• 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!

Jobless Report Is Worse Than Expected; Rate Rises to 9.8%

Oftencold

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ARTICLE: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/business/economy/03jobs.html

By JACK HEALY
Published: October 2, 2009


The American economy lost 263,000 jobs in September and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent, the government reported on Friday, dimming the prospect of any meaningful job growth by the end of the year.



The Labor Department’s monthly snapshot of unemployment dashed hopes that the pace of job losses would continue to slow as the economy clawed its way back from a deep recession. Economists had been hoping for 175,000 monthly job losses.

. . .

To economists, that suggests that unemployment could remain at historically high levels through next year, if not longer.
Click to expand...

I'm minded of how it must feel for people riding buses on mountain roads in the fog when they just begin to realize that the motor coach has gone off the road.



BONUS ARTICLE:
Bad news: Jobs market getting worse
 
This is approximately what I expected. There's still a long, long way to go.
 
FYI--the way these statistics are measured was changed Under Bush I and then also under Clinton. If you go back to the way unemployment was measured when those statistics were first being tracked, the real rate is close to 20%.
 
ROFLOL

{Oftencold Bows}

I was about to give you grief, because in the first few words I got the mistaken impression that you were about to say that there were fewer people unemployed, not more.
 
Good thing we've got that good ol' stimulus workin' for us. :mrgreen:
 
Oh yes,the same "stimulus" that was going to save 2-4 million jobs :roll:
 
Strucky said:
Oh yes,the same "stimulus" that was going to save 2-4 million jobs :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, the same Stimulus that is a 2-year plan that has just begun to be rolled out.

But you know, the GOP seems to expect immediate results and all, or else it is a failure. :roll:
 
ScottD said:
Yes, the same Stimulus that is a 2-year plan that has just begun to be rolled out.

But you know, the GOP seems to expect immediate results and all, or else it is a failure. :roll:
Click to expand...

The fear mongering surrounding passing the stimulus is more to blame.
 
ashurbanipal said:
FYI--the way these statistics are measured was changed Under Bush I and then also under Clinton. If you go back to the way unemployment was measured when those statistics were first being tracked, the real rate is close to 20%.
Click to expand...

Can you document this? I have heard as recently as a couple months ago that some are pushing for changes in the way the rate is figured, but that it is not happening because it would make historical comparisons seem inaccurate. I know that when I separated from the navy in 1993 we were told that unemployment does not include underemployed and people who are too discouraged to look for work, among other things, which is the situation now.

A google search has turned up nothing to indicate any change to how the way unemployment is figured, so maybe you can point me to a link to back up your claim.
 
Redress said:
Can you document this? I have heard as recently as a couple months ago that some are pushing for changes in the way the rate is figured, but that it is not happening because it would make historical comparisons seem inaccurate.
Click to expand...

There was insignificant changes (there always is) I believe. Cant remember exactly what was changed.

I know that when I separated from the navy in 1993 we were told that unemployment does not include underemployed and people who are too discouraged to look for work, among other things, which is the situation now.
Click to expand...

Correct, hence the unemployment number in the US is highly inaccurate and always has been. The real unemployment number is up around 18%.
 
PeteEU said:
There was insignificant changes (there always is) I believe. Cant remember exactly what was changed.



Correct, hence the unemployment number in the US is highly inaccurate and always has been. The real unemployment number is up around 18%.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is highly inaccurate, but it has been that way, well since they started keeping the stats.
 
PeteEU said:
yes pretty much.
Click to expand...

That was my point. The guy was trying to suggest that they numbers where changed to hide the real numbers, when it's just that it is how it's always been.
 
PeteEU said:
Correct, hence the unemployment number in the US is highly inaccurate and always has been. The real unemployment number is up around 18%.
Click to expand...

First off, the BLS has been calculating unemployment using the alternative method that you're referring to since 1995 - this isn't some new thing. Second, it's 17%, not 18%. Finally, even this number includes those who are working part-time but would like full time jobs. While that's obviously not ideal, I would certainly not consider that group to be "unemployed" - which is probably why BLS refers to it as "labor underutilization."
 
RightinNYC said:
First off, the BLS has been calculating unemployment using the alternative method that you're referring to since 1995 - this isn't some new thing. Second, it's 17%, not 18%. Finally, even this number includes those who are working part-time but would like full time jobs. While that's obviously not ideal, I would certainly not consider that group to be "unemployed" - which is probably why BLS refers to it as "labor underutilization."
Click to expand...

Yea but it is still just a poll.....
 
ScottD said:
Yes, the same Stimulus that is a 2-year plan that has just begun to be rolled out.

But you know, the GOP seems to expect immediate results and all, or else it is a failure. :roll:
Click to expand...

stimulus-vs-unemployment-may-corrected.gif


The White House set its own terms.
 
BUT HEY!!!

Look at all those jobs that were saved !!


...that's like soooo..... weird..... dude!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom