Posted on 11/09/2009 3:14:10 PM PST by honestabe010
The true rate of unemployment for October 2009 may be 22.1 percent, not the 10.2 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
Unemployment at 22.1 percent, if accurate, would be at numbers not seen since peak unemployment during the 1973 to 1975 recession.
Economist John Williams, publisher of ShadowStats.com, estimates that the peak of unemployment in nonfarm unemployment in the Great Depression of the 1930s would, by his methodology, have registered at 34 to 35 percent in 1933.
So, how does the Obama administration get away with reporting the lower unemployment percentage?
Corsi explained that the Clinton administration changed the way BLS calculates unemployment statistics by excluding "discouraged workers," those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be found.
Since the Clinton years, discouraged workers looking for a job for more than one year are not counted as "unemployed" because they are considered to have dropped out of the labor force.
The BLS still includes in "U6 Unemployment" calculations short-term discouraged workers, as long as they have been looking for a job less than one year.
This definition permits the Obama administration to under-report "U3 unemployment" at 10.2 percent when real unemployment as calculated before the Clinton administration redefinition is twice that amount, Red Alert contends, and U6 unemployment lies somewhere in between.
These differences are illustrated in the following chart that Williams produces in the "Alternative Data" section of his website named "Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting."...
(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...
Wow - that graph is ugly
And Obama’s job-killing policies are not likely to improve the situation. Wait until cap and trade, Obama-care, higher taxation, card check, and trade protectionism hit the economy.
With this current leadership,Would you expect less?
We have to use this to “unemploy” Democrats in 2010.
Where the hell is the mandate for the DemocRATS to be doing what they’re doing? It’s not like half of the country did NOT vote AGAINST their sorry commie @sses.
You have grasped the reality of the situation.
The 20% neighborhood sounds about right.
As I drive around California, that's about where I would put the rate.
More than that, however, is the near total gloom. Inventories are at bare cupboard levels.
Nobody expects this recession to be "over" or even "bottomed-out".
No sane business owner would be hiring or expanding in the face of Cap and Confiscate, Healthcare Confiscation, and Card Check Union takeover. No sane person!
I wish I had a less gloomy observation and forecast.
.
I wonder if there's any correlation to that event and the almost immediate rising lines on this chart?! /s
I think it’s odd that those lines are parallel through the whole time period. I would think that in the late 90s the lines would be closer together (i.e. fewer discouraged unemployed). This analysis seems to indicate (or assume) that the number of discouraged (i.e. the difference between the U6 and Alternate lines) has remained constant since 1994.
But to counteract it with more phoney numbers is just plain wrong.
The situation is so bad that even a bunch as shifty as Obamanites can’t spin even their version of the unemployment rate is under 10%. It is a given the real rate is much worse.
Who'd of thunk!
“you mean affirmative action put incompetent people into positions they don’t belong?
Who’d of thunk!”
The racist Government cannot be wrong there must be a mistake here!
Here we go “The Worst Congress Ever”
maroons!!
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.