The Democrats are using a new equation to calculate unemployment

@Fatcat44 (1142)
United States
February 4, 2012 9:53am CST
I just got done reading an article by John Ransom at Townhall.com, where he explains the math the democrats are using for unemployment. Apparently, their equation does not take in the account of the 5 million people who have dropped out of the work force over the last few year because they can't find a job. With these 5 millions, the unemployment rate would be over 11%, and climbing. So do not trust the Obama math! I guess everyone figured that there number was a lie, but now we know how.
5 people like this
21 responses
@egdcltd (6891)
4 Feb 12
Don't trust any politicians maths. Whichever party is in power will always tweak the statistics so that they make them look competent.
4 people like this
• United States
26 Feb 12
Right on Egdcltd. If you're old enough, remember how the Reagan administration tweaked the statistics when he had high unemployment? Suddenly, the mental institutions let out and the "homeless" were disguised with mental patients walking the streets. Many forgot about the unemployed who couldn't find jobs and gave up or saw their salaries lowered and became homeless. And no one talked about NAFTA and our jobs going overseas.
@egdcltd (6891)
26 Feb 12
Wrong country, so don't really remember what the Reagan administration was doing. Also wasn't old enough to vote. Old joke: How can you tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.
@sid556 (31005)
• United States
4 Feb 12
You can't trust the statistics anyway. There are also a lot of people that took on low paying jobs just to have work because that is all that was available. They are still losing their homes and still scrapping to get by. It really is not a good indicator that the economy is improving. Maybe it is for some people but it hasn't found it's way to my purse or the pockets of many people that I know.
4 people like this
@dragon54u (31631)
• United States
4 Feb 12
That's not the only creative statistic. When they say sales are up they don't take into account people buying a quart of milk at $2 instead of a gallon at $3.50. My neighbor waters it down to stretch it. Things cost more so of course consumer spending is going up but people are actually buying less. Like someone else said, the numbers don't take into account the millions who are working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet, those who are underemployed like the accountant that is working at a fast food outlet or as a supermarket checker or stocker. They also don't publicize that teen unemployment is at 25% and black people have a 16% unemployment rate. All this makes the overall unemployment rate well over 20% collectively, worse than the Depression. Anyone who really looks at the numbers rather than the headlines will see that we are in a very sorry state and things are not looking up but remaining stagnant or getting worse. It's going to take at least a decade to get prosperity back--if everyone works FOR the country instead of their own interests. Ain't gonna happen...
3 people like this
@crossbones27 (20780)
• Redlands, California
5 Feb 12
Hate to tell you this but it has always been that way. They have never counted the people that have dropped out of the work force. So I do not know why this news to anyone.
2 people like this
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
4 Feb 12
Everybody cooks the books. It's sickening to try to keep up with. Whether it's the make believe "saved" jobs or some cooked stats to make people believe that things aren't really as bad as most of us think, it's just more BS that's done for one obvious reason - to keep people in their positions of power. I've said it a million times: Being a politician is the best career move in America! To hell with the parties and the bickering they cause. These schmucks are only worried about staying in office for as long as humanly possible.
2 people like this
@irishidid (8714)
• United States
4 Feb 12
I would also include those who are self employed and are struggling because of others being unemployed. If mom's unemployed the day care loses the kids and may have to let their employees go. I write for a living, but if people can't afford to buy my novel it doesn't do me much good.
1 person likes this
@bagarad (12614)
• Paso Robles, California
4 Feb 12
Exactly right. And giants like Amazon that treat their employees terribly are hurting local small businesses, many of which cannot afford to lower their prices to cover the costs of having open walk-in stores that need good lighting -- not warehouse lighting, and salespeople who help customers instead of warehouse pickers, and merchandise to hold and look at instead of hoping it's what they need before buying it cheaper on line.
• United States
5 Feb 12
Self-employed people are really shafted in America. We're too small a minority to give a crap about. Government could throw out benefits and force up wages as high as the day is long, but self-employed people have to actually do the logical thing instead of the vote-seeking government thing and adjust to the economy instead of being adjusted accordingly.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
5 Feb 12
One article I read pointed out that President Obama claims to have created 3 million jobs while the number of jobs over the past few years has decreased by several million. With Banks reporting more lay offs, the housing industry is in the worst shape in years, Construction slowing for the winter season and retail stores finishing the Christmas sales I don't know how unemployment can be down.
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Feb 12
Bob, the jobs being eliminated under Obama have been mostly public sector. If you look at the numbers, month after month you will see the drop is in public sector, while the private sector is growing jobs. Which is what most republicans WANT!!! Funny how when a democrat does what a republican can't do they call him a failure. If Bush would have been able to cut public sector jobs like has happened under Obama he would have been called a hero!!!
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Feb 12
I'm pretty sure they're using the same old method, it was just never very good. The figure has never included workers who gave up and hadn't applied in a over a month. I really think it only seems to account for those who are getting unemployment, which means in some states, if you were fired your not unemployed. Plus didn't some administration greatly shorten the lenghth of time people could receive unemployment? Then there's people like me who look for jobs but never applied for benefits. The unemployment statistic will always be low, because there will always be unemployed people who aren't accounted for. The system isn't very accurate but at least if its calculated using the same method. It can be used as a standard. And by the standard it represents we've been in a crisis for several years. Where it fails is when were in a situation llike we are now, its not just a bad period, its a full on recession, in a long term unemployment situation it fails to account for all the people who fall off the unemployment chart, and the general decine in wages, which is another statistic people tend to avoid. The fact that those who have jobs can't afford nearly as much with what they do make.
1 person likes this
• United States
4 Feb 12
Thank for the information. I always knew the unemployment numbers were inflated.
1 person likes this
@marie2052 (3697)
• United States
4 Feb 12
Hi Fatcat glad you got to read the article. I have known this for some time. I get different new letters sent to my email so I know what is going on. I live in Florida and one of our talk show locals broke it down for our state alone. Right now on the news the other night just in our city alone (Panama City Florida) the homeless shelter said they are seeing 47% more homeless showing up at the shelter than last year. It is a sad state this man has put our country in and that no one can see it or understand what is happening. I wish the wall street protestors would find themselves at the Washington DC site where they need to be. I remember seeing thousands at the mirrored lake by the Washington Monument over the draft during the Vietnam era back in the 60's and early 70's.(I was in the Army serving at Walter Reed during this time) Sadly enough the only thing the wall street protestors are doing is tearing down small businesses. Since people cant get to the mom and pop businesses (restaurants etc) that aid them in keeping their doors open then these businesses are shutting down too. Some of the restaurants are having to have delivery service to the workers now. I guess these protestors don't see they are causing yet more businesses to close down. I will try to find the up to date statistics and put them on here I just have to remember who it was that said they had put the statistics up for view. Again I like your discussion and the fact that you are not pointing fingers. I hope you read my latest article I wrote yesterday. It boggles the mind that people cannot come together and do the right thing.
• United States
5 Feb 12
Fat, I hate to tell you this, but this is the same math that Bush used when he was in office. You are 100% correct that it gives you an unrealistic number, but that is how Bush had lower unemployment than Clinton when the economy was twice as good under Clinton as it was under Bush. This isn't Obama's fault, it is the person who changed it in the first place. Look up the facts!!!!
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
5 Feb 12
There has been a lot of talk about the way this is being calculated. And there has been several people, much smarter than me, pointing out the the calculation methods have been changed. The person I quoted was John Ramson, who write for townhall.com. You can take it up with him. Never had a lot of people drop of the unemployment list after 1-2 years, so the number were more accurate. These number so undercalculates the real unemployment rate. It is election year, the numbers are always fudged to be made to look better on election years. Nobama has to have these numbers look good for his re-election. It is the reverse arguement from 2008 where Obama needed the numbers to look bad so he would get elected. Well the opposite applies here.
• United States
6 Feb 12
You many want to write John Ramson and ask him how it is that Obama or anyone in his administration has changed how unemployed people are counted. I can tell you that he will either NOT respond, or will explain that it has been this way for years. You are correct that there are more people now that aren't in the work force, but it isn't as if the Obama administration changed the rules. They have been this way for years.
@RobtheRock (2485)
• United States
26 Feb 12
Reagan did this way before Obama. And conveniently, the mental hospitals let their patients go so that many of the homeless who had dropped out of the workforce and coudln't find jobs, were not counted. Not everyone homeless person we started seeing on the streets during Reagan's term, was a mental patient like some people think. I knew quite a few of those homeless who came back into the work force and spent a lot of time getting their bearings while still being homeless.
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
26 Feb 12
I am not sure of all the things Reagan did, because I did not follow politics much at that time of my life. At least with Reagan, we had a great recovery for 20+ years plus. I do not think Obamas plans, which are 180 degrees from what Reagan did, will give us 20+ years of great growth.
@agent807 (723)
• United States
6 May 12
There are so many factors that people use to calculate that number its absurd. I know that number is false. Besides people who dropped out of finding a job, there are people who have gone back to school, and those who managed to start working for themselves. What's more is that some of these people may have already been kicked off unemployment because the benefits are determined by the unemployment rate, which the lower it drops, the more people will be kicked off unemployment. This is a disaster waiting to happen. I highly doubt that the economy is 'recovering' as fast as these numbers suggest.
@Lakota12 (42684)
• United States
6 Feb 12
more like 14% as it is here.
@clrumfelt (5424)
• United States
6 Feb 12
But the lame-stream media needs talking points and the 11% figure, even though truer wouldn't fit in with their Obamanistic agenda. You have to look deeper at lots of sources to find the real truth about things. I think the true unemployment figures are probably much higher than 11%. The math just gets fuzzier and fuzzier as we head toward election time.
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
6 Feb 12
This isn't new. Every politician, from every political party, manipulates the unemployment rate. Unemployment numbers are just there to give you an estimate. People who claim they are clear cut statistics, are lying. If you look at how they come up with that number, they openly admit they guestimate a percentage of 'assumed jobs'. No proof whatsoever, but they simply must exist. This happens all the time. Especially during an election cycle.
@_sketch_ (5709)
• United States
6 Feb 12
Yeah, I noticed that it was a lie when I heard it, since so many people I know were still unemployed or getting laid off. At any rate, let's not make this a party problem. It doesn't matter who the president is, the numbers were going to be twisted regardless. People want a lower unemployment rate and politicians like to keep people happy when they aren't scaring the crap out of them.
@trruk1 (1031)
• United States
5 Feb 12
The "official" unemployment numbers do not include those who quit looking for work, at least through their state employment office. The long-term unemployed, who have exhausted unemployment benefits and see not need to continue going into the office that never helped them find a job, are no longer in the "official" unemployment numbers. Nor do the figures include those who are working part-time, minimum-wage jobs. Unemployment figures have always been reported that way; it has nothing to do with Obama, so blaming him and the Democrats is senseless. The same government entity that reports the "official" unemployment rate is well aware of those who do not counted, and they also track them. the reports for actual unemployment, as opposed to the "official" rate, are compiled by the same agency and posted on their website. Our media will not report the real numbers, because it makes the problem look worse than the "official" numbers. The real problem is not with the White House or either political party. The problem is that Congress insists the "official" unemployment rate be reported using restricted figures, so it will look better than it is. They did the same thing with Social Security. Revenue from Social Security taxes used to be reported separately from general revenue. Because Social Security ran a healthy surplus, Congress figured they could disguise the actual deficit by counting Social Security revenue when calculating the deficit. The real numbers are available for anybody who bothers to look, but our media hardly ever mentions them.
@trruk1 (1031)
• United States
5 Feb 12
The "official" unemployment numbers do not include those who quit looking for work, at least through their state employment office. The long-term unemployed, who have exhausted unemployment benefits and see not need to continue going into the office that never helped them find a job, are no longer in the "official" unemployment numbers. Nor do the figures include those who are working part-time, minimum-wage jobs. Unemployment figures have always been reported that way; it has nothing to do with Obama, so blaming him and the Democrats is senseless. The same government entity that reports the "official" unemployment rate is well aware of those who do not counted, and they also track them. the reports for actual unemployment, as opposed to the "official" rate, are compiled by the same agency and posted on their website. Our media will not report the real numbers, because it makes the problem look worse than the "official" numbers. The real problem with the White House or either political party. The problem is that Congress insists the "official" unemployment be reported using restricted figures, so it will look better than it is. They did the same thing with Social Security. Revenue from Social Security taxes used to be reported separately from general revenue. Because Social Security ran a healthy surplus, Congress figured they could disguise the actual deficit by counting Social Security revenue when calculating the deficit. The real numbers are available for anybody who bothers to look, but our media hardly ever mentions them.
@stealthy (8188)
• United States
5 Feb 12
Not surprised since it is and election year. As far as I can tell Obama has done more to hamper the recovery than to help it. In addition there is a long history of liberals doing whatever they can to increase the number of people who are dependent on the government. Then there is the fact that they are always wanting to increase taxes on those that they call the rich which serves to remove some incentive for people to get ahead or be inventive. As it is the top earners pay most of the taxes. I am not one of them but if I had been in a position to take great risks in order to create a business or turn an idea into a profitable business, it would have been discouraging to know that the government would take a huge portion of the money made from it and spend a lot of it on unneeded and wasteful things that are often easily subject to having large amounts stolen from them. The liberals want as many on the government dole because that is where there voters come from. There is something wrong with a system as was put in place by Lyndon Johnson where someone on welfare can afford a better more expensive car, a bigger TV, better housing, etc. than someone who is working.