95,102,000 Americans not working, up 18% under Obama

[jimnyc]

And in 2009 he officially also stated he owned the economy. Wasserman Schulz said the same in 2011. He's failed on so many levels.

-----

Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009

(CNSNews.com) - Barack Obama's presidency began with a record number of Americans not in the labor force, and it's ending the same way.

The final jobs report of the Obama presidency, released Friday, shows that the number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 14,573,000 (18.09 percent) since January 2009, when Obama took office, continuing a long-term trend that began well before Obama was sworn in.

In December, according to the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 95,102,000 Americans were not in the labor force, 47,000 more than in November; and the labor force participation rate was 62.7 percent, a tenth of a point higher than in November.

The participation rate dropped to a 38-year low of 62.4 percent on Obama's watch, in September 2015. It was only 3-tenths of a point higher than that last month.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-95102000-americans-not-labor-force-number-grew-18-obama-took-office

[pete311]

"Out of the 93.8 million Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age. Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)"

[jimnyc]

"Out of the 93.8 million Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age. Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)"

And? I don't dispute that - but quotes need links, so please edit your post and give it a link.

And yet it's the same nation, same circumstances and people - and it's went up 18% under Obama.

[fj1200]

"Out of the 93.8 million Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age. Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)"

LFPR is falling as a result of demographics but BO's performance has underperformed IMO.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/559532a3ecad04962459c9a9-1200-900/labor-force-participation-rate-june-2015.png

[jimnyc]

LFPR is falling as a result of demographics but BO's performance has underperformed IMO.

Economically speaking, Obama has failed and underperformed a LOT, and in quite a few areas.

[fj1200]

Economically speaking, Obama has failed and underperformed a LOT, and in quite a few areas.

One can choose numbers from either side to make their case.

[jimnyc]

One can choose numbers from either side to make their case.

Has nothing to do with my comment - which was - "Economically speaking, Obama has failed and underperformed a LOT, and in quite a few areas." Some can play the semantics game and cherry pick or whatever, which is not what I'm stating. BUT, the fact is, he has performed poorly, economically speaking. One would be lying, or a failed economics student, if they state he was a complete success with our economy.

[fj1200]

Has nothing to do with my comment - which was - "Economically speaking, Obama has failed and underperformed a LOT, and in quite a few areas." Some can play the semantics game and cherry pick or whatever, which is not what I'm stating. BUT, the fact is, he has performed poorly, economically speaking. One would be lying, or a failed economics student, if they state he was a complete success with our economy.

It has everything to do with it. You stated an opinion as did I earlier. I was told in another thread that manufacturing went down under BO, it apparently went up; facts are facts. Besides, I'm not sure anyone called him a complete success.

[jimnyc]

It has everything to do with it. You stated an opinion as did I earlier. I was told in another thread that manufacturing went down under BO, it apparently went up; facts are facts. Besides, I'm not sure anyone called him a complete success.

Sure, folks can try and make a case for either side as you state, but it's not an either or thing.

For example, if unemployment is up 2% in a years time when Obama is in office (lets leave others out for now). Either unemployment is up - or someone is lying - OR someone wants to play with numbers to make it seem like unemployment didn't go up that much. It honestly can't be both.

Maybe some CAN post some positive things he did with our economy. But it's apparently not disputing the numbers posted, nor would it have anything to do with the various bad things I stated he failed at, or underperformed.

And IMO, all put together in one ball and graded - he was VERY FAR from a success, and leaning more towards horrible. The other article I posted covers some of that.

[Black Diamond]

Sure, folks can try and make a case for either side as you state, but it's not an either or thing.

For example, if unemployment is up 2% in a years time when Obama is in office (lets leave others out for now). Either unemployment is up - or someone is lying - OR someone wants to play with numbers to make it seem like unemployment didn't go up that much. It honestly can't be both.

Maybe some CAN post some positive things he did with our economy. But it's apparently not disputing the numbers posted, nor would it have anything to do with the various bad things I stated he failed at, or underperformed.

And IMO, all put together in one ball and graded - he was VERY FAR from a success, and leaning more towards horrible. The other article I posted covers some of that.

Unemployment rate only counts those receiving unemployment benefits. Once your unemployment runs out, you're dropped from the rolls.

[Black Diamond]

In other words, unemployment rate could be 4% but 15% could be out of work. And we aren't even counting those who are underemployed.

[fj1200]

Unemployment rate only counts those receiving unemployment benefits. Once your unemployment runs out, you're dropped from the rolls.

That is incorrect.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

[fj1200]

Sure, folks can try and make a case for either side as you state, but it's not an either or thing.

For example, if unemployment is up 2% in a years time when Obama is in office (lets leave others out for now). Either unemployment is up - or someone is lying - OR someone wants to play with numbers to make it seem like unemployment didn't go up that much. It honestly can't be both.

Maybe some CAN post some positive things he did with our economy. But it's apparently not disputing the numbers posted, nor would it have anything to do with the various bad things I stated he failed at, or underperformed.

And IMO, all put together in one ball and graded - he was VERY FAR from a success, and leaning more towards horrible. The other article I posted covers some of that.

That particular rate is a long term trend, not just cherry picking the numbers.

[jimnyc]

That is incorrect.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Not entirely incorrect... grabbed this quickly, but MANY folks and places that gauge unemployment do just that, they will remove such folks from unemployment scales, whether those folks will eventually get a job or not, and whether they are actually seeking or not. Sure, what you say is SUPPOSED to be the perfect way - but not all report it that way. Hell, even this current administration had reported just that, a lowering, and yet a lot of that were folks that were removed from the force...

---

The unemployment rate could fall substantially early next year as belt-tightening in Washington throws more than a million long-term unemployed Americans off the benefit rolls.

The loss of benefits could spur former recipients to either drop out of the labor force or accept jobs they previously would not have considered. Some economists estimate this could lower the current unemployment rate of 7.3 percent by as much as half a percentage point.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-joblessbenefits-idUSBRE9B20XA20131203

[jimnyc]

That particular rate is a long term trend, not just cherry picking the numbers.

I was making examples and couldn't care less. But the FACT is - speaking of the economy overall, in many areas Obama has failed. As stated in the other article I posted. Unless like Pete, you tell me that it's only because the WSJ is biased, as well as investmentwatch.

Obama Owns Worst Economic Numbers In 80 Years

Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932 – over 80 years

[fj1200]

Not entirely incorrect... grabbed this quickly, but MANY folks and places that gauge unemployment do just that, they will remove such folks from unemployment scales, whether those folks will eventually get a job or not, and whether they are actually seeking or not. Sure, what you say is SUPPOSED to be the perfect way - but not all report it that way. Hell, even this current administration had reported just that, a lowering, and yet a lot of that were folks that were removed from the force...

---

The unemployment rate could fall substantially early next year as belt-tightening in Washington throws more than a million long-term unemployed Americans off the benefit rolls.

The loss of benefits could spur former recipients to either drop out of the labor force or accept jobs they previously would not have considered. Some economists estimate this could lower the current unemployment rate of 7.3 percent by as much as half a percentage point.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-joblessbenefits-idUSBRE9B20XA20131203

Pretty much incorrect.


Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting 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.

[fj1200]

I was making examples and couldn't care less. But the FACT is - speaking of the economy overall, in many areas Obama has failed. As stated in the other article I posted. Unless like Pete, you tell me that it's only because the WSJ is biased, as well as investmentwatch.

Obama Owns Worst Economic Numbers In 80 Years

Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932 – over 80 years

:confused: I was commenting on this thread. :)

[jimnyc]

Pretty much incorrect.

I stated that many folks will report things about unemployment, even if what you say is correct, which I believe you are. But again, even this administration lowered unemployment by folks falling off the unemployment money train. You will find analysts all over the map with different takes on it, and some coming out with different unemployment numbers as a result - EVEN when you point to how it's truly figured out.

And you quickly have to say incorrect again.

I guess I'm hallucinating when I see different numbers out there, and even congressional members arguing and debating over releases numbers. I'm seeing things again!!

[jimnyc]

:confused: I was commenting on this thread. :)

Are you even reading before replying tonight? Can I be more clearer, I don't know. I stated several times how he sucked with our economy, and then in that reply I copied/pasted terms used in another post, basically on the same subject of the economy.

Or perhaps as I'm assuming, are you just not on topic at all and being a dick based on my comments in yet another thread?

[Black Diamond]

Pretty much incorrect.

It doesn't count those who have stopped looking.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/063015/how-does-us-bureau-labor-statistics-calculate-unemployment-rate-published-monthly.asp

[fj1200]

I stated that many folks will report things about unemployment, even if what you say is correct, which I believe you are. But again, even this administration lowered unemployment by folks falling off the unemployment money train. You will find analysts all over the map with different takes on it, and some coming out with different unemployment numbers as a result - EVEN when you point to how it's truly figured out.

And you quickly have to say incorrect again.

I guess I'm hallucinating when I see different numbers out there, and even congressional members arguing and debating over releases numbers. I'm seeing things again!!

The comment was about the unemployment rate. They don't calculate it in the manner presented.

[fj1200]

Are you even reading before replying tonight? Can I be more clearer, I don't know. I stated several times how he sucked with our economy, and then in that reply I copied/pasted terms used in another post, basically on the same subject of the economy.

Or perhaps as I'm assuming, are you just not on topic at all and being a dick based on my comments in yet another thread?

Yup, things are moving fast though. BO sucks but I'm trying to stay on topic, not sure why you have multiple threads if you're just going to bring them up together. :confused:


It doesn't count those who have stopped looking.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/063015/how-does-us-bureau-labor-statistics-calculate-unemployment-rate-published-monthly.asp

I know. But it doesn't have anything to do with unemployment rolls.

[jimnyc]

Yup, things are moving fast though. BO sucks but I'm trying to stay on topic, not sure why you have multiple threads if you're just going to bring them up together. :confused:

Because they're different, but I brought up a few sentences from the other article which I believe is on point here.

And I'll open as many threads as I please. You can whine like a bitch when folks prove your crap wrong, and then you'll soon claim the place is an "echo chamber". DON'T worry your little self about how the board operates.

But since it's obvious you're just being a douchebag, I'll wait on ANYONE else, as you can go start a thread better to your liking.

[jimnyc]

It doesn't count those who have stopped looking.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/063015/how-does-us-bureau-labor-statistics-calculate-unemployment-rate-published-monthly.asp

FJ, like Pete this evening, can't stop being a dick. But alas, at least we were educated this evening, as fj knows everything!!

But he's been removed from the thread, so don't wait for a reply. Rather than discuss what we are all posting, he would prefer to be a dick about what I stated to him in another thread - about going off topic. So he wants to be the prick he is, and now keep stating the same to me here in this thread. He can go to the cage if he has an issue and wants to purposely be a dick.

Sorry, BD!!!

[Elessar]

O.K...

Where were all of these "Shovel Ready Jobs" he proclaimed?
He would not know how to use a shovel but thinks he offered them. Not like a
golf club or basketball.

Non-existent is where. Just a bunch of fart blown over the nation to make
people believe he was doing something.

He and his didn't do JACK SHIT, just preached and deluded the Nation.

[fj1200]

LFPR is falling as a result of demographics but BO's performance has underperformed IMO.

Anyway...

I think this illustrates the point:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQx6AenNny4ryfkeeIjNt-C8gvq0JMx5vs-Hq2TmHz5_sqkgxBEtA
http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-report-july-17-2014-7

[Russ]

Anyway...

I think this illustrates the point:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQx6AenNny4ryfkeeIjNt-C8gvq0JMx5vs-Hq2TmHz5_sqkgxBEtA
http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-report-july-17-2014-7


I just read the article that goes with this link, and two things stuck out for me:
1. The graph shown and the data it's based on were produced by the White House
2. The "aging trends" data seem fine, but the "cyclical effects" and "residual" data sounds like BS concepts created to obfuscate the low labor participation rate and explain it away as "not Obama's fault".

[Russ]

Actually, I have to give Obama some credit for his "Kill the Mid-Western Manufacturing Industries So Bad that Aging Factory Workers Drop Out of the Workforce" program. It was sheer genius! Obama's attacks on coal and pipelines, and his TPP treaty, and the anchor-weight of his Obamacare had the magical effect of getting millions of guys from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin to give up and drop out of the workforce, thereby lowering the unemployment rate to 4.7%. What a plan!

(I've heard that Hillary is no longer a fan, though, as of November 9th)

[fj1200]

I just read the article that goes with this link, and two things stuck out for me:
1. The graph shown and the data it's based on were produced by the White House
2. The "aging trends" data seem fine, but the "cyclical effects" and "residual" data sounds like BS concepts created to obfuscate the low labor participation rate and explain it away as "not Obama's fault".

I'm pretty sure they didn't produce the data, they only analyzed it. And they also took the time to quantify how badly his performance actually is by explaining that workers deferring looking for work are "cyclical" and what they can't explain is "residual." That was nice of them.


Actually, I have to give Obama some credit for his "Kill the Mid-Western Manufacturing Industries So Bad that Aging Factory Workers Drop Out of the Workforce" program. It was sheer genius! Obama's attacks on coal and pipelines, and his TPP treaty, and the anchor-weight of his Obamacare had the magical effect of getting millions of guys from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin to give up and drop out of the workforce, thereby lowering the unemployment rate to 4.7%. What a plan!

(I've heard that Hillary is no longer a fan, though, as of November 9th)

Manufacturing employment went up under his watch as did all employment IIRC. But the rate is destined to go down, Bush bucked the trend in the later years but BO has exacerbated it's decline. We'll see what happens going forward.

[gabosaurus]

And? I don't dispute that - but quotes need links, so please edit your post and give it a link. And yet it's the same nation, same circumstances and people - and it's went up 18% under Obama. Actually, it is not. You are using a right-wing website with typically distorted news. Why not use an independent source? Keep in mind that Obama was left with the refuse left over by the previous administration, which neglected the domestic economy in order to fight its self-produced "war on terror." http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/obamas-numbers-october-2016-update/ Since President Barack Obama first took office: The economy has added nearly 10.7 million jobs. Median household income has gone up $1,140, or 2 percent. The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent. Median sales prices of existing single-family homes are up 23 percent. The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm; job openings are at a 15-year high. Corporate profits and stock prices have both soared to record highs. The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by 16.5 million. The murder rate is down nearly 5 percent, despite an increase in 2015. The number of unauthorized immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. is down, according to demographers.

[jimnyc]

Actually, it is not. You are using a right-wing website with typically distorted news. Why not use an independent source? Keep in mind that Obama was left with the refuse left over by the previous administration, which neglected the domestic economy in order to fight its self-produced "war on terror." http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/obamas-numbers-october-2016-update/ Since President Barack Obama first took office: The economy has added nearly 10.7 million jobs. Median household income has gone up $1,140, or 2 percent. The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent. Median sales prices of existing single-family homes are up 23 percent. The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm; job openings are at a 15-year high. Corporate profits and stock prices have both soared to record highs. The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by 16.5 million. The murder rate is down nearly 5 percent, despite an increase in 2015. The number of unauthorized immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. is down, according to demographers.

I suggest you learn how to read and comprehend and worry less about sources that rely on government information. You are the stupidest fuck that has ever crossed this board, whether trolling or unsuccessfully trying to add to a discussion.

[gabosaurus]

I suggest you learn how to read and comprehend and worry less about sources that rely on government information. You are the stupidest fuck that has ever crossed this board, whether trolling or unsuccessfully trying to add to a discussion. What is there to read and comprehend? The story you posted was intentionally misleading and factually incorrect. And as long as you and NT are here, I will never be the "stupidest fuck that has ever crossed this board."

[Elessar]

Actually, it is not. You are using a right-wing website with typically distorted news. Why not use an independent source? Keep in mind that Obama was left with the refuse left over by the previous administration, which neglected the domestic economy in order to fight its self-produced "war on terror." http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/obamas-numbers-october-2016-update/ Since President Barack Obama first took office: The economy has added nearly 10.7 million jobs. Median household income has gone up $1,140, or 2 percent. The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent. Median sales prices of existing single-family homes are up 23 percent. The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm; job openings are at a 15-year high. Corporate profits and stock prices have both soared to record highs. The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by 16.5 million. The murder rate is down nearly 5 percent, despite an increase in 2015. The number of unauthorized immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. is down, according to demographers.

Your statistics are bullshit.
Murder rates by black thugs shot up.
Racial tension increased under Obama. He did nothing to quell it.
Illegal possession of firearms shot up.
Obama pledged 'shovel ready jobs' which did not happen.
My taxes as middle class went up 20%.
My income decreased annually with Obama.
Corporations moved overseas under Obama.

[NightTrain]

What is there to read and comprehend? The story you posted was intentionally misleading and factually incorrect. And as long as you and NT are here, I will never be the "stupidest fuck that has ever crossed this board."

:laugh2:

Is that what the friendly family of muzzies across the street in California told you?

[NightTrain]

Beyond those silly numbers, debt to GDP went from 48% to 75% under Bambam's watch. Middle class Americans have the same spending power as the mid-90s.

[gabosaurus]

The facts are the facts and are stated as such. You can deny them all you want. My income and that of my husband increased under Obama. Crime and illegal gun sales went up because the gun nut lobby is out of control.

[fj1200]

Your statistics are bullshit.
Murder rates by black thugs shot up.
Racial tension increased under Obama. He did nothing to quell it.
Illegal possession of firearms shot up.
Obama pledged 'shovel ready jobs' which did not happen.
My taxes as middle class went up 20%.
My income decreased annually with Obama.
Corporations moved overseas under Obama.

How are they BS? They're either true or not. Anecdotes are hearsay.

[jimnyc]

How are they BS? They're either true or not. Anecdotes are hearsay.

That's kind of what I was stating the other day about unemployment numbers. Sure, some can find ways to make it sound differently, and a lot of hand wrangling is done to make the numbers sound better than they are. Like someone working part time once per week making $100 for example. And some just losing unemployment. A lot of folks will factor the unemployment in various ways, even if we all know they may be further from the truth or reality.

[fj1200]

That's kind of what I was stating the other day about unemployment numbers. Sure, some can find ways to make it sound differently, and a lot of hand wrangling is done to make the numbers sound better than they are. Like someone working part time once per week making $100 for example. And some just losing unemployment. A lot of folks will factor the unemployment in various ways, even if we all know they may be further from the truth or reality.

There are plenty of different rates calculated by BLS but they're pretty much done the same way and immune from political fiddling AFAIK. I would think U6 covers your example.

Current data:



<caption style="padding: 0px 0px 2px; margin: 0px; line-height: 1.22em; text-align: left; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization [Percent]</caption><thead style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 1.22em;">
Measure
Not seasonally adjusted
Seasonally adjusted


Dec.
2015
Nov.
2016
Dec.
2016
Dec.
2015
Aug.
2016
Sept.
2016
Oct.
2016
Nov.
2016
Dec.
2016

</thead><tbody style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 1.22em;">
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

2.1
1.8
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.9


U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

2.4
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.3


U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

4.8
4.4
4.5
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.7


U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

5.2
4.8
4.8
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.1
5.0
5.0


U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

5.9
5.6
5.5
6.1
5.9
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7


U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

9.8
9.0
9.1
9.9
9.7
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.2

</tbody><tfoot style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 1.22em;">
NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.




</tfoot>


https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

[jimnyc]

There are plenty of different rates calculated by BLS but they're pretty much done the same way and immune from political fiddling AFAIK. I would think U6 covers your example.

Current data:


But my point was the reporting of unemployment, and how folks can debate over it and come up with different answers (one says good and one bad) and how they can even come up with different numbers. What you point out is correct and what I was speaking of for that one portion. :) But I was simply stating, that as per debating - folks tend to come up with numbers all over the place - but at the end of the day, there is really one "correct" answer.

For example, the image you just posted - folks will run with various portions of that and swear the number THEY like is the current unemployment rate, or whatever. Others grab a different number. But both can't be correct, at least not when using all the same factors.

[fj1200]

But my point was the reporting of unemployment, and how folks can debate over it and come up with different answers (one says good and one bad) and how they can even come up with different numbers. What you point out is correct and what I was speaking of for that one portion. :) But I was simply stating, that as per debating - folks tend to come up with numbers all over the place - but at the end of the day, there is really one "correct" answer.

For example, the image you just posted - folks will run with various portions of that and swear the number THEY like is the current unemployment rate, or whatever. Others grab a different number. But both can't be correct, at least not when using all the same factors.

For example U3 and U6 are both correct, they just measure different things; Which I think is what you said. As far as debating one just needs to be consistent in using numbers to compare over time.

[jimnyc]

For example U3 and U6 are both correct, they just measure different things; Which I think is what you said. As far as debating one just needs to be consistent in using numbers to compare over time.

I agree about consistency. And I also agreed when you said sort of about folks able to come up with various factors on both sides. But like we're talking here, someone out there may claim something, anything about the unemployment. And while technically I guess that there can in fact be various stances that are all true - IMO, there should only be one standard. I've seen folks range anywhere at times from say 5% - 15% (made that up), depending on their argument. In my lame and humble opinion - U6 is more accurate. Running with lower numbers doesn't tell the whole unemployment story, IMO.

[jimnyc]

One can choose numbers from either side to make their case.

FJ, btw, this is all I meant all along, in regards to this comment. I wasn't being a dick, just pointing out that while the debates from both sides DO choose numbers that make their case - IMO, there are only "correct" numbers. Most want to run with U4, which is a decent standard, but IMO, the U6 need to be recognized as well, even if one doesn't want to state that the rate is higher. For example, one can state that "the unemployment rate is at 4.9% - but keep in mind that 5% of the unemployed switched to a few part time days per month, or that some popped off the rolls after time.... various reasons. Some will swear by the higher numbers, some will swear by the lower numbers (Like Obama has), and refuse to acknowledge that the number doesn't fully reflect everyone.

[fj1200]

... U6 is more accurate. ...

There is always a difference between U3 and U6 so they tell the same story IMO unless you see a difference than is greater than normal. In the early BO years the spread was higher, which could tell us that his recovery was slower which you and I don't disagree with I think, but I don't know how that ranks historically.

But I think we're pretty much on the same page.

[jimnyc]

There is always a difference between U3 and U6 so they tell the same story IMO unless you see a difference than is greater than normal. In the early BO years the spread was higher, which could tell us that his recovery was slower which you and I don't disagree with I think, but I don't know how that ranks historically.

But I think we're pretty much on the same page.

Yeps, we are. I think we were all along, but misread one another. The indicators of unemployment are all over the map, hence folks being able to find things to support their position from either side. But in the end, there's really only one correct answer - and that's the rate - and keeping the other stats in mind along with it.