Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Has the number of umemployed been manipulated?

Posted on 03/06/2011 7:50:10 AM PST by reaganator

The recent jobs report has shown the unemployment rate has dropped to 8.9%, what is the formula used for determining this rate?

Is it possible for the current Administration to elinimate certain sectors of the unemployed to achieve this desired result? Those who were collecting unemployment benefits but are now being paid to go to school or are being paid to remain poor. etc.

When the welfare rolls increase does this decrease the unemployment rolls?

Is it possible for the Administration to stretch to increase the actual number count of the American work force to achieve a lower unemployment rate? Count those who previosly were not counted.

I suspect there will be adjusted job numbers to come.

I admit great ignorance comcerning this matter and would appreciate Freepers help in learning more about this.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: reaganator

. . . . and they’ll just riot and recall those nasty Tea Party Republicans they elected in the last election and install the Democrats in their RIGHTFUL place of rulership like their BIRTHRIGHT is meant by nature to be.


41 posted on 03/06/2011 8:52:29 AM PST by Twinkie ( PEACE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

True - and with a dollar crash, I expect $25 per gallon. That would hurt.

On the bright side...no more traffic jams.


42 posted on 03/06/2011 8:53:17 AM PST by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: reaganator

Whattya live under a rock?

43 posted on 03/06/2011 8:54:03 AM PST by McGruff (Is it time to Drill Baby Drill yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Be still my heart!


44 posted on 03/06/2011 8:55:23 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 775 of our national holiday from reality. - tic. tic. tic. It's almost 3 AM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater
Unemployed is defined as people out of work who have actively looked for work within the last four weeks.

Not really though, as the reporting of those looking for work is only tracked via unemployment insurance collection.

Thus, anyone looking for work that is not collecting unemployment would never be counted in this number. Thus, only people who lost a job and are still getting unemployment payments are counted. People entering the workforce for the first time, or who are not getting payments are not counted. As tracked by the government, this number will eventually reduce itself to zero, even if no one ever finds a job.

The fact that the official unemployment number has stayed so constant, actually means that real unemployment has been increasing steadily.

45 posted on 03/06/2011 8:57:42 AM PST by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reaganator

Du-ah! Is a frogs ass water-tight? Of course they cook the books on unemployment, just as they have with inflation. And the media and the REPUBLICANS let them get away with it. The left continues to hand the right ammo, but the right never uses it - I truely don’t understand.


46 posted on 03/06/2011 9:02:31 AM PST by Cyclone59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganator

Yes and not for the better. The rate is probably twice what they say it is.


47 posted on 03/06/2011 9:28:47 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganator
Yes - actual full unemployment is about 10% and when you add in the underemployed it is about 20%. Another dirty secret is that a number of jobs have actually disappeared and that is being skewed to make the numbers look lower.

Mission just about accomplished - a few more blows and it will be time to flush.

48 posted on 03/06/2011 10:00:15 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganator

They will adjust them until unemployment appears to be under 8%. That’s all they care about, because for re-election they need the ‘magic number’ to be under 8%. No sitting president except FDR won re-election with unemployment higher than 8%.

So they’ll just revise it until it gets below, the press will orgasmically report on how the number keeps going down, how O-hole is so great and life is wonderful and it’s springtime in Russia (err the USSA) and they sold another Volt today to someone....


49 posted on 03/06/2011 10:15:43 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganator
Keep in mind these are the same people that manipulate the CPI which says there is no inflation so all you retired has beens can go suck an egg, providing you have enough money after Obamalamadingdong raises your energy costs to necessarily high levels (a paraphrase of his words).
50 posted on 03/06/2011 10:43:20 AM PST by cashless (Unlike Obama and his supporters, I'd rather be a TEA BAGGER than a TEA BAGGEE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganator
Shadowstats.com for today's numbers expressed the way they use to be reported before truth became an option.
51 posted on 03/06/2011 10:50:45 AM PST by cashless (Unlike Obama and his supporters, I'd rather be a TEA BAGGER than a TEA BAGGEE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganator
Keep in mind these are the same people that manipulate the CPI which says there is no inflation so all you retired has beens can go suck an egg, providing you have enough money after Obamalamadingdong raises your energy costs to necessarily high levels (a paraphrase of his words).
52 posted on 03/06/2011 10:51:12 AM PST by cashless (Unlike Obama and his supporters, I'd rather be a TEA BAGGER than a TEA BAGGEE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Yeah, and so far they haven’t quite figured out how to finagle it out of the oil dictator’s hands. . or could this be part of why Code Pink went to Egypt . . to “community organize” the demonstrations?

Oh, and the high gasoline prices accomplish exactly what Obama wants - OUR “behavior” being managed and the advancement of “green” energy. - Never mind the “unintended consequences”, such as many of the world’s people dying from starvation because this bunch decided it’d be a good idea to use CORN for fuel rather than food. Still, any agencies the federal government establishes have something akin to “eternal life”.

And the little tin can electric cars? More of that dratted “population” will be thinned out in automobile accidents. It’s a win-win situation for the Marxists.


53 posted on 03/06/2011 10:55:08 AM PST by Twinkie ( PEACE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: reaganator

Bear is to Catholic as Pope is to Woods


54 posted on 03/06/2011 11:44:54 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just restock [chg'd to comply w/ The Civility in Discourse Act of 2011])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganator
The unemployed, the underemployed, THE UNDERPAID

...e.g. City and County of San Francisco

Fiscal Year 2009 upper Income Limits public Housing, City and County of San Francisco:
~ 65k for Single
~ 80K for family of 3

60% of residents DO qualify for low income Public Housing
that means only 40% have some kind of traditional american style comfortable living with some spare change left when the next Paycheck comes in.
100k [gross] is needed for a single person living in a 1 Bdrm Aprtmnt to have a carefree live.

The city of San Francisco contains 13.6 percent of the Bay Area’s households, but only 12.3 percent of the households with annual incomes of more than $100,000.

55 posted on 03/06/2011 12:22:07 PM PST by Koracan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganator

Of course.


56 posted on 03/07/2011 4:26:02 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson