Ongoing Unemployment Drops to Lowest Level Since December 1973

[piezoe]

Ongoing Unemployment Drops to Lowest Level Since December 1973
3096

RHONA WISE/AFP/Getty Images
14 Jun 20184,120
Jobless claims unexpectedly fell last week, according to data from the Labor Department Thursday.

New filings for unemployment benefits fell by 4,000 to 218,000. Economists had expected a rise to 225,000.

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better indicator of job market strength because it evens out week-to-week volatility, also fell.

Continuing claims for state unemployment benefits dropped to 1.7 million, the lowest since December 1973.

caution: Compare headline with what is being reported in the article under the headline. Just as data from the Old Soviet Union, data from the Trump White House should be taken cum grano salis.

Despite what many people believe, the unemployment rate is not measured by calculating the number of people collecting unemployment insurance. (see below)​

FYI: https://economics.stackexchange.com...-the-way-unemployment-is-calculated-in-the-us

https://consumerist.com/2010/12/28/government-to-change-way-it-counts-long-term-unemployed/

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ulate-unemployment-rate-published-monthly.asp

 

[Tsing Tao]

caution: Compare headline with what is being reported in the article under the headline. Just as data from the Old Soviet Union, data from the Trump White House should be taken cum grano salis.

Despite what many people believe, the unemployment rate is not measured by calculating the number of people collecting unemployment insurance. (see below)​

FYI: https://economics.stackexchange.com...-the-way-unemployment-is-calculated-in-the-us

https://consumerist.com/2010/12/28/government-to-change-way-it-counts-long-term-unemployed/

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ulate-unemployment-rate-published-monthly.asp

Ah, I was waiting for someone on the left to bring this up, and Piezoe didn't disappoint.

First, you are exactly correct that the unemployment numbers reported are not, in any real way, indicative of the true employment situation in the country. The U3 is useless, the U6 is better but still, how the US government reports unemployment statistics is just pure hogwash.

What is really amusing is that you - Piezoe - and your folks were totally and completely silent about pointing out the above during Obama's administration, when he and the media were touting the very same employment statistics. You'll note (probably hesitatingly) that the second article you quoted above about how the government changed the way it counts long term unemployed was in December of 2010, and this was done during Obama's administration, not Trump.

Either you point out the flaws all the time no matter who is in the White House (as I do) or you are just a partisan hack. You, Piezoe, are a partisan hack. The only reason you brought this up is because you hate Trump. That's it. Hate him all you want, but this is why your arguments are meaningless around here - because we all know you're pushing a narrative. You don't give a shit about the employment numbers. You just care about making Trump look bad.

 

[Tom B]

Hahahahaha.

Sorry but have you seen the movie 300 a lot?

???

 

[piezoe]

First, you are exactly correct that the unemployment numbers reported are not, in any real way, indicative of the true employment situation in the country. The U3 is useless, the U6 is better but still, how the US government reports unemployment statistics is just pure hogwash.

We should all be concerned about the duplicity coming from the current administration. We expect a certain amount of this from politicians, but the constant barrage of disinformation coming from the White House, much of it from Trump himself, surpasses even the level we experienced from the Nixon White House. The Johnson era was notably bad on misleading the public on what was happening in Vietnam, but nothing like we are experiencing now almost on a daily basis. Trump has got to go!

What is really amusing is that you - Piezoe - and your folks were totally and completely silent about pointing out the above during Obama's administration, when he and the media were touting the very same employment statistics. You'll note (probably hesitatingly) that the second article you quoted above about how the government changed the way it counts long term unemployed was in December of 2010, and this was done during Obama's administration, not Trump.

I am aware of course of the change and when it ocurred. because I am interested in truth. I intentionally put that link in so that people would be aware of the change.

As always, if your going to make an outrageous claim that the Obama administration was no different than the Trump administration in playing fast and loose with employment figures, an outrageous claim by the way, then you are obligated to support it with appropriate links, otherwise I will put you in the same category as i've put poindexter and dozu. Up to now I have considered you to have a little bit more on the ball than those two.

Either you point out the flaws all the time no matter who is in the White House (as I do) or you are just a partisan hack.

Well you didn't point it out. I did.

 

[Tsing Tao]

We should all be concerned about the duplicity coming from the current administration. We expect a certain amount of this from politicians, but the constant barrage of disinformation coming from the White House, much of it from Trump himself, surpasses even the level we experienced from the Nixon White House. The Johnson era was notably bad on misleading the public on what was happening in Vietnam, but nothing like we are experiencing now almost on a daily basis. Trump has got to go!

Yes, we know your obsession with hating Trump. We get it already. It couldn't be any more obvious. But this thread is about unemployment statistics.

I am aware of course of the change and when it ocurred. because I am interested in truth. I intentionally put that link in so that people would be aware of the change.

Yet you remained silent during Obama's time whenever unemployment stats - the very same unemployment stats - were reported. With all their flaws.

As always, if your going to make an outrageous claim that the Obama administration was no different than the Trump administration in playing fast and loose with employment figures, an outrageous claim by the way, then you are obligated to support it with appropriate links, otherwise I will put you in the same category as i've put poindexter and dozu. Up to now I have considered you to have a little bit more on the ball than those two.

First, it's you're. As in you are. You frequently have this issue, so I figured I should "remind" you. Second, the very same unemployment statistics, with all the very same flaws were used during the Obama administration. And the Obama administration heralded the numbers whenever it worked to their advantage. That's what politicians do, and Obama and Trump are no different in that regard. As for other similarities or differences, they are irrelevant because this thread is about unemployment statistics.

Well you didn't point it out. I did.

Yes, again - you pointed it out for the first time here. Please point out where you have made an issue on these statistics during the Obama administration.

This link: LINK HERE FOR PIEZOE SO HE DOESNT MISS IT

Is where I have pointed out the error before, during the Trump administration. So I've pointed it out before. The difference is that I do it based on the way the government reports regardless of the President. Because I'm not pushing a narrative. You are.

 

[Tsing Tao]

???

I'm assuming this wasn't to me, but to someone I have on ignore? If to me, just specify what question and I'll gladly answer if I can.

 

[piezoe]

Please point out where you have made an issue on these statistics during the Obama administration.

Doin't be silly. I've not done that, as I have had no reason to. Unless someone here in these forums called my attention to misleading reporting by the Obama administration, I wouldn't have had any reason to comment. So lets do this. You point where you have taken issue on NASAs reporting on the Moons of Jupiter, and I'll point out where I have taken issue with Obama's reporting of employment statistics. I am assuming here that neither of us has commented on either of these issues for a simple reason; neither of us had any reason to. Does that make sense!

On the other hand if you want to waste your time searching for an example of where the Obama administration misled the public regarding unemployment please do so, and post it here verbatim. I'll be happy to comment.

Thank god the end may be in sight to this lying, demagogue con artist. I can't wait for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to arrive.

 

[Tom B]

I'm assuming this wasn't to me, but to someone I have on ignore? If to me, just specify what question and I'll gladly answer if I can.

My post was to someone you have on ignore. Your posts were clear and accurate.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Doin't be silly. I've not done that, as I have had no reason to. Unless someone here in these forums called my attention to misleading reporting by the Obama administration, I wouldn't have had any reason to comment. So lets do this. You point where you have taken issue on NASAs reporting on the Moons of Jupiter, and I'll point out where I have taken issue with Obama's reporting of employment statistics. I am assuming here that neither of us has commented on either of these issues for a simple reason; neither of us had any reason to. Does that make sense!

On the other hand if you want to waste your time searching for an example of where the Obama administration misled the public regarding unemployment please do so, and post it here verbatim. I'll be happy to comment.

Thank god the end may be in sight to this lying, demagogue con artist. I can't wait for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to arrive.

Right. So to sum up, you have a problem with the way the government statistics are reported, and you have a problem with politicians that take credit for these misleading statistics, but only if those politicians are named Trump. Doesn't matter if these same statistics were used in previous administrations for the exact same reason. Trump is the problem.

I'm glad we got this out there for yet another example of your "Libertarian" self for all to see. I'll let you get back to the pub now.

 

[Spike Trader]

Are they counting those who aren't looking for a job ?

a phrase repeated often during the Obama years.