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

U-6 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.......16.2%
Refresh | +6 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-05-11 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. K
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. Economy is improving, may be a little slow,
but trend is up. 80,000 new jobs created, which is actually 107,000 since 27,000 gov't jobs were lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. But it's still only a gain of 80K
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. that sounds about right to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. Goalposts...
If U-3 numbers shows too much improvement, start griping about U-6 numbers. Different standards are a-ok for this President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Its pretty transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Who said I would hold any other President under different standards?
You evidently don't know me very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Why haven't you?
Where are the comparisons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Is Bush President right now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Does he need to be to make a comparison?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. No, because I already have
Edited on Sun Nov-06-11 04:59 PM by brentspeak
Many times in the past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What "different-standard" did I impose on Obama that I wouldn't hold to another President? You made the claim: now back it up. Otherwise, get back to your latte.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. It is true that I'm laughing
Edited on Sun Nov-06-11 05:44 PM by BklnDem75
This thread is proof enough of the double standard. The moving of the goalposts was pretty obvious.

Edit:
Not sure what your two links was suppose to disprove. U-3 numbers is the measurement used for every President. What's the purpose of tossing in U-6 numbers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nope. U5 (Unemployed) 10.5% + 5.7% (~U6) Part Time Underemployed = 16.2%
Edited on Sun Nov-06-11 10:41 AM by denem
U5 Broadest Definition Unemployment
U6 "plus total employed part time for economic reasons"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. If you are using that definition for unemployment the we need to go back and recalc the rate..
for all the years past with the same defintion to have a useful comparison to past values. 16% may not sound so bad when comparing apples to apples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I agree
compleiely disingenious to use numbers that have no long term comparative rates.

Un rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. So you recommend that ALL the unemployment numbers be disregarded?


"compleiely disingenious to use numbers that have no long term comparative rates.

Un rec."


BLS says this about U-2 (where the 9.0% figure comes from)



"Beginning in Jan. 2006, data are not strictly comparable with data for 2005 and earlier years because of the revisions in the population controls used in the household survey."

Read more: United States Unemployment Rate 19202008 Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html#ixzz1cxnflD...


I assume you actually researched this issue before you agreed with the prior poster and unrecced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Statistical numbers only mean something if you are comparing apples to apples.
You attempt to throw out a number that means nothing out of context. You know full well that most are completely unfamiliar with U-6 historical trend. Yet you throw it out there as if the number in and of iteself means something. Bullshit on that attempt at the misleading data and misleading the reader, and bullshit on making up shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. So tell us all about the "U-6 historical trend" that "most are completely unfamiliar with"
Your lack of historical knowledge concerning the U-3 has already been exposed (typo from before: I typed "U-2" instead of "U-3"), so maybe you actually know something about the U-6 -- though that seems unlikely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. bwahh ahha haa
post the long terms trends...make some sense of you own numbers. Why is it my job to clarify your fucking numbers and what they mean?

obfuscating is telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. It was 17.0% one year ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. See how AWESOME the Obama recovery is right now!!!!11!!!!!!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Pick me up, I've fainted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
24. Using that definition then I think about 10% unemployment would be the goal..
to be in the "normal" range.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
25. K&R Denial helps no one. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC