Is unemployment of 9.7% a correct number?

F

Financial Saint

In October of 2009 we had peaked at 10.2%, since then we have lost additional 153,000 jobs. Now the February unemployment is at 9.7%. There has been a rumor around Wall Street that the real unemployment number is around 16.8% (I don’t is it a rumor or the fact), and I know at the end of last year they did some adjustments where they wrote off a number of people and that’s how the number got lower (they still don’t have jobs but they are not in the numbers). What pisses me off is that we are being lied to on a constant basis about these economic announcements. (That’s why we should ignore the noise and look at charts and price action)

What do you guys think?
 
Quote from Financial Saint:

In October of 2009 we had peaked at 10.2%, since then we have lost additional 153,000 jobs. Now the February unemployment is at 9.7%. There has been a rumor around Wall Street that the real unemployment number is around 16.8% (I don’t is it a rumor or the fact), and I know at the end of last year they did some adjustments where they wrote off a number of people and that’s how the number got lower (they still don’t have jobs but they are not in the numbers). What pisses me off is that we are being lied to on a constant basis about these economic announcements. (That’s why we should ignore the noise and look at charts and price action)

What do you guys think?
More...

Like the saying goes it all how you define it. Look up U6 that includes everyone, disgruntled, no longer eligible for UI, all of them. Last time I check it was about 18%.
 
Quote from dandxg:

Like the saying goes it all how you define it. Look up U6 that includes everyone, disgruntled, no longer eligible for UI, all of them. Last time I check it was about 18%.
More...

ShadowStats shows about 21.7%... unemployed but looking for work, underemployed, and discouraged from looking.
 
Unless we see new massive waves of layoffs the official rate is not going to rise and will likely fall slowly.

The way it's put together is to ignore long term unemployed and only consider new and recent ones.

It's all about manipulating perceptions and getting elected again at any cost.
 
Quote from pupu:

Unless we see new massive waves of layoffs the official rate is not going to rise and will likely fall slowly.

The way it's put together is to ignore long term unemployed and only consider new and recent ones.

It's all about manipulating perceptions and getting elected again at any cost.
More...

All true. If the "real" un/underemployment numbers were reported (21.7%), the public would be up in arms... voicing, 'FUCK YOU OBAMA, FUCK YOU DEMOCRATS... AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON"...

Of course, the Dems are not the REAL culprits (much as I hate their anti-American, Commie BS)... it's actually due to globalization, outsourcing, and the dark side of "productivity"... we now have an excess of labor in the US and the rest of the developed Western world... and their ain't a darn thing they can do about it except to subsidize the unemployed.... well, maybe very strong protectionist measures.. but that's hard to do when we keep begging China to buy our horseshit debt to fund our government's excessive deficit spending.
 
I love how every single month someone wants to debate whether the unemployment number is "real". We all understand there are varying criteria when calculalating this number, and it will never be exact no matter how you try to calculate it. Let's stop beating a dead horse every single month.
 
Quote from pupu:

Unless we see new massive waves of layoffs the official rate is not going to rise and will likely fall slowly.

The way it's put together is to ignore long term unemployed and only consider new and recent ones.

It's all about manipulating perceptions and getting elected again at any cost.
More...

Exactly. And we're not going to see another massive wave of layoffs unless we take a massive turn for the worse (another collapse). At this point, companies are as fit as they possibly can me (see utilization numbers) and have managed to keep earnings up by trimming costs. But I'm skeptical that this can continue, because eventually sales have to return (and there's no evidence they will).

So you're right. The rate will slowly trickle down as people fall off the grid, but the catalyst for negativity will be the failure of companies to sell anything, failure of houses to be sold, retail sales, etc...
 
Quote from Ivanovich:

"... the catalyst for negativity will be the failure of companies to sell anything, failure of houses to be sold, retail sales, etc...
More...

Correctamundo! There must first be DEMAND before their is production and employment to meet that demand. Our current Obama/Socialist agenda is one which opposes demand, growth, and private sector growth/employment...

DOWN WITH OBAMA...DOWN WITH DEMOCRATS... DOWN WITH SEIU, DOWN WITH ACORN, AND SOCIALISM in general...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top