Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on January 09, 2009, 07:35:15 AM
-
Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million. Annual loss is biggest since the end of World War II. Payrolls shrink by 524,000 in December, and unemployment rate rises to 7.2%.
Another sobering government labor report released Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December, bringing 2008's total job loss to just below 2.6 million.
Last year's steep drop in employment marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended.
Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of 525,000 jobs in the month.
According to the Labor Department's monthly jobs report, the unemployment rate rose to 7.2% last month from 6.7% in November and higher than economists' forecasts of 7%.
The unemployment rate, which is compiled in a separate survey from the payroll number, was at its highest level since January 1993.
The vast majority - 1.9 million - of last year's job losses came in the final four months of 2008, after the credit crisis began in September. November's job loss was revised up to 584,000 from 533,000, and October was revised up by 103,000 to 423,000.
-
I think in another 8 months we could see unemployment in the state I live in reach 25%. It's currently as high as 13% in some counties. Also, remember the unemployment numbers are “fudged numbers.” The Government will not release the real unemployment numbers. When looking at unemployment numbers, you also have to realize they are not adding the people that have been out of work for over a year and their unemployment benefits have expired.
Welcome to the beginning of the second great depression.
-
Luckily, the recession is all in your head, bitches :)
-
I think in another 8 months we could see unemployment in the state I live in reach 25%. It's currently as high as 13% in some counties. Also, remember the unemployment numbers are “fudged numbers.” The Government will not release the real unemployment numbers. When looking at unemployment numbers, you also have to realize they are not adding the people that have been out of work for over a year and their unemployment benefits have expired.
Welcome to the beginning of the second great depression.
...this is an important point.
Many parts of America already have 25%+ unemployment.
The Luke
-
Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment? Hmmmm...where did you get that fact?
Its bad but now your making things up.
-
Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment? Hmmmm...where did you get that fact?
Its bad but now your making things up.
Detroit.
The Luke
-
Detroit.
The Luke
Doesn't sound like "many parts" to me. I doubt that is true.
-
Doesn't sound like "many parts" to me. I doubt that is true.
...this is what's wrong with America.
Come on guys... things are much worse than you guys believe.
Flint, Michigan has very high unemployment too. But Flint is just a large town, Detroit is a major metropolitan area.
Try adding up the figures for the total number of Americans that are:
-receiving unemployment
-receiving welfare
-homeless
Express that as a fraction of the adult population: 300 million minus the number of Americans under 18.
It's a lot higher than 7%.
The Luke
-
I don't doubt its bad there but still don't know if its 25%, plus thats 1 area. Higher than 7%, that is probably true. That city is the pits man. Once beautiful and full of history but the people trashed it.
-
...this is what's wrong with America.
Come on guys... things are much worse than you guys believe.
Flint, Michigan has very high unemployment too. But Flint is just a large town, Detroit is a major metropolitan area.
Try adding up the figures for the total number of Americans that are:
-receiving unemployment
-receiving welfare
-homeless
Express that as a fraction of the adult population: 300 million minus the number of Americans under 18.
It's a lot higher than 7%.
The Luke
Asking you to justify an apparently incorrect statement shows what's wrong with America? You stated the following:
...this is an important point.
Many parts of America already have 25%+ unemployment.
The Luke
What's the basis for this statement?
-
Luckily, the recession is all in your head, bitches :)
lol
-
Obama said that it's probably going to go over 10%.
-
I think in another 8 months we could see unemployment in the state I live in reach 25%. It's currently as high as 13% in some counties. Also, remember the unemployment numbers are “fudged numbers.” The Government will not release the real unemployment numbers. When looking at unemployment numbers, you also have to realize they are not adding the people that have been out of work for over a year and their unemployment benefits have expired.
Welcome to the beginning of the second great depression.
Yup, the unemployment numbers that the Gov sends out just indicate the numbers of people currently collecting unemployment checks.
There are a lot of other things that you guys need to consider:
1. How many people are voluntarily unemployed? Could they get a job if they moved to another city? How many refuse to take a job for whatever reason?
2. How many are seasonal workers?
3. etc?
-
...this is what's wrong with America.
Come on guys... things are much worse than you guys believe.
Flint, Michigan has very high unemployment too. But Flint is just a large town, Detroit is a major metropolitan area.
Try adding up the figures for the total number of Americans that are:
-receiving unemployment
-receiving welfare
-homeless
Express that as a fraction of the adult population: 300 million minus the number of Americans under 18.
It's a lot higher than 7%.
The Luke
And that’s what will make this economic downturn worse. People are like zombies in this country. They have no clue about what is happening. If you notice Obama is not as enthusiastic as he was in the elections. We aren’t hearing “yes we can” any longer.
-
Well, let's do the maths...
[(total on welfare)+(total on unemployment)+(total homeless)]
[(300,000,000)-(number of children under 18)]
...which is:
[(40m on welfare)+(10.3m on unemployment benefit)+(1m homeless)]/[(300m)-(75m under eighteen)]=(51.3m)/(225m)=22.8%
...but here I'm using:
-40m as the number on welfare. In fact nearly 55% (165m) of Americans are on some form of welfare or state aid. But seeing as only 37 million Americans are classified as officially poor I'll assume only 40m are welfare dependent because the actual direct hard numbers are pretty difficult to find.
-the 10.3m receiving unemployment benefit comes from the Labour Statistics Bureau www.bls.gov
-the 1m homeless is a generally agreed approximation (some claim its closer to 2m now)
-the US Census Bureau estimates the population at 301m as of this year
-the 75m under eighteen comes from the 2006 census estimate (12.4%)
An easier way to calculate it would be to count up the total amount of Americans working and divide the 51.3m by the total number working.
-131 million Americans are working (www.bls.gov)
-let's assume the 40m classified as "poor" represents 10m people who are working but unable to earn enough with 3 dependents each
...so our numbers are somewhat simplified:
[(10m workers on welfare)+(10.3m on unemployment)+(1m homeless)]/[(131m working)-(approx 10m workers on welfare)]
...you have to detract the workers on welfare from the working number as they are being counted as welfare recipients. Ideally you should subtract the final percentage from the approx 10m on welfare but that involves advanced algebra and has little effect on the outcome.
=(21.3m)/(121m)=17.6%
Another way to do it would be to simply calculate the total number of those working (131m) and divide it by the total number of Americans between 18 and 65 years of age.
24.6% of Americans are under 18 and 12.6% of Americans are over 65 according to the Census Bureau (2006 data) and the population is currently estimated at 305m (I'm including illegals), so let's calculate our available workforce:
305m population with 37% either under 18 or over 65 means 63% of 305m, that's 192m.
131m/192m = 68% of Americans between 18 and 65 working, that's 32% unemployment. Divide that by half to allow for stay-at-home moms... it's still 16%.
22.8%... 17.6%... 16%... which ever way you cut it, it's not 7%.
Please let me know if any of these figures are incorrect or any of my assumptions unfounded.
The Luke
-
Well, let's do the maths...
[(total on welfare)+(total on unemployment)+(total homeless)]
[(300,000,000)-(number of children under 18)]
...which is:
[(40m on welfare)+(10.3m on unemployment benefit)+(1m homeless)]/[(300m)-(75m under eighteen)]=(51.3m)/(225m)=22.8%
...but here I'm using:
-40m as the number on welfare. In fact nearly 55% (165m) of Americans are on some form of welfare or state aid. But seeing as only 37 million Americans are classified as officially poor I'll assume only 40m are welfare dependent because the actual direct hard numbers are pretty difficult to find.
-the 10.3m receiving unemployment benefit comes from the Labour Statistics Bureau www.bls.gov
-the 1m homeless is a generally agreed approximation (some claim its closer to 2m now)
-the US Census Bureau estimates the population at 301m as of this year
-the 75m under eighteen comes from the 2006 census estimate (12.4%)
An easier way to calculate it would be to count up the total amount of Americans working and divide the 51.3m by the total number working.
-131 million Americans are working (www.bls.gov)
-let's assume the 40m classified as "poor" represents 10m people who are working but unable to earn enough with 3 dependents each
...so our numbers are somewhat simplified:
[(10m workers on welfare)+(10.3m on unemployment)+(1m homeless)]/[(131m working)-(approx 10m workers on welfare)]
...you have to detract the workers on welfare from the working number as they are being counted as welfare recipients. Ideally you should subtract the final percentage from the approx 10m on welfare but that involves advanced algebra and has little effect on the outcome.
=(21.3m)/(121m)=17.6%
Another way to do it would be to simply calculate the total number of those working (131m) and divide it by the total number of Americans between 18 and 65 years of age.
24.6% of Americans are under 18 and 12.6% of Americans are over 65 according to the Census Bureau (2006 data) and the population is currently estimated at 305m (I'm including illegals), so let's calculate our available workforce:
305m population with 37% either under 18 or over 65 means 63% of 305m, that's 192m.
131m/192m = 68% of Americans between 18 and 65 working, that's 32% unemployment. Divide that by half to allow for stay-at-home moms... it's still 16%.
22.8%... 17.6%... 16%... which ever way you cut it, it's not 7%.
Please let me know if any of these figures are incorrect or any of my assumptions unfounded.
The Luke
So the basis for your contention that "Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment" are the above calculations? Sorry. Not buying. You don't even live in this country. I'm not one who trusts the government, but I don't believe they're all wrong and you're right on unemployment figures.
-
So the basis for your contention that "Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment" are the above calculations? Sorry. Not buying. You don't even live in this country. I'm not one who trusts the government, but I don't believe they're all wrong and you're right on unemployment figures.
..opinion is now considered a proper argument against maths?
The Luke
-
I join the ranks of the unemployed next week.my post count should get healthy.
-
I join the ranks of the unemployed next week.my post count should get healthy.
What industry were you in?
-
..opinion is now considered a proper argument against maths?
The Luke
No. I simply don't believe numbers you pulled together from God knows where that contradict unemployment figures from the feds and likely every state in the country.
-
What industry were you in?
I am a steel worker.and before that I was in insulation manufacturing which I was laid off from as well.I have made close to 6 figures for the last 5-6 years so I consider myself lucky to have lasted this long.
-
No. I simply don't believe numbers you pulled together from God knows where that contradict unemployment figures from the feds and likely every state in the country.
...those figures are from the American government themselves. I even provided the websites.
If you think 10.3 million Americans getting unemployment when only 131 million Americans are working translates to a 7% unemployment rate you need a lobotomy.
You obviously don't understand how these figures are fudged.
The Luke
-
...those figures are from the American government themselves. I even provided the websites.
If you think 10.3 million Americans getting unemployment when only 131 million Americans are working translates to a 7% unemployment rate you need a lobotomy.
You obviously don't understand how these figures are fudged.
The Luke
It's much simpler than that. I just don't believe you. Don't trust your math. I'm sure it's possible you, a non-American, could be right and the feds and the state governments in all 50 states could be wrong, but I doubt it.
-
It's much simpler than that. I just don't believe you. Don't trust your math. I'm sure it's possible you, a non-American, could be right and the feds and the state governments in all 50 states could be wrong, but I doubt it.
...a "non-American" ha-ha!
That's classic FOX News brainwashing right there!
10.3 million receiving temporary unemployment benefit; an undisclosed number of long term unemployed, 53.5% of Americans receiving some sort of state aid; an undisclosed number of people dependent on welfare; 37 million living in chronic poverty; 28 million so destitute they receive Food Stamps; 50% of pensions funds decimated by the Credit Crunch; $11 trillion of national debt; another couple of trillions in cash about to produce hyperinflation once it works its way through the Shadow Banking System.
But you're right... dismiss reality because a "non-American" told you about it.
The Luke
-
Shadowstats.com is a great place to find truer numbers. I think the last I checked they said unemployment is in doible digits for sure. I can't give out the exact number since I don't remember off the top of my head.
-
13.5% according to some sources.
If Milwaukee and Detroit are reporting 10-15% unemployment when the national average is supposedly 7.2%, doesn't that equate to 20ish% if the national figure has actually been fudged down from 13.5%.
The Luke
-
They have it nearly going off the chart.
(http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif)
(http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-gdp.gif)
-
Unemployment Claims Crash Multiple Websites.
As pink slips mount, so do calls to state unemployment centers. Those calls are pouring in so fast that state unemployment claim systems are overwhelmed.
Electronic unemployment filing systems have crashed in at least three states in recent days amid an unprecedented crush of thousands of newly jobless Americans seeking benefits, and other states were adjusting their systems to avoid being next.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/unemployment-claims-crash-multiple.html
-
Unemployment Claims Crash Multiple Websites.
As pink slips mount, so do calls to state unemployment centers. Those calls are pouring in so fast that state unemployment claim systems are overwhelmed.
Electronic unemployment filing systems have crashed in at least three states in recent days amid an unprecedented crush of thousands of newly jobless Americans seeking benefits, and other states were adjusting their systems to avoid being next.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/unemployment-claims-crash-multiple.html
Just think what unemployment will be like 8 months from now.
-
Hello.
"Official" government agency data is not to be trusted. It is a well-known fact that the numbers are "cooked" every single year. This data is usually masqueraded by Enron accounting-style gimmicks. Take for example inflation. It's a well-known fact that the people who calculate the final figures regularly remove those items, from the product basket from which inflation is calculated, that shoot off the chart in order to "massage" the figures downward. Note that these numbers are NEVER rounded up, but ALWAYS rounded down.
Believing what anyone says is optional, but finding it out for yourself should be mandatory.
-
Unemployment Claims Crash Multiple Websites.
As pink slips mount, so do calls to state unemployment centers. Those calls are pouring in so fast that state unemployment claim systems are overwhelmed.
Electronic unemployment filing systems have crashed in at least three states in recent days amid an unprecedented crush of thousands of newly jobless Americans seeking benefits, and other states were adjusting their systems to avoid being next.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/unemployment-claims-crash-multiple.html
Hahahaaa I bet they voted for George Bush!
-
...a "non-American" ha-ha!
That's classic FOX News brainwashing right there!
10.3 million receiving temporary unemployment benefit; an undisclosed number of long term unemployed, 53.5% of Americans receiving some sort of state aid; an undisclosed number of people dependent on welfare; 37 million living in chronic poverty; 28 million so destitute they receive Food Stamps; 50% of pensions funds decimated by the Credit Crunch; $11 trillion of national debt; another couple of trillions in cash about to produce hyperinflation once it works its way through the Shadow Banking System.
But you're right... dismiss reality because a "non-American" told you about it.
The Luke
Let's see. (A) I can believe the unemployment numbers compiled by all 50 states, which show ranges from 3 to 9 percent. http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/
Or (B) I can believe the America-hating non-American on a bodybuilding message board who says "Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment."
I'll take A for 300 Alex.
-
Let's see. (A) I can believe the unemployment numbers compiled by all 50 states, which show ranges from 3 to 9 percent. http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/
Or (B) I can believe the America-hating non-American on a bodybuilding message board who says "Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment."
I'll take A for 300 Alex.
...firstly, I don't hate America.
I've been to Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Washington State and always enjoyed my time there.
Secondly, dismissing a fact because you don't like the person who brought it to the discussion; or because you prefer to dismiss the arguments of "non-Americans" in general is exemplary of the type of foolishness that has America in its current predicament.
That 7.2% figure is wrong... plain and simple...
Including only those who are receiving temporary unemployment benefit isn't honest in the first place. What percentage of Americans are totally dependent on Welfare payments? What percentage are receiving no income whatsoever (the homeless)? What percentage simply aren't in gainful employment? Either underemployed; earning poverty level wages; unable to find employment; why are Welfare figures so closely guarded? Why does America do so poorly on the UN positive living indices if it truly has such high employment?
The Luke
-
...firstly, I don't hate America.
I've been to Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Washington State and always enjoyed my time there.
Secondly, dismissing a fact because you don't like the person who brought it to the discussion; or because you prefer to dismiss the arguments of "non-Americans" in general is exemplary of the type of foolishness that has America in its current predicament.
That 7.2% figure is wrong... plain and simple...
Including only those who are receiving temporary unemployment benefit isn't honest in the first place. What percentage of Americans are totally dependent on Welfare payments? What percentage are receiving no income whatsoever (the homeless)? What percentage simply aren't in gainful employment? Either underemployed; earning poverty level wages; unable to find employment; why are Welfare figures so closely guarded? Why does America do so poorly on the UN positive living indices if it truly has such high employment?
The Luke
I'm not dismissing your invented numbers solely because you're an America-hating non-American posting numbers on a bodybuilding message board that conflict with statistics compiled by 50 states. I mention those facts because it gives you less credibility. And when the messenger is asking you to take a leap of faith, the messenger's credibility is pretty important.
I'll take the numbers from the 50 states over your contention that "Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment."
-
I'm not dismissing your invented numbers solely because you're an America-hating non-American posting numbers on a bodybuilding message board that conflict with statistics compiled by 50 states. I mention those facts because it gives you less credibility. And when the messenger is asking you to take a leap of faith, the messenger's credibility is pretty important.
I'll take the numbers from the 50 states over your contention that "Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment."
...how did you ever get to be a moderator on this board?
The Luke
-
take a drive threw Detroit and you can see with your own eyes.not what some news station reports.not what the government tells you.but the harsh reality of a economic collapse.I have family in Toledo Ohio.I took the 20 minute drive to Detroit and let me tell you.It's not a pretty site.
-
take a drive threw Detroit and you can see with your own eyes.not what some news station reports.not what the government tells you.but the harsh reality of a economic collapse.I have family in Toledo Ohio.I took the 20 minute drive to Detroit and let me tell you.It's not a pretty site.
...in Ireland during the 80s we had 22% unemployment OFFICIALLY... the actual true number was closer to 35% according to some political dissidents.
Each year 70,000 kids would finish secondary school (highschool) while the emigration rate was 35,000 per year... leave school, 50/50 whether you had to emigrate, 50/50 whether you could find work.
We had crime, but surprisingly there weren't any major collapses of society.
The Luke
-
...how did you ever get to be a moderator on this board?
The Luke
:-*
-
:-*
...seriously dude, you seem extremely ill-informed and prejudiced.
The Luke
-
...seriously dude, you seem extremely ill-informed and prejudiced.
The Luke
Ah yes. Another member of the Beach Bum fan club. Can I put you on my Christmas list? :)
-
Ah yes. Another member of the Beach Bum fan club. Can I put you on my Christmas list? :)
...I was asking a serious question.
BeachBum, you seem to be the type of person with whom a five-minute conversation constitutes the best argument against democracy.
Ignorant and militant.
The Luke
-
...I was asking a serious question.
BeachBum, you seem to be the type of person with whom a five-minute conversation constitutes the best argument against democracy.
Ignorant and militant.
The Luke
O.K. Now I'm offended. "Militant"? How dare you. I haven't participated in more than half a dozen militia meetings in my entire life. That was really uncalled for. >:(
-
O.K. Now I'm offended. "Militant"? How dare you. I haven't participated in more than half a dozen militia meetings in my entire life. That was really uncalled for. >:(
...epic comedic evasion when criticism hits a nerve.
You should step down as a Moderator of this board.
The Luke
-
...epic comedic evasion when criticism hits a nerve.
You should step down as a Moderator of this board.
The Luke
Let me think about it. No. :)
-
Let me think about it. No. :)
...then attempt something more constructive that chronic ignorant dismissals.
The Luke
-
...then attempt something more constructive that chronic ignorant dismissals.
The Luke
No. :)
-
Hey Bum,
You own a biz. Have you laid anyone off yet due to the slowing economy?
just curious
some business don't seem to be effected. I have a friend who runs a wholesale produce distribution biz and he's actually expanding.
-
Nope. In fact, my business partners and I decided to take a pay cut this year to avoid laying off any employees. We could have cut loose one or two employees and avoided this, but we value our workers.
-
Nope. In fact, my business partners and I decided to take a pay cut this year to avoid laying off any employees. We could have cut loose one or two employees and avoided this, but we value our workers.
has your business slowed down due to the economy
what is your industry?
-
has your business slowed down due to the economy
what is your industry?
All businesses in Hawaii have slowed down. We're in a slump just like the rest of the country. Tourism is down. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are up. Property values are down. But we'll be fine. We're in a cycle.
-
All businesses in Hawaii have slowed down. We're in a slump just like the rest of the country. Tourism is down. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are up. Property values are down. But we'll be fine. We're in a cycle.
What is your industry?
-
thanks bush
-
Luke, any data on links as to 25% unemployment in the USA?
I live here and don't see it at all. It would mean 1 in 4 not working. Not the case. I work with many privately owned companies that hire regularly and they have seen a sharp increase in applicants but not nearly 5 times of what it was a few years ago. more like double. I don't doubt 7.2% isn't fully accurate becuase of how it's calculated but i can't see it being even close to 25%. Maybe 8.
-
Luke, any data on links as to 25% unemployment in the USA?
I live here and don't see it at all. It would mean 1 in 4 not working. Not the case. I work with many privately owned companies that hire regularly and they have seen a sharp increase in applicants but not nearly 5 times of what it was a few years ago. more like double. I don't doubt 7.2% isn't fully accurate becuase of how it's calculated but i can't see it being even close to 25%. Maybe 8.
No. He came up with the figures on his own. Here are the state-by-state figures: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/
-
Luke, any data on links as to 25% unemployment in the USA?
I live here and don't see it at all. It would mean 1 in 4 not working. Not the case. I work with many privately owned companies that hire regularly and they have seen a sharp increase in applicants but not nearly 5 times of what it was a few years ago. more like double. I don't doubt 7.2% isn't fully accurate becuase of how it's calculated but i can't see it being even close to 25%. Maybe 8.
...look at the census figures yourself.
305m Americans... 143m working Americans... 10.3m receiving unemployment benefit... that's where they get the 7.02% figure from: 10.3m/143m = 7.2%
But look past those figures a little...
Of the 305m Americans 37% are either under 18 or over 65 (24.6% under 18, 12.4% over 65 according to the 2006 census figures), so really it's 143m working out of 192m.
That's 75% employment (143/192), or 25% unemployment.
But if you allow for stay-at-home moms that probably comes down to 5-10% which might well be in line with the official figures, EXCEPT:
-what about the 37m Americans who are mostly working but who earn so little they are classified as "officially" poor? Should "wage-slaves" be considered gainfully employed?
-what about the 50-60m Americans who can't afford healthcare? Are they gainfully employed?
-what about the one to two million homeless?
-what about illegal immigrants?
-what about those long-term unemployed whose benefits have run out? They don't appear in that 7.02%.
-what about those completely dependent on welfare payments?
As has been pointed out already, the www.ShadowStats.com figure is closer to 17%.
There are already 7.2m Americans on "involuntary part-time" according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics.
What I claimed, and what I will defend, is that many parts of America already have 25% unemployment.
Think about it:
-Detroit
-Flint, Michigan
-Compton outside Los Angeles
-New Orleans
-just about any Indian (Native American) Reservation
-any housing project in any major city
...large sections of America are already falling by the wayside, but you guys seem so happily indoctrinated by the faux patriotism you can't see it.
The fact that morons such as Buffgeek (who is a Native and lives on an impoverished reservation) and BeachBum (whose every post attests to his poor reading comprehension) shout down anyone telling them the truth is exemplary of what is wrong with America.
The Luke
-
Luke,
BB used to drive me nuts, I mean I really wanted to choke the guy for being such a pain in the ass. He has a hard-on for Palin, and posts some annoying stuff. A joke about my wife's nipples was one step too far...
But all is forgiven these days. He's actually a hard-working guy and good man in real life - this is just his web persona. Just like I tend to rag on palin about 10 times a day and usually turn the channel when she's on, in real life.
-
A joke about my wife's nipples was one step too far...
I missed that :P
Would it be rude to ask you what it was? ???
-
...look at the census figures yourself.
305m Americans... 143m working Americans... 10.3m receiving unemployment benefit... that's where they get the 7.02% figure from: 10.3m/143m = 7.2%
But look past those figures a little...
Of the 305m Americans 37% are either under 18 or over 65 (24.6% under 18, 12.4% over 65 according to the 2006 census figures), so really it's 143m working out of 192m.
That's 75% employment (143/192), or 25% unemployment.
But if you allow for stay-at-home moms that probably comes down to 5-10% which might well be in line with the official figures, EXCEPT:
-what about the 37m Americans who are mostly working but who earn so little they are classified as "officially" poor? Should "wage-slaves" be considered gainfully employed?
-what about the 50-60m Americans who can't afford healthcare? Are they gainfully employed?
-what about the one to two million homeless?
-what about illegal immigrants?
-what about those long-term unemployed whose benefits have run out? They don't appear in that 7.02%.
-what about those completely dependent on welfare payments?
As has been pointed out already, the www.ShadowStats.com figure is closer to 17%.
There are already 7.2m Americans on "involuntary part-time" according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics.
What I claimed, and what I will defend, is that many parts of America already have 25% unemployment.
Think about it:
-Detroit
-Flint, Michigan
-Compton outside Los Angeles
-New Orleans
-just about any Indian (Native American) Reservation
-any housing project in any major city
...large sections of America are already falling by the wayside, but you guys seem so happily indoctrinated by the faux patriotism you can't see it.
The fact that morons such as Buffgeek (who is a Native and lives on an impoverished reservation) and BeachBum (whose every post attests to his poor reading comprehension) shout down anyone telling them the truth is exemplary of what is wrong with America.
The Luke
I didn't address the specifics of this nonsense earlier, because I didn't feel like it. But I'm a little bored now, so let's look at a few of "The Luke's" representations:
1. He claims there are "143m working Americans." According to this site, "The civilian labor force [is] (154.4 million)"http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
So, "The Luke" is only off by over 11 million.
2. He cites "2006 census figures." The last census was in 2000. It is done every ten years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census
3. He assumes everyone who is "either under 18 or over 65" is not part of the workforce. Most people who actually live in the U.S., however, know that there are likely millions of people who fall into the "under 18" and "over 65" category who are in the workforce.
4. He pulls a "stay at home mom" figure out of his rear end. Absolutely no support for this unassigned figure.
5. He has the absurd comment about slave wages: "what about the 37m Americans who are mostly working but who earn so little they are classified as 'officially' poor?" How this plays into his fairy tale analysis is beyond me.
6. He claims there are "50-60m Americans who can't afford healthcare." Even liberals say the number is about 47 million. And at least one government source says it's down to about 45 million (I don't agree with either figure. I think the number is much lower.): "Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007," David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, said during a morning teleconference.
The percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.3 percent in 2007, down from 15.8 percent in 2006. The number of uninsured dropped from 47 million in 2006 to 45.7 million in 2007, Johnson said." http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html
So, "The Luke" is only off by about 5 to 15 million people.
Now, if this America-hating non-American wonders why I don't trust the numbers he cooked up in his mom's basement in some country that probably lost thousands of immigrants to our great country (have no idea where this clown lives), that's why.
Now, I'm going home. I don't feel like working anymore today. But anytime you want me to slap you around a little, challenge your "maths," and I feel like doing it, you let me know. :)
-
I missed that :P
Would it be rude to ask you what it was? ???
he clarified and made it clear he didn't mean any disrespect to her, so it was over :)
-
I didn't address the specifics of this nonsense earlier, because I didn't feel like it. But I'm a little bored now, so let's look at a few of "The Luke's" representations:
1. He claims there are "143m working Americans." According to this site, "The civilian labor force [is] (154.4 million)"http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
So, "The Luke" is only off by over 11 million.
2. He cites "2006 census figures." The last census was in 2000. It is done every ten years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census
3. He assumes everyone who is "either under 18 or over 65" is not part of the workforce. Most people who actually live in the U.S., however, know that there are likely millions of people who fall into the "under 18" and "over 65" category who are in the workforce.
4. He pulls a "stay at home mom" figure out of his rear end. Absolutely no support for this unassigned figure.
5. He has the absurd comment about slave wages: "what about the 37m Americans who are mostly working but who earn so little they are classified as 'officially' poor?" How this plays into his fairy tale analysis is beyond me.
6. He claims there are "50-60m Americans who can't afford healthcare." Even liberals say the number is about 47 million. And at least one government source says it's down to about 45 million (I don't agree with either figure. I think the number is much lower.): "Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007," David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, said during a morning teleconference.
The percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.3 percent in 2007, down from 15.8 percent in 2006. The number of uninsured dropped from 47 million in 2006 to 45.7 million in 2007, Johnson said." http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html
So, "The Luke" is only off by about 5 to 15 million people.
Now, if this America-hating non-American wonders why I don't trust the numbers he cooked up in his mom's basement in some country that probably lost thousands of immigrants to our great country (have no idea where this clown lives), that's why.
Now, I'm going home. I don't feel like working anymore today. But anytime you want me to slap you around a little, challenge your "maths," and I feel like doing it, you let me know. :)
He might have got that 2006 figure here somewhere http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm (http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm)
Hope your not stuck on one of the "H" 's too long. ;D
-
...look at the census figures yourself.
305m Americans... 143m working Americans... 10.3m receiving unemployment benefit... that's where they get the 7.02% figure from: 10.3m/143m = 7.2%
But look past those figures a little...
Of the 305m Americans 37% are either under 18 or over 65 (24.6% under 18, 12.4% over 65 according to the 2006 census figures), so really it's 143m working out of 192m.
That's 75% employment (143/192), or 25% unemployment.
But if you allow for stay-at-home moms that probably comes down to 5-10% which might well be in line with the official figures, EXCEPT:
-what about the 37m Americans who are mostly working but who earn so little they are classified as "officially" poor? Should "wage-slaves" be considered gainfully employed?
-what about the 50-60m Americans who can't afford healthcare? Are they gainfully employed?
-what about the one to two million homeless?
-what about illegal immigrants?
-what about those long-term unemployed whose benefits have run out? They don't appear in that 7.02%.
-what about those completely dependent on welfare payments?
As has been pointed out already, the www.ShadowStats.com figure is closer to 17%.
There are already 7.2m Americans on "involuntary part-time" according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics.
What I claimed, and what I will defend, is that many parts of America already have 25% unemployment.
Think about it:
-Detroit
-Flint, Michigan
-Compton outside Los Angeles
-New Orleans
-just about any Indian (Native American) Reservation
-any housing project in any major city
...large sections of America are already falling by the wayside, but you guys seem so happily indoctrinated by the faux patriotism you can't see it.
The fact that morons such as Buffgeek (who is a Native and lives on an impoverished reservation) and BeachBum (whose every post attests to his poor reading comprehension) shout down anyone telling them the truth is exemplary of what is wrong with America.
The Luke
thanks Luke.
What about people who are on permanent disability or working part time? That might figure into the remaining 39 million somewhat also added to the amount of stay at home moms that might be more that 5-10%.
-
I didn't address the specifics of this nonsense earlier, because I didn't feel like it. But I'm a little bored now, so let's look at a few of "The Luke's" representations:
1. He claims there are "143m working Americans." According to this site, "The civilian labor force [is] (154.4 million)"http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
So, "The Luke" is only off by over 11 million.
...no.
You misread the data. It clearly states that the "civilian labour force is 155m" of which 145m are working and approx 10m are unemployed:
Civilian labor force ....| 154,650| 154,648| 154,878| 154,620| 154,447| -173
Employment ............| 145,299| 144,046| 144,657| 144,144| 143,338| -806
Unemployment ..........| 9,350| 10,602| 10,221| 10,476| 11,108| 632
Not in labor force ......| 79,460| 80,177| 79,734| 80,208| 80,588| 380
Your 154m figure INCLUDES THE UNEMPLOYED.
You, sir, have just pwned yourself.
2. He cites "2006 census figures." The last census was in 2000. It is done every ten years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census
...I thought I quoted Census Bureau figures. The Census Bureau keep accurate figures between each census by a sampling technique.
Again, this is not a mistake on my part... it's a case of poor reading comprehension on your part.
3. He assumes everyone who is "either under 18 or over 65" is not part of the workforce. Most people who actually live in the U.S., however, know that there are likely millions of people who fall into the "under 18" and "over 65" category who are in the workforce.
...they aren't included in the "civilian labour force". It is only those between 18 and 65, those who are open to full taxation.
4. He pulls a "stay at home mom" figure out of his rear end. Absolutely no support for this unassigned figure.
...I never claimed this was an accurate figure, nor did I source it. I merely used it as a halving factor to show that the 7.2% is patently false once you do a few back-of-the-envelope calculations.
If you were capable of manipulating figures you too could understand such techniques.
5. He has the absurd comment about slave wages: "what about the 37m Americans who are mostly working but who earn so little they are classified as 'officially' poor?" How this plays into his fairy tale analysis is beyond me.
...you don't understand this the same way you couldn't read the page you quoted.
6. He claims there are "50-60m Americans who can't afford healthcare." Even liberals say the number is about 47 million. And at least one government source says it's down to about 45 million (I don't agree with either figure. I think the number is much lower.): "Both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased in 2007," David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, said during a morning teleconference.
The percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.3 percent in 2007, down from 15.8 percent in 2006. The number of uninsured dropped from 47 million in 2006 to 45.7 million in 2007, Johnson said." http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html
So, "The Luke" is only off by about 5 to 15 million people.
...again, you are retarded. Get the 2008 figures.
The 47m from the 2007 figures... plus the 2.6m who lost their jobs this year... plus the illegals... plus the 1 to 2 million homeless... can't you even do basic addition?
Now, if this America-hating non-American wonders why I don't trust the numbers he cooked up in his mom's basement in some country that probably lost thousands of immigrants to our great country (have no idea where this clown lives), that's why.
...again, it's because you can't read properly; don't understand numbers; can't manipulate figures.
Now, I'm going home. I don't feel like working anymore today. But anytime you want me to slap you around a little, challenge your "maths," and I feel like doing it, you let me know. :)
...yes, you sure showed me.
Posting stats that prove me right while simultaneously demonstrating how poor your own reading comprehension is... consider me owned.
Question for those reading: How is this ignoramus a moderator on the Politics Board?
The Luke
-
Luke,
another thing to consider is applying the data you pointed out when unemployment was 4-5%. Do those stats figure the same way in say 2004? I think Unemployment was around 4-5% then. So in other words, unemployment, looking at it the way you have shown, would have been 22% then right? Or is it being grossly manipulated now because its much worse?
You see, i've gotten weekly reports for the last few years from all over the USA from individual offices on how many people call looking for employment from these companies. the biggest significant increase I've seen is in the last 6-8 months in the years i've received these reports. Now, my conclusions are certainly not scientifically recorded, but the increase has been noticeable especially at the beginning of this year and about in line with the increase reported unemployment rates.
-
Ozmo,
Unemployment figures and inflation figures are always massaged for political purposes, but knowing what the general trends are often helps illuminate what's going on.
Since the 1970s the trend across the US has been towards lower wages (in real terms); less benefits and a greater wealth disparity.
While unemployment figures might well be reported as 7.2% we need to assess how the criteria have changed:
-are the homeless included
-what percentage are "working poor" (ie: earning less than they would on benefits)
-are those on training courses being included
-are the long term unemployed being included
-are those over 55 being included (or classed as "early retired")
I'd hazard a guess that a large fraction of Americans are totally dependent on Welfare payments. Whether working or not these people should be counted among the unemployed. Similarly, including the one to two million homeless as unemployed would similarly cause an immediate jump of 10-20% in unemployment figures pushing the 7.2% figure closer to 10%.
I'd suspect that the homeless are indeed factored in when employment is high and there is competition among states for ample Federal funds... and factored out when times are bad and political pressure is applied to reduce unemployment rolls.
There are many pockets across the US where unemployment is already 25%... this is where the major fudging of figures takes place.
The Luke
-
Detroit.
The Luke
Detroit is a perfect example of what your brilliant policies and ideas result in.
High taxes, high unionization, too much government, too many regulations and work rules, too much welfare and dependency.
-
Dont go there. That conversation will get very uigly very fast around here if you get my drift.
-
Ozmo,
Unemployment figures and inflation figures are always massaged for political purposes, but knowing what the general trends are often helps illuminate what's going on.
Since the 1970s the trend across the US has been towards lower wages (in real terms); less benefits and a greater wealth disparity.
While unemployment figures might well be reported as 7.2% we need to assess how the criteria have changed:
-are the homeless included
-what percentage are "working poor" (ie: earning less than they would on benefits)
-are those on training courses being included
-are the long term unemployed being included
-are those over 55 being included (or classed as "early retired")
I'd hazard a guess that a large fraction of Americans are totally dependent on Welfare payments. Whether working or not these people should be counted among the unemployed. Similarly, including the one to two million homeless as unemployed would similarly cause an immediate jump of 10-20% in unemployment figures pushing the 7.2% figure closer to 10%.
I'd suspect that the homeless are indeed factored in when employment is high and there is competition among states for ample Federal funds... and factored out when times are bad and political pressure is applied to reduce unemployment rolls.
There are many pockets across the US where unemployment is already 25%... this is where the major fudging of figures takes place.
The Luke
with all due respect, you aint even living here haha
-
with all due respect, you aint even living here haha
...well that's a perfectly good reason to dismiss everything I say. After all, why should any American ever accept any opinion proffered by any non-American.
America is #1 right?
The Luke
-
Detroit is a perfect example of the end results of unionism.
Everyone on welfare.
-
Detroit is a perfect example of the end results of unionism.
Everyone on welfare.
Welfare breeds laziness.
-
He might have got that 2006 figure here somewhere http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm (http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm)
Hope your not stuck on one of the "H" 's too long. ;D
I don't know where he got the figure. His numbers aren't sourced and, as I've shown, are hardly trustworthy.
I was indeed stuck on the H1. Running kids all over the place. Then ran into those pesky new year's resolution people at the gym. >:(
-
I don't know where he got the figure. His numbers aren't sourced and, as I've shown, are hardly trustworthy.
...read my lengthy response above. You have only demonstrated that you cannot read properly.
You misquoted and misunderstood the very page you linked to supposedly disprove my figures.
You self-pwning tard.
The Luke
-
...no.
You misread the data. It clearly states that the "civilian labour force is 155m" of which 145m are working and approx 10m are unemployed:
Civilian labor force ....| 154,650| 154,648| 154,878| 154,620| 154,447| -173
Employment ............| 145,299| 144,046| 144,657| 144,144| 143,338| -806
Unemployment ..........| 9,350| 10,602| 10,221| 10,476| 11,108| 632
Not in labor force ......| 79,460| 80,177| 79,734| 80,208| 80,588| 380
Your 154m figure INCLUDES THE UNEMPLOYED.
You, sir, have just pwned yourself.
...I thought I quoted Census Bureau figures. The Census Bureau keep accurate figures between each census by a sampling technique.
Again, this is not a mistake on my part... it's a case of poor reading comprehension on your part.
...they aren't included in the "civilian labour force". It is only those between 18 and 65, those who are open to full taxation.
...I never claimed this was an accurate figure, nor did I source it. I merely used it as a halving factor to show that the 7.2% is patently false once you do a few back-of-the-envelope calculations.
If you were capable of manipulating figures you too could understand such techniques.
...you don't understand this the same way you couldn't read the page you quoted.
...again, you are retarded. Get the 2008 figures.
The 47m from the 2007 figures... plus the 2.6m who lost their jobs this year... plus the illegals... plus the 1 to 2 million homeless... can't you even do basic addition?
...again, it's because you can't read properly; don't understand numbers; can't manipulate figures.
...yes, you sure showed me.
Posting stats that prove me right while simultaneously demonstrating how poor your own reading comprehension is... consider me owned.
Question for those reading: How is this ignoramus a moderator on the Politics Board?
The Luke
Oh brother. Back for more? :)
You referenced a "2006 census." There is no 2006 census. The last census was in 2000. Next one is 2010.
So "only those between 18 and 65, those . . . are open to full taxation"? lol. People under 18 and over 65 who work don't pay "full taxation"? This is why people who don't know anything about this great country should really keep their mouths shut.
You don't include stay-at-home moms in unemployment figures because they choose not to work. How stupid is that? ::) Unemployment figures contemplate able bodied people who want to work, but are unable to find jobs.
What 2008 "figures" show "50-60m Americans . . . can't afford healthcare"? You haven't a clue what the heck you're talking about. Just the fact that you have a 10 million person range proves you simply cooked up some figures. Are you in high school?
Now, you if you don't like what I have to say on this board, you have several options. Here they are (read slowly):
1. Take your non-American, America-hating, pseudo-intellectual, creative "maths" analysis to another message board.
2. Ignore what I have to say.
3. Contribute, enjoy the discussion, learn, have fun, etc., like most of the people who post here.
Your choice.
-
Now, you if you don't like what I have to say on this board, you have several options. Here they are (read slowly):
1. Take your non-American, America-hating, pseudo-intellectual, creative "maths" analysis to another message board.
2. Ignore what I have to say.
3. Contribute, enjoy the discussion, learn, have fun, etc., like most of the people who post here.
Your choice.
...other people are reading this thread. Other people noticed your mistake.
I claimed there were 145m Americans working, you then charged that I was making up figures because the Bureau of Labour Statistics 2008 figures gave the civilian labour force as 154 m... some ten million more than my figure.
It's obvious to anyone who read my post or clicked on your link that you misread the figures.
Civilian labor force ....| 154,650| 154,648| 154,878| 154,620| 154,447| -173
Employment ............| 145,299| 144,046| 144,657| 144,144| 143,338| -806
Unemployment ..........| 9,350| 10,602| 10,221| 10,476| 11,108| 632
Not in labor force ......| 79,460| 80,177| 79,734| 80,208| 80,588| 380
The civilian labour force is NOT the number of Americans working, it is the sum of the employment and unemployment figures.
According to the figures you yourself quoted (which coincidentally is the same source I quoted) the figure unemployed is slightly under 10m and the number employed is, you guessed it, the very same figure of 145m that I quoted which you attested was wrong.
So you have evidenced that you dismiss my figures because you yourself are unable to read those same figures.
You are calling me a liar because you can't read figures?
The number of Americans working isn't actually 145m because if you add the ten million unemployed to that figure it's then out by ten million...?
Were you dropped as a baby...?
Just admit you were wrong, it's becoming painfully obvious that you are either mentally retarded or an attention whoring troll.
What do those reading this thread think of all this...? Is there "things" with Beach Bum...?
The Luke
-
I don't doubt the number isn't representative of the real amount of people who are unemployed. I guess my point is that, they have been calculating it the same way for years so it's relative. Unless there are studies that show the amount in these other areas you pointed out have risen dramatically i don't see much difference between now versus 5 years ago. Those areas may have risen, but how much versus when unemployment was 5%?
I read an article about 5 months ago talking about how the amount of "underemployed" has noticeably risen and is a indicator of a shrinking middle class. But these people are working, be it not gainfully.
-
The unemployment rate is MUCH higher than 7%. LMAO! Anyone that believes that needs to pull their head out of their ass. It's much closer to 10-12%.