Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Falling unemployment rate? Another continuing Main Stream Media misinformation campaign. Also being supported by the government to stave off panic.

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 5, 2012, 2:09 p.m. EST by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The unemployment rate is down because it does not track how many people are out of work and still looking, but have run out of unemployment benefits so have fallen off the rolls. The job creation that is being touted is only a spit in the ocean as to how many jobs were lost during the meltdown.

This is another MSM misinformation PR campaign. Give the public false reassurance. Just like Enron did to it's employees as it went sailing down the toilet. They are not the only one's, it is common practice in company's getting ready for major layoffs.

The Truth is :

Unemployment has made no significant rebound whatsoever!

Then consider how many are working but are underemployed ( living at or just above the posted poverty line ). Your main source for a weak and fragile economy. People living one paycheck away from being homeless. This is what is known ( and ignored ) as living hand to mouth.

If we even begin to experience more economic melting. The people living in the streets will start to out number those still living under a roof.

A House of cards waiting to fall.

106 Comments

106 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

What is scary is I lost my job because it was outsourced off shore in November 2009, just one year into the recession. As of October of last year (2011) I have exhausted all my unemployment benefits. Which means we are just now seeing the damage from year end 2009. when I got laid off the unemployment rate was the same as it is now about 8.4. So Imagine all the people that will become uncounted heads as the months roll on. Once you receive that last check it's like your gone from the records!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This idea that the unemployment rate is based on people getting unemployment insurance benefits is false. The original post contains misinformation.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Again this is a nice concept but inacurate! To those who are unemployed and exhaust their benefits it would make more of a accurate report if the state government follow up on their work status after they lost all benefits!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I can't believe that I'm having such a hard time getting people to understand that the unemployment rate published by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics is NOT based on the number of people filing for unemployment benefits.

PLEASE read this: http://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm

I'll do you a favor so that you won't even have to click on the link. I'll copy the explanation from the Bureau of Labor and Statistic for how the unemployment rate is calculated, AGAIN, directly into this thread. PLEASE read it! Don't be one of these people running around regurgitating misinformation. This urban myth about the unemployment rate is perpetuated by people who go around repeating false information.

How is the unemployment rate related to unemployment insurance claims?

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households. A person's unemployment status is established by responses to a series of questions on whether they have a job or are on layoff, whether they want a job and are available to work, and what they have done to look for work in the preceding 4 weeks. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed persons as a percent of the labor force (employed and unemployed persons). See "Who is counted as unemployed?" for more information.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Well again I'll say...... why not use statistics at hand instead of relying on a poll! I live near the most poverty stricken city in the nation so if 60,000 people were surveyed (CPS) from that city the unemployment rate would be 24%! Why not use current records and earnings information ) federal income tax fileings) that government collects constantly instead of a poll! or survey. So have you proven me wrong? Maybe if you trust everything the government tells you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&list=FLrOjqCWV6SL8AEBvkeXX5ow&index=59&feature=plpp_video

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Income taxes are filed once a year. The CPS is conducted once a month. The BLS is looking for nation-wide statistics so that why they don't focus on 60,000 households all in the same city.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Federal income tax returns would cover everyone including those that are partially employed, the whole poll thing is just an unnecessary government redundantcy! Again government statistics are not reliable and a poll statistic is even more so! They are not held to any ethical standards as well!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

So you don't think that we should track unemployment statistics on a month to month basis? Only once per year?

This is sort of a diversion from what I was trying to point out anyway. If you (now) understand that the Bureau of Labor and Statistics does NOT use unemployment filings to calculate the unemployment rate, then I have made my point and I'm done.

[-] 3 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Businesses report federal income tax withheld each month, Just saying!

[+] -13 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep.

You would think it would be easy to auto update information.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

You're wrong. The original post is correct.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

And did the feds give you ANY help or resources to help you land another job while you were collecting the unemployment?

The problem is that we (the government) are just expecting people to find work in this economy. We need an unemployment program that helps people gain employment.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Agreed!

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

People need to work.For a living wage and benefits. This will not happen unless they go to the streets and demand it.The country has been cored out by the top.If you want a job today you must work for slave wages or go to the military.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

your right about that! but to busy with bail outs and wars

[-] 0 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 2 years ago

Shadow Government Statistics Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting

Real unemployment is like 18%, read 'shadowstats.com' its what everybody uses now, nobody uses the US government stats anymore.

It's OBAMA re-election time, so they bring out good news albeit lies, ... they're using the XMAS part-time shit to boost stats, but so what? You have to look at the real stat's on Shadow-Stat's I'm telling you folks real, all business people don't even look at US government Stat-Lies any more.

http://www.shadowstats.com/

Shadow Government Statistics Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting
Subscriber Login

[-] 2 points by Roundtree (37) 2 years ago

Look at the department of Labor Stats: 18% unemployment is the 'U 6' number - the full disclosure on that number is the aspect that it includes the folks that are employed but make less than $5k per year. There is no good news on the employment front - as the boomer generation retires, and their demand for goods and services changes, there becomes a huge gap in the demand on social services and the resources to provide them.

[-] -2 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Not being a smartass, but there are no jobs available for you since November 2009?

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

To be perfectly honest yes but I did not take any of the three I was offered because "suitable employment" is a stipulation of accepting a job offer when collecting unemployment Benefits. All the offers were one third to one half of what my previous income was. My unemployment benefit paid more than any job offer I had.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

And you just explained,,, why the democrats need you as a democrat to keep them in power. A dog will follow any master as long as the master feeds them. The more people there is like you the more likely you will vote to keep the master in office. You have no reason to fend for yourself. Sorry for your problem and wish you well but you are in the trap and they love you in their trap.

[-] 3 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

I am 57 years old and this is the third recession I've been hrough the first was in the late 70ies early 80ies just out of college I found a job within 6 months, the next recession I face was in 2005 or 2006 same thing out of being jobless in a few months, this is not the same animal. And to say I have no reason to fend for myself is crazy because I only made 50% of my pre unemployment salary. I took my unemployment INSURENCE that was due me and that I PAID FOR!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

And the dog is being fed. (and you are not paying the insurance, if that was the case then there would be no 99 week limit for everyone.)

[-] 4 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

I pay for my own medical insurance and like I said Unemployment insurance is exactly that, INSURANCE it is not something government is giving you out of the goodness of their hart"s. I paid for unemployment insurance out of my salary when I worked just as I paid for social security, government is constantly trying to convince people that these programs are government giveaways or as they say entitlements there benefits that we all pay for! So if you like thinking that your a government servant or a dog or whatever that's fine, but don't try to convince me that I'm some kind of government freeloader, I'm simply taking what I paid for!

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

Man are YOU lost. YOU didnt pay for unemployment insurance, your EMPLOYER did. You didnt earn a dime of your own money. Where did you learn that CRAP from? Below are just 2 examples of how UI works. Your employer is paying for your insurance,, NOT YOU,, you are an idiot.

California UI Law. The Unemployment Insurance Program, commonly referred to as UI, provides workers, who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, with weekly unemployment insurance payments. The UI program is 100% funded by employers who pay taxes on wages paid to employees. To learn more about EDD’s Unemployment Insurance Program,

WIKI Texas UI Law, Answer: In Texas, Your employer ultimately pays 100% of any unemployment benefits you receive. The state issues your check from its account. So in that sense it appears that the state pays you the benefit check. But then they bill the employer for the amount of those disbursements. So in actuality, the employer is still paying it.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

First I don't live in either of those states, second the state I live in deducts Unemployment compensation from my check each week is clearly printed out on my pay stub. third employer may or may not pay into it but you pay for it in terms of your base salary. inother words if they didn't have to pay it you would make more money! So i guess when you go shopping your one of those people that when you see buy on get one free you REALLY THINK YOUR NOT PAYING FOR IT DON"T BE SO NIEVE!

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

You libs are great at spin. So what you are saying is that YOU paid for your own unemployment insurance? What you are saying is that the amount you get back is unlimited? What you are saying is that you have the power to continue to get back your unemployment deductions for as long as you paid in? Have you actually LOOKED at your pay stub you talk about and used a calculator to see that you REALLY DIDNT pay the amount of money in that you are getting back? If that was the case then you were paying twice your salary each month into your own little fund? You really are great at spinning.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Read about how insurance works then you'll see how stupid your comment is!

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

I posted 2 of the 50 states, one being California so THEY must be stupid and you are the smart one. And if YOU read how the IRS states Unemployment Insurance requirements for employer payments you can call them stupid and you smart. By the way, when you go and apply for unemployment your past employer can file against you and you can be denied unemployment insurance. But that sounds stupid compared to YOUR knowledge of how things work. I may has well just stop working and make money off of all that insurance I HAVE PAID,,,,,,, idiot.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Just like any insurance there are rules like for example per existing conditions. Why do you feel like your so indebted to corporations and the government for your existence? sorry for your illness hope you recover soon......... FAUX NEWS IS ON!

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

Apprently you did find out the IRS rules on employers paying for YOUR unemployent issurance. Dont blame yourself for being upset with yourself.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

You are one thick head, I never said my employer didn't pay towards it, I said I paid for it. The employer portion is also a benefit that I worked for like vacation, medical and dental etc. So therefore I paid the employer portion as well because I earned that to, JEEEZ what is wrong with you!

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

your quote

"You didnt earn a dime of your own money"

I'm an Idiot"

[+] -14 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Exactly so. Misinformation to keep the Public from calling out for someones blood and keep them from demanding in unity immediate change.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17690) 2 years ago

@ 'DKAt' : On this matter and for your information :

ad iudicium ...

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you for sharing that link.

[-] 2 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Just go google job losses and layoffs 2011 and get a good ideal how things really are. Your right, what youre seeing in the news is pure bullsh*t .

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Here's something for you to consider. The same methods were used to keep track of unemployment during the last thirty or more years. So if they are wrong for Obama they were wrong for Reagan and both George H. and George W.

For those of you that want accurate and kind of detailed information on unemployment, here's is a URL for you.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+united+states#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployed&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=state&ifdim=state&tdim=true&tstart=923382000000&tend=1323158400000&hl=en&dl=en

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

thanks for the graph, but it was issued by the US department of labor statistics. It lacks detail as most government propaganda does!

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

The links go back to the source information which is kind of :more" complete but none are going to have the numbers for those that ran out of benefits or those that never applied.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

This youtube vid brilliantly shows the farce behind unemployment numbers calculation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&list=FLrOjqCWV6SL8AEBvkeXX5ow&index=59&feature=plpp_video

It really is a game for the government.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL. Loved the satire used to illustrate some of the truth. It is perspective and the presentation of information.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

There is no such thing as a "mainstream media". It is a corporate media, acting in it's own interest. In this case it is creating a false equivalency in order to assure maximum campaign spending (and profit profit) in the 2012 election cycle.

In regard to employment numbers, it's an election year ... and "journalists" don't do anything other than echo official statements.

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low

"the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation"

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I do not disagree with your comment.

MSM "is" corrupt/greedy Corporate Media. That is why you see so much spin put out to deny reality.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

surely no thinking person falls for this bull

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That "bull" being what exactly? You are unclear in your comment.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

It is for re election campaigns. Nothing more.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No misinformation is manipulation. It is just more transparent in election campaigns.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

I agree. Same old' same old. But most people seem to never learn.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

But that is where we find ourselves today. We are in fact in the middle of growing awareness.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I know lots of unemployed people

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So do I. Hard working individuals who can not get employment in their area of skill and training.

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

Here is another link Look at the following data from The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Page 8, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate Nov 2011 64.0%, Dec 2011 64.0%, Jan 2012 63.7%

Employment to Population Ratio Nov 2011 58.5%, Dec 2011 58.5%, Jan 2012 58.5%

This shows that the rate of employment in the population has not changed at all in the last three months through January, 2012. Instead, a continuing reduced percentage of people consider themselves part of the workforce. Why is this? I don’t know, but I suspect that many people have given up on the idea that they can get a job that meets their qualifications or demands. Or maybe families have discovered that they can live on one income if they reduce spending, or jobs are so demanding that people no longer think they are worth the hassle.

So, we have to decide which BLS number is the one with most value. People taking themselves out of the workforce is NOT a positive for GDP growth. And the unemployment calculation is based on that changing workforce number. So, it seems to me that the employment to population ratio is the more valuable number when trying to ascertain if “we missing the start of a new recovery in the U.S. economy.” We aren’t! The best we can say is that the employment rate is just holding its own with the help of all the debt-driven stimulus.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This shows that the rate of employment in the population has not changed at all in the last three months through January, 2012. Instead, a continuing reduced percentage of people consider themselves part of the workforce.

Not exactly. The Labor Force Participation Rate has been steady at about 64% for months. And because the population grows each month, the fact that the employment to population ratio has been steady means that the number of jobs is increasing.

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

Look at it again!!! Between November 2011 and January 2012, using the same BLS table I referenced earlier, the population rose 1,828,000. To keep the same 58.5% employment to population ratio, we would have had to create 1,069,000 new jobs. The data you quote shows only 443,000 new jobs, so the question should be is why did the employment to population ratio not drop? Well, the BLS table to which I refer actually shows 1 million more people working, which almost keeps up to the population growth needs.

So, we peel the onion down another layer. Why does this BLS show 1 million more jobs and your data shows only 443,000 jobs created? First, the recent BLS numbers reflect a lot of changes/updates. Per The Economic Populist, “The BLS not only incorporated the 2010 Census data but also revised their payroll statistics all the way back to 2007. Part of this is their annual payroll benchmarks, calculated from March 2011 tax receipts, which modified their monthly change statistical model, adjustments to the businesses started and ended and finally the seasonal adjustment algorithm was modified.” This makes comparing January specific data with earlier specific data problematic, at least in looking for small changes. However, ratios should not be quite as big of a problem.

The job creation numbers to which you referred are derived using a completely different methodology than the payroll benchmarks – the job creation numbers are based on business survey results, but also statistically extrapolated from those survey results. In general, these job creation data are considered less reliable than those based on the payroll benchmarks.

Based on all the conflicting numbers, we can’t be totally sure of what is happening to our economy. But, when I include all observations on the economy in general (the slow growth of GDP, the continuing wealth disparity, the growing number of people on welfare/food stamps, etc.); it is difficult for me to believe that real unemployment is dropping so dramatically!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That was a population adjustment for the entire year, applied in one month.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/getting-it-wrong-bls-employment-report

The December to January unemployment statistics are often reported wrong in the press. We're sorry, god love ya, but these articles are plain incorrect. People like to compare the month to month change in population, the number of people no longer considered part of the labor force and other data. The grave mistake made by so many in the press and elsewhere is not realizing annual population adjustments are placed in the January data, not distributed evenly across the entire year, or backwards applied and that's why one cannot compare these two months. Below is a graph of non-institutional population monthly change. This is the number from where all other unemployment statistics are derived. It represents people 16 and older, not locked up somewhere, in a medical facility or in the military.

See those huge three spikes in the above graph? That's when the latest Census, taken every 10 years, has been incorporated into the data series. What happens is almost a do over, starting with the next year and you see a huge discontinuity in the data when the Census has been incorporated into the non-institutional population statistic. Believe me, we did not get a streaming horde of illegal aliens in one month, nor did everyone decide to give spontaneous birth. Those spikes simply represent the tacking on of population controls to reflect the latest Census.

Above is a close up to show the spike in non-institutional civilian population. See how even the monthly change is except between December and January? That's where the yearly population adjustments are placed in the data series. The adjustments are literally just plopped into the month of January and this is why it is statistically invalid to compare December to January monthly changes. You simply cannot compare a change of a month, when one of those month's includes a year of population adjustments.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And if you look at the employment to population statistic ( if true ) at 58.5% even if that is to the good side, 58.5% being employed that leaves 41.5 unemployed.

Of the 58.5% how many are under employed at minimum wage or at a position that does not meet their skill level ( underpaid ).

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This is false:

The unemployment rate is down because it does not track how many people are out of work and still looking, but have run out of unemployment benefits so have fallen off the rolls.

From the Bureau of Labor and Statistics:

How is the unemployment rate related to unemployment insurance claims?

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households. A person's unemployment status is established by responses to a series of questions on whether they have a job or are on layoff, whether they want a job and are available to work, and what they have done to look for work in the preceding 4 weeks. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed persons as a percent of the labor force (employed and unemployed persons). See "Who is counted as unemployed?" for more information.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Conducts a sample survey ? : ( from your source above. )

[ Where do the statistics come from?

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and because it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. ]

I have never seen one of these surveys. Have you ever seen one of these surveys? How many have ever seen or filled out one of these surveys?

You do understand the facts about polling/surveys don't you?

" You can get any result you want depending on the demographics of the area (s) you poll/survey."

Spin and misinformation at work.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep. Thanks for the link.

There is no doubt. For those not trying to deny reality.

That we are standing on thin ice in very warm weather.

Let us pray that no one slips and falls before we can get a proper handle on things.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm simply objecting to the misinformation in your original post, that the BLS unemployment rate is based on the number of people getting unemployment benefits. That's false.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is what is touted by the MSM ( corporate feedia ). So no I won't agree with you on that.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I posted the explanation from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, which is the source of the information that you're talking about.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Are you then the official facts corrector or apologist for the Corporate Feedia ( MSM )?

Because this is what the post is about. Corporate Feedia misinformation/spin.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You can bypass mainstream media by looking directly at the data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. You're misrepresenting that data and I'm showing you why. There are at least two false statements in your original post:

1:

The unemployment rate is down because it does not track how many people are out of work and still looking, but have run out of unemployment benefits so have fallen off the rolls.

2:

Unemployment has made no significant rebound whatsoever!

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is about what the MSM-Corporate feedia Touts.

Your #1: Is what they themselves say. Don't believe me? Watch the Corporate Feedia news.

Your # 2 : Is truth. Deal with it.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This is a little like talking about evolution with a creationist.

You don't plan to correct the false statement in your original post about unemployment statistics being based on the number of people on unemployment benefits?

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Re-posted for your benefit.

Using department of labor statistics.

http://www.dldewey.com/feb04.htm

Over 5.8 million reported permanent job loss:

http://www.dldewey.com/jobloss08.htm

Besides this is about what the MSM-Corporate Feedia report on. Which is what the post states if you read it. This is about their spin.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That first article is TEN YEARS OLD!!! February, 2002.

The second article is from 2008, from the very beginning of the employment crisis.

I mean ... seriously? A ten year old article from 2002, to refute the idea that employment is rebounding in 2012?!? Are you just blindly googling for phrases like "permanent job loss"?

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Again : F U the article tracks reported stats over time then does comparison deduction.

SFB! So Go Fuck Your Self. You probably believe that is possible too.

[-] 1 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

Your posting here is all factual and the true number of unemployed is now between 11 to 15%. The actual overall including the underemployed is hovering around 22% or higher. In one Month alone just recently 1.2 million people dropped off the rolls in which made the number drop to 8.3 %

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobless-rate-114-realistic-labor-force-participation-rate

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you.

Don't you just hate it when spin is promoted as fact? Or when facts are promoted to support spin?

[-] 1 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

Yes you are correct. You know while we as Americans are going back and forth amongst each other, the Gov (both sides) are screwing "all of us" behind our backs. If we can forget about either being "left or right" and stand up as one, then we can make a change in our Country but being divided then we are going to lose

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

It is like the FACT, "Are you still beating your wife?" There is no yes or no answer and can be spun in favor of the person asking the question. Many facts are simply,,, not facts.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Exactly - unite in common cause, health and prosperity for all.

We can live with our differences, after all we are American. Everyone has a right to their own perspectives.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The CPS samples 60,000 households once a month. You can learn all about it here:

http://www.census.gov/cps/methodology/

I have to point out that your justification for ignoring BLS statistics completely changed from your original post to your reply. Which seems to indicate that you came to a conclusion first, and then you sought rationalizations to back your pre-determined conclusion. Which makes you an ideologue, rather than a source of trustworthy information.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Then you are also trying to be a spin master.

Which you are not.

As the comment/reply was debating your conclusion with evidence from your own source.

The polling is incomplete and so the results are artificial and can not be supported. Spin is what it is, find facts (?) that support your conclusion.

If you want to approach reality - consider the reported job loss since 2008 ( MSM reports at that ) then take the reported jobs creation since 2008 ( also reported by the MSM ). Take the created jobs away from the lost job figures and you will see a huge number of jobs still lost and not replaced. This would be going by the untrustworthy MSM.

Then consider also how well surveys/polls cover the Homeless. Bet there is some complete surveying done there! NOT!!!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You're talking about the Labor Force Participation Rate, which in 2008 was around 66%. You shouldn't be getting this information from mainstream media when you can get it directly from the source. The Labor Force Participation Rate is the number of people who are either employed or looking for a job, and it is NOT based on unemployment benefits as you erroneously claimed in your original post.

The Labor Force Participation Rate right now is around 64%. But the unemployment rate has gone from 10% in 2009 to 8.3% in January 2012. And the population has increased in the last four years, which means that there has been an increase in the total number of jobs.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This post if you failed to notice is about Corporate Feedia misinformation/spin.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You're making false statements about unemployment statistics that I'm correcting, using data directly from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, not from media.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Using department of labor statistics.

http://www.dldewey.com/feb04.htm

Over 5.8 million reported permanent job loss:

http://www.dldewey.com/jobloss08.htm

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You just cited an article that was written in 2002. And another from 2008.

You cited a TEN YEAR OLD article as the basis for your claim that employment statistics are not really rebounding?!?

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

F U the article tracks reported stats over time then does comparison deduction.

SFB! So Go Fuck Your Self. You probably believe that is possible too.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

It tracks data going back to 2000. That was 12 years ago. Bill Clinton was president.

I called you on that, and other misrepresentations, and now all you've got is to curse at me?

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sorry Brick Head. My patience for the doggedly determinedly terminally Dense is not what it used to be. Go deny reality to someone who will support your absurd blind marching I as stated do not have the patience for it.

Hell browse some of the other comments contributed. Maybe you would like to try adding to your unsuccessful bashing list.

I know that I don't mind sharing the fun of laughing at you.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You made statements in your original post that are demonstrably false, so don't tell me that I'm the one denying reality. You claimed that the unemployment statistics are based on the number of people filing for unemployment benefits. That's simply not true.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Brick Head:1 points by TechJunkie (2186) from Miami Beach, FL 0 minutes ago

That video was fun, and it contains valid criticism of the methodology in the Current Population Survey. But your original post falsely claims that the unemployment data comes from the number of people filing for unemployment, not from the Current Population Survey. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

Deal with it:

Forum Post: Falling unemployment rate? Another continuing Main Stream Media misinformation campaign. Also being supported by the government to stave off panic.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Here hate this too:

This youtube vid brilliantly shows the farce behind unemployment numbers calculation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&list=FLrOjqCWV6SL8AEBvkeXX5ow&index=59&feature=plpp_video

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

That video was fun, and it contains valid criticism of the methodology in the Current Population Survey. But your original post falsely claims that the unemployment data comes from the number of people filing for unemployment, not from the Current Population Survey.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Very good article. Thank you for sharing it here.

Onward education and the push for awareness of facts and truth.

Thanks ShubeLMorgan2 for: http://www.vdare.com/articles/americans-awash-in-spin

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

And this, too. Paul Craig Roberts is a former Reagan muckety muck and is on the right, but he has some very clear understandings.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/economics-lesson-1

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Reagan reduced unemployment during his term. He increase our deficit and doubled our national debt, but he did reduce unemployment.

 40   Ronald Reagan   1981 - 1989  7.5% - 5.4%   Republican
[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I don't think that Presidents raise or lower unemployment short of major war, but yes unemployment went down under the gipper.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep. Economic spin. Pull and publish seemingly good facts to foster & support false confidence. Don't tell the whole story, stop when it sounds positive.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

And your stats for the same?

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20422) 2 years ago

The unemployment rate is a political pawn used by both parties, especially in an election year.

The Democrats want to keep it a low as possible because they think it will help their incumbent President, hence they leave out millions.

The Republicans want to report it as high as possible, and do nothing to lower it, because they think that will harm the incumbent Democrat and help elect a Republican President.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes these are games that politicians play.

But my point is. That unless "We" make a difference. This whole mess we are in right now can get exponentially bigger in a heartbeat.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20422) 2 years ago

It's important to spread the word that the unemployment rate, as reported, is a joke.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes it is, and yes "We" do. We are standing on thin ice in warm weather. Please no one slip and fall.

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Twittered today.

https://twitter.com/#!/DKAtoday

No coverage of American protest. Corporate Media Hypocrisy? Where is Main Stream Media. Powers that Be say NO? The world is watching!

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Keystone XL is not dead yet. Make sure it does die.

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=1EFmGEqAQzzpBKLvtpSN-Q

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

signed & Thanx!!

[+] -15 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your welcome, please share with others. Word of internet can be better than word of mouth advertising. Especially when you can attach an action link.

[+] -16 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Uniting in common cause. You can add a comment too. Facebook and twitter it as well.

http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AGBmL/zmBb/B18Bb