+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Some simple maths about unemployment. (/thread-564826.html)
Some simple maths about unemployment. - georgia_tech_swagger - 04-07-2012 01:12 AM
1) US total population: 311 million
2) US "official" unemployment: 311 million * 8.2% ==> 25.5 million
This is actually down.
3) People not actively in the workforce, and thus not considered in unemployment: 87.897 million
This has skyrocketed up to near the all time high ever recorded.
4) And this is why I get my REAL unemployment (and inflation) from ShadowStats ... because when you factor in discouraged workers you arrive at a figure like the Shadowstats unemployment: 22.5% ==> 69.975 million
RE: Some simple maths about unemployment. - Max Power - 04-07-2012 06:42 AM
Shadowstats unemployment then would count my 90 year old grandmother with hip problems living on SS and a CAT pension, so I guess it's fair to say full employment is out of the question.
If you don't like the official employment (U3) there are some other good measures by the BLS that don't count my grandmother. U5 counts discouraged workers who at least give a job market related reason for not looking for work the last 12 months, and U6 counts part time workers
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
RE: Some simple maths about unemployment. - SumOfAllFears - 04-07-2012 08:31 AM
The U6 number is currently at 14.6, almost twice the official number.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
RE: Some simple maths about unemployment. - Max Power - 04-07-2012 09:11 AM
Yeah, that's because it counts people not looking for work and part time workers.
RE: Some simple maths about unemployment. - georgia_tech_swagger - 04-07-2012 09:38 AM
(04-07-2012 06:42 AM)Max Power Wrote: Shadowstats unemployment then would count my 90 year old grandmother with hip problems living on SS and a CAT pension, so I guess it's fair to say full employment is out of the question.
If you don't like the official employment (U3) there are some other good measures by the BLS that don't count my grandmother. U5 counts discouraged workers who at least give a job market related reason for not looking for work the last 12 months, and U6 counts part time workers
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
88 million are out of the workforce ... NOTICE that shadowstats unemployment is quite a bit less than total out of the workforce. ShadowStats doesn't count those who are too young to seek work or who are retired. But just because you're 90 doesn't mean you necessarily don't want to work, especially if your retirement got wiped out by investing in quality assets like, say, the government via Freddie/Fannie.
RE: Some simple maths about unemployment. - georgia_tech_swagger - 04-07-2012 09:38 AM
(04-07-2012 09:11 AM)Max Power Wrote: Yeah, that's because it counts people not looking for work and part time workers.
Discouraged and underemployment should count too.
RE: Some simple maths about unemployment. - SumOfAllFears - 04-07-2012 10:02 AM
The unemployment #s are going the way of the "jobs created of saved" number. Fallacious.
RE: Some simple maths about unemployment. - Max Power - 04-07-2012 11:02 AM
There are 90 yo's looking for work? My god, that's why we have SS.
Does it count housewives who stay at home and raise kids?
I think discouraged should be counted in the official number, but not part time workers. But the government publishes those rates anyway.