Does it feel like 10% or 17%....

renman95

...unemployment? I see that if the gov't still used the pre-1980 method of determining unemployment it would be at 17% today.

Also, we are told over and over again that this is the worst financial clime since the Great Depression. Well, nooooo. I remember unemployment reaching 10.8% in 1982 and a -9% annual GNP in 1980-1. But then again Mr. "Dithers" is using some fuzzy math so maybe the economy actually IS the worst since the Great Depression and he is just shielding us sheeple from really bad news.

RedHerring

17% is much closer to reality. The BLS report last week was a joke. Look for the 11,000 jobs lost number for November to be revised in January to 55,000 or more.

Propaganda is all we get from Washington.

fc

<< <i>17% is much closer to reality. The BLS report last week was a joke. Look for the 11,000 jobs lost number for November to be revised in January to 55,000 or more.

Propaganda is all we get from Washington. >>



or perhaps seasonal hiring has actually taken place and the number is more
accurate then first blush?

TomB

The number of underemployed may be large enough to make the published numbers feel much worse.

Baley

I think it's funny when people speak of "THE economy" or "THE employment market" as if it's one discrete and uniform thing...

Hey, guys, how were "THE sports scores" this weekend? how is the weather on "THE earth" today?

roadrunner

Both 10% and 17% numbers are in play, it's just that the BLS now reports the first number rather than the 2nd as the "official" unemployment. Their series 6 number which somewhat accurately reflects "underemployment" is at 17%+. And when shadowstats.com uses the 1980 methodology they come up with 21%+.

roadrunner

Bear

The number of people is increasing, while the number of jobs

are decreasing. This has to make things worse then reported.

With parents again supporting grown children while also supporting

aged parents things are really not good at all. Perhaps instead of kids

I should got a dog.

renman95

I dug up today that January 2010 could show a loss of 800,000 jobs and an unemployment rate somewhere between 10.8%-11.3%.

coynclecter

Only 11000 net loss jobs in November after they added a few 100K in birth/death model which we know is bunk. BUT even 11000 is Still a LOSS. So how does the the rate go DOWN from 10.2 tp 10.0???

Well over 250000 additional workers went over 6 months and have been taken from the unemployed list and added to "no longer seeking employment"" category. Great reason for a market rally!

jmski52

I wish that Congress had a 17% unemployment rate, had to choose the same health care plan that they propose for "the rest" of us, and had to deal with finance the same way that "the rest" of us do.

10% or 17% - does it really matter? Nobody knows the real numbers, and it's not likely that the real numbers will ever be known definitively.

P.S. - sorry if I sound cranky today - I get this way when I have to listen to mr-know-it-all telling us how everything he does to us is designed to "help" us.

Justacommeman

I guess it matters most to the 10% or the 17% that are unemployeed. In the city of Detroit they just stated that actual unemployement is 50%. The Detroit school district just asked the teachers for a loan........

FYI- Obama has the lowest approval rating (47%) of any President at this point in his term. MJ

cohodk

Honestly, very few people around me are unemployed. My area never "enjoyed" the boom and is not experiencing the bust either. My buddy in Orlando tells a completely different story.

But at 17%, that means that every 6th home in your neighborhood is unemployed, is that really the case.

Remember, even during the depths of the Depression, 75% of the people were working.