Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%

Forbes ^ | 02/10/2012 | Peter Ferrara

[SeekAndFind]

When Barack Obama entered office in January, 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work.

When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.

In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history. That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week.

If they were counted, the unemployment rate today would be a far more realistic 11%, better reflecting the suffering in the real economy under Obamanomics.

Just last month, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported finding 243,000 new jobs, they also reported in the same release that an additional 1.2 million workers had dropped out of the work force altogether, giving up hope under Obama. If labor force participation had remained the same in January, 2012 just as it was the month before in December, 2011, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.7% in January rather than supposedly declining to 8.3% as reported.

[justlurking]

This is somewhat misleading. Last month's job report was the first to include population changes as indicated by the 2010 census. That adjusted both the labor force and non-labor force sizes.

I agree, but it's indisputable that the workforce participation rate is declining.

If you don't focus on the bump in number of people that appeared to drop out of the workforce, it looks like things actually were worse than expected, and the census corrected that: i.e.the number of people NOT in the workforce increased more than the people IN the workforce.

Or, did I misinterpret the numbers?

[chessplayer]

By November unemployment will be zero %.

[Marguerite]

Just check out this paragraph from the Labor Department's report:

"In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. 2.8 million were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey."

That's HOW they are cooking the numbers, by not counting millions of unemployed Americans!!!

[IMR 4350]

They also don't count people that have never been in the labor pool and are looking for work, nor do they count the self employed that lost their business or contract jobs.

The only people being counted are people receiving unemployment.

I would be willing to bet the 16.3% figure you give is probably too low, but closer to reality than the 11%.

[Windflier]

[evad]

"One factoid to remember: One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%. Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working."

The solution is simple. If we can get another million unemployed, we can reduce the rate to 7.5%

[evad]

"The only people being counted are people receiving unemployment."

That's not accurate. The UR is based on a sample.

[IMR 4350]

Why did they stop counting over 1 million people?

[freedommom]

obama could lower unemployment TODAY if he would allow drilling in the gulf of Mexico. (he said they can drill but the applications are still on hold)

[evad]

"Why did they stop counting over 1 million people?"

Dunno.
Maybe they can't count that high.
These are, after all, gubermit workers doing the surveys.

[prairiebreeze]

marker

[Theodore R.]

Does the 100 million include retirees? Americans would still like to “think” that the rate is 8.3, and that may be enough to justify in their little minds keeping Obama. They can be easily fooled again and again.