Faux news unemployment is at 16 %

[brettdale]

Apparently obama is hiding the real figures.

[Ken Burch]

1. 16% of the Faux News staff is unemployed?

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. thread title needs a comma

[Ken Burch]

14. Damn!...well, a person can dream....

n/t.

[ddeclue]

2. Umm nope he's just using the Bush administration rules...where were they on this point in the last 8

years?

[rurallib]

3. real unemployment numbers went out with Reagan

and going back to the real number would be a shocker to the system.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. Exactly nt

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. 16% is probably an understatement

There are lots of discouraged workers who are no longer considered unemployed. Likewise those official stats don't account for the underemployed or part-time workers who desire full-time positions or for recent graduates and others wishing to enter the woprkforce.

[madrchsod]

5. at least 16% but in my opinion 20% or more

unemployed workers,workers no longer drawing benefits,those who gave up looking for work,and those who have never had a job to draw benefits.

[marmar]

7. Ah, all of a sudden Faux is interested in the "real" unemployment rate....

..... unlike when the economy fell apart under W.

[tritsofme]

9. Further proving that the U6 measure of unemployment is nothing but a political tool

To most people who brandish it as the "real unemployment rate"

Its not about what is "real" its about scoring political points.

[Selatius]

10. Umm, that's likely because FOX is quoting U-6 unemployment numbers, not U-3.

I find it funny FOX used to quote U-3 numbers during Bush, but they apparently switched over to reporting U-6 numbers under Obama.

For all who don't know, U-6 numbers are probably a better representation of the true unemployment situation inside the United States than the popularly followed U-3 numbers published.

By quoting the U-6 numbers, they make Obama look worse than he actually is, but if they were truthful about it, they would've been doing the same goddamn thing under Bush, but they didn't.

Therefore, they're hypocrites on the issue.

[Orsino]

11. O'Reilly's and Beck's penises are throwing off the average.

:kick:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

12. How do they account for the sudden dramatic rise since Chimp

What happened in the last six months to explain a doubling of the number? Or is it just more of the unsubstantiated, unexplained, unprofessional "we report, you decide" crap?

[abumbyanyothername]

13. If we counted U/E the way we did in 1932

the number might be >30%.

We got a lot of seniors drawing benefits under SSI.