Unemployment rate rises to 7.2%.

[Bindare_Dundat]

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.

[Mark Kerr]

 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.

[240 is Back]

Luckily, the recession is all in your head, bitches

[The Luke]

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

[shootfighter1]

Many parts of America already have 25% unemployment?  Hmmmm...where did you get that fact?
Its bad but now your making things up.

[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.

Detroit.


The Luke

[Dos Equis]

Detroit.


The Luke

Doesn't sound like "many parts" to me.  I doubt that is true. 

[The Luke]

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

[shootfighter1]

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.

[Dos Equis]

...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?   

[2ND COMING]

Luckily, the recession is all in your head, bitches

lol

[Fury]

Obama said that it's probably going to go over 10%.

[Hereford]

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?

[Mark Kerr]

...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.

[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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[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. 

..opinion is now considered a proper argument against maths?


The Luke

[big L dawg]

I join the ranks of the unemployed next week.my post count should get healthy.

[Mark Kerr]

I join the ranks of the unemployed next week.my post count should get healthy.

What industry were you in?

[Dos Equis]

..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.

[big L dawg]

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.

[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.

...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

[Dos Equis]

...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. 

[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. 

...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

[Bindare_Dundat]

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.