IF there was an ACCURATE percentage of unemployed reported, what would it be?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

IF there was an ACCURATE percentage of poverty reported, what would it be?

I am just curious about others' guesstimates on these two issues, assuming you believe both are being inaccurately reported by this government.

[Gabi Hayes]

1. I'd like to see an accurate guage of inflation. all the numbers that

matter, like food, gas, etc., aren't counted, right?

what a joke

[bbinacan]

4. Food and gas are counted

but I don't think they're included in the core rate. Which seems odd to me.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. I read, otherwise. Could you provide a link on that since you're asserting it?

I read neither food or energy were taken into account when reporting fundie inflation.

[bbinacan]

9. I think you misunderstood my reply.

I said that food and energy were NOT included in the core rate. Which, as I said, seemed odd.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

11. Oh. Yes, you did say neither were included in the "core rate". Sorry.

:hi:

[bbinacan]

14. No problem. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

19. 'core rate' bullshit, and other stuff about how they try to fool the rubes:

Another way of understating the CPI is the “core rate," which is a nonsensical phrase that is commonly used in the financial world. Whenever the CPI rises, they back out food and energy to give us the core rate, which is much lower. Whenever the CPI rate goes lower, they refer to the CPI rate and not the core rate as they did this month. The CPI fell 0.1% in May from April.

It was the first decline in 10 months. The drop was due to falling energy prices. Oil prices started out the month of May at $53.56 a barrel. They fell to $49.65 mid-month before rising back to $52.75 at the end of the month. Did the drop of $.81 really account for a drop in the CPI of 0.10%? If the CPI is as moderate as the Fed claims, then why are they raising interest rates? Could it be inflating asset bubbles, such as real estate, mortgages, and consumption, the imbalances in our trade deficit or expanding annual credit of $2.7 trillion? They haven’t really told us.

Finally, let’s clear up the other nonsensical notion of excluding energy. Energy is essential to industrial economies. It takes energy to extract raw materials from the earth. It then takes energy to manufacture the things we use and consume. It also takes energy to transport the goods we produce. Even the energy we consume takes energy to produce whether it is oil, natural gas, or electricity. Petroleum products contribute about 40% of the energy we use in the United States each year to other products that we never think about.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

the very first few paragraphs are interesting, too, showing what a house of cards the CPI rests upon, and how the curtain-pullers can't explain why they do what they do when somebody who knows what they're talking about calls them on their charade.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

22. Aw, but Gabi, the poster stated in the text energy was NOT COUNTED int he "core rate".

The "curtain-pullers" are in charge of this nation. FRAUDULENT accounting is an acceptable and common business practice. The FRAUDS are in charge of all reports on this nation.

It's so bad,...living in a nation built upon fraud.

Won't hurt me, much. But, that fraud is killing off everyone in the middle and sustaining all those at the financial apex.

It's gross.

[bbinacan]

24. The Fed is actually lowering

rates. Not raising them.

[Rosemary2205]

2. Last I heard

the unemployment rate measured in the same way it was measured pre Clinton would now be 10-12%.

[Vincardog]

3. US unemployed 9% US poverty 15% IMO

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

10. I am guesstimating,...

14% or more and 22% or more.

If poverty is defined as inability to meet basic needs, I'd guess about 1 in five.

If unemployed includes under-the-table mowing lawns and cleaning houses and whatever necessary to survive, I'd guess 1 in seven.

[brazos121200]

5. A big problem today is underemployment. Many of the jobs

reported as being "created" by the administration at every report are McJobs at fast food restaurants and the like. Most are under 30 hours of work per week at near minimum wage with precious few if any benefits. Many of the jobs that have been lost in the last six 1/2 years have been high paying full time jobs with health and retirement benefits, etc. This is the real tragedy of the last several years.

[Emit]

6. The unemployment rate has been inaccurately reported by prior administrations, as well.

I worked for the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation for a few years in the '90s. It was well known back then that when a person's unemployment benes ran out, they were also taken off the stats as far as being 'unemployed', whether they were successful with re-entering the work force or not.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

8. In that case, you would be most likely to have a great guesstimate to offer. nt

[tritsofme]

12. The unemployment rate is calculated through the Household Survey

Which is a scientific survey of 30,000 households each month.

State unemployment benefits are a minor component of the reported unemployment rate.

[MadMaddie]

13. When the real truth is revealed Americans are going to be

stunned..

We all know that this administration manipulates any information or statistics that comes out concerning the economy or anything else that doesn't fit their lie.

If you believe anything that comes out of the government at this point in the game....then you will be one of the shocked.

In my opinion, the housing market disaster is bigger than we really know. Even Greenspan has said that he should have seen the danger signs.

China owns the majority of the US debt, War time spending is a huge % of all money spent by the government. Hardly any money is really put towards the infrastructure of the country. We have foreign countries actually owning some of our important infrastructure, in Seattle PUD our electric provider is in the midst of selling out to a Canadian country.

So back to your question...are we including the 1 in 4 soldiars that are homeless and unemployed. (I am betting the numbers don't). This administration choses what to include and what not to include.

Whatever the number it's not good!

[Greyhound]

15. If you consider a person having ANY sort of job as employed, then the rate is probably about

8% - 9%. If you consider employed as earning a living wage, probably in the 15% - 20% range. I know that I have had my pay cut almost 90% over the last 5 years and over a third of the people I work with are in similar straits, we exist but are no longer contributing anything to society.

Now that the housing/construction industry is going into its inevitable cycle of decline the reduction in tax revenues will begin to seriously effect the whole structure. The next President is in for a shitstorm and will probably only be in for 1 term.

[tritsofme]

16. The BLS makes a variety of unemployment indicators available.

As you can see here:
http://stats.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

U6 is the broadest measure of unemployment and U1 the narrowest, U3 is the official reported rate.

[Selatius]

17. 12 percent unemployment, roughly.

Scroll down to the first issue that's open to all viewers:

http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/archives

Then read the relevant section on unemployment:

Employment/Unemployment -- As discussed in the December 11th Flash Update, the BLS reported seasonally-adjusted November payrolls up by 132,000 (134,000 net of revisions) +/- 106,000, following October's revised gain of 79,000 (previously 92,000). Once again, unusual upward revisions were thrown into prior period reporting. On a year-to-year basis, annual payroll growth slowed sharply to 1.3% in November from 1.5% in October.

The November 2006 payroll growth included a 29,000 upside bias provided by the net birth/death model. In November 2005, the bias was 21,000, and that increased to 63,000 in December, suggesting slight upside bias pressure on the December 2006 reporting.

The household survey, which counts the number of people who have a job, as opposed to the number of jobs counted in the payroll survey, reported a seasonally-adjusted employment gain of 277,000. That number that cannot be reconciled with the payroll data.

The unemployment portion of the household data showed the seasonally-adjusted November U.3 unemployment rate at 4.47% +/- 0.2%, up from 4.42% in October. Unadjusted U.3 rose to 4.3% from 4.1%, while the unadjusted broader U.6 measure rose to 7.8% from 7.6%. Adjusted U.6 eased to 8.0% from 8.1%. Including the long-term "discouraged workers" defined away during the Clinton administration, total unemployment remains roughly 12%.

It's bad, but at least it isn't worse than it is. If it's 12 percent, then in good years the unemployment numbers should dip below 10%. Eurozone nations such as France and Germany report unemployment numbers in the 7% to 10% range in good years and higher numbers in bad years.

Of course, 7% unemployment sounds a lot worse than 4% unemployment reported in the US, but in the EU, many countries utilize International Labor Organization standards in terms of counting unemployment. The US government ignores that standard; it manufactures its own standard with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[tritsofme]

18. You might find these studies interesting:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=key_workplace

[Selatius]

21. Hmm, it appears I'm off. Something else must explain the higher unemployment in the Eurozone.

I wonder what would happen if the governments there cut back on value-added taxes and sales taxes and shifted the burden of taxation up the income ladder. I wonder if that would help to lower unemployment by boosting the economy.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

20. Interesting.

One of the best master courses I ever took was a course in statistics. I surprised myself (being a poor student of advance math) in performing quite well in that course.

Needless to say, I am furious at the non-scientific utilization of stats "analysis".

I believe we are above 12% unemployment, perhaps far more than even I want to swallow.

[papau]

23. The only way to estimate real unemployment is to use percentage of workforce employed numbers. -that

adds only 2 % to the current 7.8% U-6 number

Under Clinton in April 2000 the proportion of the population 16 years and over that was employed was 64.7 percent

In the second half of 2005 the ratio was 62.8 percent

http://www.bls.gov/cps/labor2005/chart1-6.pdf

Bush's Dept of Labor is returning a message that all historical data is currently not on line - so more detail is not possible at this time.

[JackRiddler]

25. Sticky because prosperity might mean less people working (the unemployment rate)

I can tell you about one set of studies I read and wrote on ten years ago: Britain in the 1980s "lowered" unemployment by revising how the statistics were counted 32 times; 31 times this resulted in a lower rate. If Britain had still counted as it did in 1979, its "low" unemployment rate would have been equal to Germany's "high" rate in 1997. Yet Germany (which was still counting the same way) was being hit with propaganda that it should adopt the British model (under which wages had dropped to half of Germany's) to solve its relatively "high" unemployment.

Let's say the average worker's income could once again support a family of four including insurance and ultimately paying off the debts on a house, retirement funds, and education. This was once the case in the US, or more so than today. Wouldn't more people stay at home rather than be forced to be second wage-earners to keep a family afloat, as is now the case? So you'd have a lower proportion of the total potential workforce working but most households better off due to higher earnings.

It's not easy to assess. Euro countries accept a lower proportion of the total workforce employed - making higher wages, at least in Germany and a few other of the richer countries - and a higher total number living off social welfare. And the standard of living would appear higher to most Americans, contrary to the propaganda we get.

Just in the raw statistics side you have to consider:

- Population (including under 18 as how young/old and how many children is an important factor)
- Population over 18 (potential workforce)
- Population over 65 or retirement age
- "Work force" (proportion of the 18-65 population considered to want or need work)
- Total employed population at full work week
- Total under-employed population.
- Total of "work force" unemployed.

Even here, no one number is the "real" answer, although that's how it's presented to us.

Further questions like: what proportion is disabled, is it above or below other countries (in the west this will be a stable number).

Then you have to cross this somehow in a model with wages, and in addition consider other benefits and social goods (such as the level availability and cost of health care and education, not to mention health itself, not to mention social impacts on the middle class of widespread poverty).

For the US one surely acceptable bottom line (of several) is that the median income earner is worse off, working more hours for less net and more debt, than 35 years ago.