Guess What? Unemployment's Really at 16.3 Percent

Fox News ^ | 8/7/08 | John Lott

[NoobRep]

The announcement today that the unemployment rate declined slightly to 9.4 percent in July while only 247,000 additional jobs were lost has been greeted as good news. The change in the unemployment rate puts the rate at what it was in May. Yet, even a rough look at the numbers indicates that the true unemployment rate has been getting significantly worse over the last few months.

How is it possible for the unemployment rate to essentially remain unchanged when 247,000 jobs have been lost? The reason is simple -- the number of people who stopped looking for work rose dramatically. Six hundred thirty-seven thousand additional people no longer consider themselves looking for work. This is by far the largest drop in the number of people who consider themselves in the labor force during the last year. -- It is almost twice the 358,000 increase in the people who left the labor force during June and almost four times the average monthly increase of 167,333 over the last year. Jobs are sufficiently scarce and the prospects of people finding them at wages that they are willing to work for so low that many individuals don't think that it is worth their time to even look for a job.

[NoobRep]

Who would think Obama and the crooked MSM would cook the books?

[newfreep]

A commie mooslum would like to us? I’m shocked!

[ExTexasRedhead]

Just guess at what other lies the American people are being treated to thanks to the Democrats, MSM, and the Fuhrer.

[newfreep]

lie=like (sheeesh, I need more caffeine!)

[bray]

When GW added 250K jobs it was the worst recession since the Depression. When obozo only loses 250K jobs the recession is over. Figure it out.

Pray for America

[napscoordinator]

Shesh. So when we were touting 5 percent unemployment back a few years ago, it was really 9 percent? You can’t play this both ways people.

[buwaya]

To be fair - not that the other side is fair, naturally, but -

In every other recession the same perfectly valid point regarding the labor force shrinking and a higher “real” rate of unemployment has been made in the press; now, these cases in the last thirty years have taken place during Republican administrations, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

That the MSM is not mentioning this at this time for this administration ? Well, we know why, don’t we.

It does look particularly bad this year btw., even though some of the unemployment decline has been hidden by the disappearance of illegal immigrants going home, which was a particularly big factor this time around, but even so. Counting the illegal aliens, we are effectively almost at Great Depression levels of unemployment.

[RU88]

These numbers are going to stay high because if I had to predict Congress will most likely extend unemployment benefits due to the staggering numbers of people due to come off the roles shortly. They really are between a rock and a hard place because if they extend benefits the number stays high while if they don’t these people come off the roles and make the number look more acceptable. The big problem for these Congressmen is that they may be joining the ranks of the unemployed themselves if these “green shoots” don’t sprout in short order.

[buwaya]

It was indeed “9 percent”.

Unemployment rates calculations do not take into account the quite real factors mentioned in this article.

The value of the official unemployment rate is as a tracking number, not as an absolute statement of the situation.

That makes it very inappropriate to use in international comparisons also btw.

[libertarian27]

I was on unemployment and just accepted a job for FAR less money than my previous position.

You never stop looking for a job, if unemployment runs out you are still looking. There isn’t much out there.

I highly doubt people ‘stop looking’ they ‘stop collecting’
(It’s not like there’s a bunch of money in people’s 401K’s nowadays)

[napscoordinator]

So since we did not use this against our beloved President Bush, we really should not use it against Obama. We really are being hypocritical in doing so. And being hypocrites is something conservatives hate (or they used too).

[library user]

Nope, that’s not how it works. Let me explain: A few years ago when unemployment was 5%, it was actually 5%. Why? Because now - in 2009 - the reason the number they say (9.4%) is not the true number is because it doesn’t include those people who USED to have full-time jobs, but who are now temp. workers, making much less and, in most cases, part-time. And this scenario has happened fairly recently, not three or more years ago.

This is not apples and oranges.

[mysterio]

Guess What? Unemployment's Really at 16.3 Percent

Although I generally take anything fox "news" says with a pound of salt, unemployment is at least that high in my area and has been for some time. Outsourcing decimated my area years back. It was almost comical watching the outsourcing crowd post their "doomed" graphic, thinking that it wouldn't reach their area too.

[babble-on]

forget it, he’s on a roll

[OpeEdMunkey]

I was on unemployment and just accepted a job for FAR less money than my previous position.

I'm going to end up in the same boat—if I'm lucky. You aren't kidding when you say there isn't much out there. Even the contract work has been drying up this month.

[bray]

The numbers are going to remain high thanks to some of the worst fiscal management since FDR. You can’t run deficits and expect the private sector to grow. This entire meltdown is obama and the DNC finally destroying the economy.

Pray for America

[Brugmansian]

the unemployment rate declined slightly to 9.4 percent in July while only 247,000 additional jobs were lost

Guess one has to work for government or be a writer to have that make sense.

If a quarter million jobs lost means a slight decline in unemployment, what would a million lost jobs mean? A 4 times better unemployment figure?

[usconservative]

Bureau of Labor Statistics Chart, 1999 - 2009

The Democrats are bragging that the job cut numbers have gone down? Looks to me like they have NOTHING to brag about.

Anyone with a right-thinking brain that looks at the above chart and clicks on the link I provided is going to see a very scary picture for the Democrats.

First, CLICK HERE and look at 2001. As Bush took office our economy was already contracting, showing signs of economic weakness. Most (not all) economists will tell you that job losses under 300,000 a month means our economy is growing. Over 300,000 a month means we're experiencing a contraction. Beginning in Sept. of 2001 we saw the contraction begin post the 9-11 attacks. By October we were in contraction mode. Then what happened? THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE PASSED AND GOVERNMENT ISSUED TAX REBATE CHECKS. This action stopped our economy from turning fully negative and by early 2002 we were back in growth mode, meaning less than 300,000 jobs per month were being lost.

Second point, look at 2002 where we actually experienced months of PRO JOB GROWTH. June, October, November of 2002 saw positive, net new jobs being added to the economy. Why is 2002 important? Because it's the first year of the Republican (White House & Congress) Federal Budget. The last Clinton budget expired in 2001, leaving George W. Bush free to create the first all Republican Federal Budget, which included tax cuts for all and tax rebates for all, including our small businesses which are the economic engine of our country.

Now look at 2003, more pro job growth as the Bush Tax Cuts fully kick in and we see NET JOB GROWTH in six months: January, July, September, October, November and December. This is now the second year of the Republican controlled White House & Congress. Even while we're at war in Iraq, jobs continue to grow and become plentiful and federal income tax revenues reach near all time highs.

After a second round of Bush Tax Cuts fully kicks in, 2004 sees a full year of NET JOB GROWTH, there are no net job losses (no minus signs in front of the numbers) for the entire year.

Now look at 2005, 2006 and 2007. For 34 of the 36 months in this time period, the economy EXPANDS adding net new jobs. Exactly how was this the "worst economy since WW2?" According to the Democrats and the "mainstream media," "most economists agree the recession began in December of 2007." If you look though, you'll see that December of 2007 actually ADDED 120,000 jobs to our economy!

Now let's look at 2008, which is the first Democrat Controlled Congress' fiscal budget. Remember, Congress holds the purse strings in our country, they allocate all funding. The President simply signs the budget.

Immediately in January 2008 (again, the first year of the Democrat Controlled Congress' Federal Budget) our economy starts LOSING jobs.

By September of 2008, job losses cross the 300,000 mark, which is where most economists agree that the job market starts contracting as one of the first signs that a recession is happening. As we get closer to the election, job losses accelerate to 380,000 jobs lost in October, 2008 and balloon up to nearly 600,000 jobs lost in November of 2008.

Now stop and ask yourself why this happened? The answer is painfully obvious and clear: Obama had a full year of "hope and change" mantra under his belt. Small businesses as exemplified by "Joe the Plumber" knew what Obama's anti-small business, pro Big Govenrment, Tax and Spend rhetoric was all about. As we approached the election and it became more and more clear that Obama would win, companies began shedding jobs. Why? It's simple, and anyone who's ever started up a business knows what I'm about to say is true.

As a former small business owner myself who's started up two companies and sold them off, I can tell you that as the primary risk taker, I deserve the rewards of starting up the company and taking all the risks. If the Government (in this case, Obama) is telling me that they're going to RAISE TAXES I have an obligation to myself and my family first to maintain my standard of living.

In short, that means someone who works for me is going to lose their job. That's just the way it is.

In November of 2008 when small and large businesses across this country saw that Obama actually won, they knew that taxes were going up, Obama was going to force all kinds of "mandates" on them (Cap & Trade anyone?) and that they'd have to do something to protect their profits to stay in business.

That means people lose their jobs.

Now look at November - December of 2008 through today. From the time Obama won the election in November, 2008 through today, a total of 4,864,000 jobs have been lost. That's an average of 540,000 jobs a month.

And this Obama occupied White House and the Democrats have the audacity to brag that the economy is finally starting to "recover?"

I hope you're still looking at This Chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999 - 2009 because here's the most important question of all:

Where are the jobs Obama was going to "create or save" with the so-called Economic Stimulus?

The answer is: ZERO. Not a single job has been created since this ZERO took office.

This brings me to my second question: Exactly how did the unemployment number DROP from 9.5% to 9.4% when not a single net new job has been created, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics? The reality is, it CAN'T drop unless net jobs are being added to the economy!

The reason that the Unemployment number under Bush was down to 4.5% during his Presidency was because NET NEW JOBS were being created in this economy.

Conclusion: Obama and the Democrats have NOTHING to "brag" about stating this economy is getting better. IT IS NOT! We are still in decline, as evidenced by the charts and numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Now they can claim "well, the pace of the decline has slowed" and that may be true - for now. If Obama gets his "health care reform" and "Cap & Tax" plans implemented you'll see the numbers climb again as small to medium sized businesses take on more major financial hits in paying more new taxes to the Government to fund Socialized Health Care and stop "global warming."

My prediction: the worst is yet to come. We haven't seen anything yet if this Administration manages to socialize Health Care and gets Cap & Tax passed.

[ex-snook]

It doesn’t make too much difference who is cooking the books. ‘Books’ have told us that trade agreements would produce the ‘good jobs’. Rather both good and bad jobs have disappeared.

The reality that is not faced by either party is that jobs won’t be coming back until we produce more of what we sell. Borrowing money to finance imports while exporting jobs is a lose-lose for the American economy.

[NoobRep]

I think the picture liberals are trying to paint in regards to their disaterous stimulus package and how the economy is improving is at best, politicized, and at worst-detrimental to the economy as a whole.

Lying to the American people about trumped up statistics only lays the path for more wreckless spending and government intervention in the free markets.

We are far, far away from a solution to the economic woes, brought on primarily by an out of control government and Federal Reserve.