• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate is 11.3%

Deuce said:
The different method of measurement that also shows unemployment rates dropping? Yes, how terrible for democrats.
Click to expand...

Oh...it would be nice if the unemployment rate was the only important number...but it's not. The policies of Obama and the Congressional Democrats adversely affect issues other than that particular number.

btw, If I were a Democrat I wouldn't crow all that much about the unemployment rate. I mean...that number isn't THAT good. Especially after six freaking years.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...it would be nice if the unemployment rate was the only important number...but it's not. The policies of Obama and the Congressional Democrats adversely affect issues other than that particular number.

btw, If I were a Democrat I wouldn't crow all that much about the unemployment rate. I mean...that number isn't THAT good. Especially after six freaking years.
Click to expand...

I'm told it has been a faster drop than what Reagan managed.
 
here's the number in a historical context in comparison with the U3 rate.

US-Unemployment-Rate-2-1-2013.jpg

this chart only takes it through 3013. if it's now down to 11, it is approaching where it was in the early / mid 2000s before the gamblers ruined the economy. so, like the U3 rate, it is pretty much moving in the right direction, which i find a bit shocking, considering that we are entering the first stages of a post-labor economy due to technology.
 
a351 said:
:roll: The same spiel every month. The U-6, which is not an unemployment rate, but a measure of underutilization, has declined by 6 percent since the end of the Recession and has mirrored the decline in the official rate to a nearly perfect degree. Those who latch onto this figure to the exclusion of all others do so for strictly political purposes.
Click to expand...

I would prefer the participation rate to U6. That makes more sense, if you view it in a long data row.
 
Deuce said:
I'm told it has been a faster drop than what Reagan managed.
Click to expand...

Mmmm, not exactly. The two cannot be compared apples to apples. In 1994, the BLS redesigned the unemployed status of people unemployed longer than 52 weeks to be removed from the labour force. This adjustment immediately improved the overall measure of unemployment by shrinking the labor force by some 500,000 individuals.

In this current recovery (for lack of a better term), long-term unemployment is the highest its ever been. Also, individuals are leaving the labour force a more frequent rates.

If the BLS used the same design for calculating unemployed persons as they did before 1993, the unemployment rate would currently be larger.
 
joG said:
I would prefer the participation rate to U6. That makes more sense, if you view it in a long data row.
Click to expand...

Except then you have demographic variables like the retiring baby boomers, or you end up counting full-time college students as "unemployed."
 
WallStreetVixen said:
Mmmm, not exactly. The two cannot be compared apples to apples. In 1994, the BLS redesigned the unemployed status of people unemployed longer than 52 weeks to be removed from the labour force.
Click to expand...
That is untrue. The time limit was applied to Discouraged workers, and Discouraged have never been considered unemployed. Note that in A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment there are about 2 million people unemployed longer than 52 weeks.

If the BLS used the same design for calculating unemployed persons as they did before 1993, the unemployment rate would currently be larger.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. The only change in definition was concerning people hired but not yet working. Before 1994 they didn't have to have looked for work in the previous 4 weeks to be considered unemployed, now they do.
 
pinqy said:
That is untrue. The time limit was applied to Discouraged workers, and Discouraged have never been considered unemployed. Note that in A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment there are about 2 million people unemployed longer than 52 weeks.
Click to expand...

It wasn't limited to just discouraged workers.


No, it wouldn't. The only change in definition was concerning people hired but not yet working. Before 1994 they didn't have to have looked for work in the previous 4 weeks to be considered unemployed, now they do.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The change reduced the number of people recorded as having spells of 0 to 4 weeks duration.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
It wasn't limited to just discouraged workers.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. The only other category that has the 52 week time limit is Marginally Attached, which was a category introduced in 1994. Discouraged is a subset of marginally attached.



Not exactly. The change reduced the number of people recorded as having spells of 0 to 4 weeks duration.
Click to expand...
Before 1994:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

After 1994:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Point out what you think changed besides waiting to start a job.
 
a351 said:
:roll: The same spiel every month. The U-6, which is not an unemployment rate, but a measure of underutilization, has declined by 6 percent since the end of the Recession and has mirrored the decline in the official rate to a nearly perfect degree. Those who latch onto this figure to the exclusion of all others do so for strictly political purposes.
Click to expand...

Of course there is zero politics on the part of the Obama administation, ZERO. :roll:
 
pinqy said:
Yes, it was. The only other category that has the 52 week time limit is Marginally Attached, which was a category introduced in 1994. Discouraged is a subset of marginally attached.
Click to expand...

And they're both subsets for people who are looking for work.

Before 1994:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

After 1994:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Point out what you think changed besides waiting to start a job.
Click to expand...

The way CPS collected its data changed. This directly affected the structure of the reported unemployment duration distribution. This makes comparisons from the pre-redesign and post-redesign inaccurate.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
And they're both subsets for people who are looking for work.
Click to expand...
No, they're not. The definition of marginally attached is did NOT look for work in the previous 4 weeks. They are NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE. The Unemployed, who did look in the previous 4 weeks, have no cut off.



The way CPS collected its data changed. This directly affected the structure of the reported unemployment duration distribution. This makes comparisons from the pre-redesign and post-redesign inaccurate.
Click to expand...
To a degree, but you're still incorrect to claim those unemployed longer than 52 weeks are not counted.
 
American said:
Of course there is zero politics on the part of the Obama administation, ZERO. :roll:
Click to expand...

The BLS is not really part of the administration. There is one political appointee, the Commissioner, who overlaps administrations. Dr. Keith Hall, a Bush appointee, was Commissioner until January 2012, then the acting commissioner was a career civil servant who started under Reagan. Obama only got his person in 2013.
 
pinqy said:
No, they're not. The definition of marginally attached is did NOT look for work in the previous 4 weeks. They are NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE. The Unemployed, who did look in the previous 4 weeks, have no cut off.
Click to expand...

How do you figure they're not subsets? Its right here:

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

To a degree, but you're still incorrect to claim those unemployed longer than 52 weeks are not counted.
Click to expand...

Maybe that part is inaccurate, but it still doesn't change the fact that major changes were made to CPS. That changes the unemployment metrics.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
How do you figure they're not subsets? Its right here:

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Unemployed means wants a job, available for work, and looked for work in previous 4 weeks. Anyone not employed or unemployed is "not in the labor force.

And read the definition of marginally attached: Data refer to persons who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
They're not currently looking for work.
Maybe that part is inaccurate, but it still doesn't change the fact that major changes were made to CPS. That changes the unemployment metrics.
Click to expand...
To a degree, of course. Isn't better accuracy better?
Click to expand...
 
Unemployment means those currently on unemployment - NOT those who's benefits lapsed and are now jobless with no source of income in which the government ignores when fiddling with their stupid formulas (as if the formulas are honest anyway).

This government does everything it can to make "things" seem more peachy than they are.....CBO is a perfect example of that. "no it will only cost 12 billion" then two years later its 40 billion - yeah better blame the frugal republicans..
 
Mr.Nick said:
Unemployment means those currently on unemployment - NOT those who's benefits lapsed and are now jobless with no source of income in which the government ignores when fiddling with their stupid formulas (as if the formulas are honest anyway).

This government does everything it can to make "things" seem more peachy than they are.....CBO is a perfect example of that. "no it will only cost 12 billion" then two years later its 40 billion - yeah better blame the frugal republicans..
Click to expand...
Cite your source. But also read the definition at Employment Situation Technical Note
 
Mycroft said:
So? Does that make it good?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. But it makes it better than the "best" Republican at job growth could do. That's the joke here, Republicans complaining about unemployment and blaming the President. It's hilarious.
 
pinqy said:
Cite your source. But also read the definition at Employment Situation Technical Note
Click to expand...

You want numbers or reality?

I think you trust the government too much... To prove your trust wrong give me an example of when our government was ever right when it came to fiscal spending or even the cost of war or anything for that matter. The CBO says one thing and it is 10x what the CBO expected.

For some reason I don't think you care.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Not necessarily. But it makes it better than the "best" Republican at job growth could do. That's the joke here, Republicans complaining about unemployment and blaming the President. It's hilarious.
Click to expand...
Why do I have the feeling that if it were a president Romney in there right now you'd be doing the exact same thing, so quit whining.
 
Mr.Nick said:
U-6 are on the outside looking in, while those on the "in" are used to calculate unemployment....

It's ****ing deception and I'm absolutely amazed how people buy such nonsense - considering their reality contradicts this "job growth" or "jobs added" nonsense.

Oh an who the hell knows if these people being employed are even US citizens - they could be in sourced for all I know or are here on temporary work visas writing computer code (programs) among other things......
Click to expand...


This sound more like partisan cherry picking. The calculated unemployment is legit as long as the sitting president had a "R" on his chest.
 
iguanaman said:
Not necessarily. But it makes it better than the "best" Republican at job growth could do. That's the joke here, Republicans complaining about unemployment and blaming the President. It's hilarious.
Click to expand...

Oh...so your only bright side of the current situation is that the Republicans are worse. Okay. If that's all you got...
 
j-mac said:
Why do I have the feeling that if it were a president Romney in there right now you'd be doing the exact same thing, so quit whining.
Click to expand...

It's Republicans who have historically stated that Presidents don't create jobs when confronted with the terrible record most Republican Presidents have had in that area.

Bush%20Job%20Creation.jpg
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...so your only bright side of the current situation is that the Republicans are worse. Okay. If that's all you got...
Click to expand...

Republicans are worse, Europe is worse. In fact the entire western world is worse. Can you imagine if the House Republicans had passed even one of Obama's job initiatives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom