Unemployment rate rises to 7.2%.

[Straw Man]

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?

[bigdumbbell]

thanks bush

[OzmO]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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/

[The Luke]

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

[240 is Back]

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. 

[Eyeball Chambers]

A joke about my wife's nipples was one step too far...

I missed that 

Would it be rude to ask you what it was? 

[Dos Equis]

...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.   

[240 is Back]

I missed that 

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

[OzmO]

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

Hope your not stuck on one of the "H" 's too long.   

[OzmO]

...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%. 

[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.

...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

[OzmO]

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. 

[The Luke]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[Soul Crusher]

Dont go there.  That conversation will get very uigly very fast around here if you get my drift.

[bigdumbbell]

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

[The Luke]

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

[Hereford]

Detroit is a perfect example of the end results of unionism.

Everyone on welfare.

[Soul Crusher]

Detroit is a perfect example of the end results of unionism.

Everyone on welfare.

Welfare breeds laziness.

[Dos Equis]

He might have got that 2006 figure here somewhere   http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm

Hope your not stuck on one of the "H" 's too long.   

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.   

[The Luke]

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

[Dos Equis]

...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.    

[The Luke]

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

[OzmO]

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.