General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsClint Eastwood LIED. U.S. Labor Department counts 12.8 million people as unemployed - not 23 million
Eastwood's inflated unemployment count
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Clint Eastwood's biting criticism of President Obama was a big hit with the crowd at the Republican National Convention. But his reading of the nation's unemployment situation missed by a wide margin.
Eastwood's speech on Thursday night mocked supporters of the president like Oprah Winfrey, who cried the night Obama was elected for years ago.
"I haven't cried that hard since I found out that there are 23 million unemployed people in this country," Eastwood said. "This administration hasn't done enough to cure that."
But the U.S. Labor Department, which puts out the official government jobs data, counts 12.8 million people as unemployed -- not 23 million.
Even if you add in unemployed people who are not counted in that total because they are not actively looking for work -- a category the Labor Department terms "marginally attached" -- that number rises to just over 15.3 million.
-snip-
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/31/news/economy/eastwood-unemployment/index.html
Or the blame may lie at the feet of the Romney campaign since they gave Eastwood a set of talking points to incorporate into his speech/act.
-snip-
According to the Times, the Eastwood appearance was cleared by senior campaign leaders Russell Schriefer and Stuart Stevens, who drew up a rough set of talking points for Eastwood.
-snip-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood_at_the_2012_Republican_National_Convention
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Maybe that's where the number came from (deep in the recesses of Clint's memory).
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)I think the number would be inflated about 500k or so, but it's as good a guess as any.
I'm inclined to believe he just whipped the number out of his butt, personally.
Cha
(297,240 posts)is Freaking Spot ON.
elleng
(130,908 posts)Lie down with dogs . . . .
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)gulliver
(13,180 posts)That would be interesting. That is apparently the number they have been using. Eastwood is gonna be pissed if the Romney people fed him a bunch of bullshit.
johnnie
(23,616 posts)Blame the ceiling fan that told him those stats.
LeftofObama
(4,243 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)actual count is usually abou twice the gov't count since the gov't doesn't count idle self-employed, or those that given up looking, etc., and depending on whether you count adults with min wage jobs which is sometimes worse than being unemployed.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The GOP went by the U3 numbers to judge Bush, they're going by the U6 numbers to judge Obama. I'm not sure what the U6 numbers are now, but they're always higher than U3.
23 million might be the U6 numbers, or an exaggeration thereof.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Job recovery is scant for Americans in prime working years
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/job-recovery-is-scant-for-americans-in-prime-working-years/2012/05/29/gJQAnza9zU_story.html
By this measure, the jobs situation has improved little in recent years. The percentage of workers between the ages of 25 and 54 who have jobs now stands at 75.7 percent, just a percentage point over what it was at the downturns worst, according to federal statistics.
Before the recession the proportion hovered at 80 percent.
While the unemployment rate may be the most closely watched gauge of the economy in the presidential campaign, this measure of prime-age workers captures more of the ongoing turbulence in the job market. It reflects missing workers who have stopped looking for work and arent included in the unemployment rate.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)un-employed and under-employed. But if you want to add a heap of bullshit to fit you agenda, go ahead, though I think that stinks.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)zbdent
(35,392 posts)are being employed "under the table" but not reported ...
You know, the ones who say they need to be paid in cash, no checks ...
spanone
(135,836 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Cha
(297,240 posts)Ol' Clint didn't mention the teabag congress that blocked PBO's JOB Bill, either. Idiot is too lazy/brainwashed to do his homework.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Considering the official(ly skewed) number is much lower than the actual.
Nope, find another fact to contradict. This one has wings.
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)Lying is in his blood, basically. What's a little 10 million difference, if enough people believe his lies?
Igel
(35,309 posts)People that usually don't like relying on U-3 are suddenly swearing by it.
U-6 is quite a bit higher. I've seen 15 million cited, but if 8% of the workforce is 12 million people then 16% can't be 15 million. To use U-6, often cited as "broader unemployment"--although suddenly it's mostly not unemployment at all, you have to think those that are involuntarily underemployed are unemployed. In '08 this was certainly the case; now this is emphatically not the case.
They flip-flop. We, apparently, do the much superior flop-flip.
Then there are alternative measures for unemployment. U-6 doesn't include everybody who could work or might want to work; there are criteria that must be met. If you graduated, looked for a year or two, and then gave up and decided to be a stay-at-home mom or dad then you're not in U-6. Employed people as a percentage of the working-age population has been declining for a number of years. Some wags have claimed that the percentage of workers would have held steady had the economy allowed it--and that those completely out of the laborforce people should be counted as unemployed.