Unemployment

[30ashopper]

I often question politicians abilities at predicting accurately the economic effects of their policies, and the deficits associated with them.

:scratch:

Hmm.

So can we finally put to rest the idea that Obama has a solid handle on such things and maybe start questioning all the other predictions he's been making regarding his long term plans? This was, afterall, his first major economic initiative. He failed to hit the mark by a long shot.

 

[lerxst]

you can "keep the change"

 

[Mango]

Source? Oh, wait it doesn't matter....:roll:

The unemployment figures have been the most manipulated figures since the 1960's and underreporting unemployment has served the interests of both political parties. Republicans used it to try and and make the recession of 2001 look like the mildest on record.

Here's an interesting article I dug up from 2008 that I had read about the history of cooking the books. >>>>>>

Also, Austin Goolsbee, who serves on Obama's Counsel of Economic Advisers, has written numerous papers about it as well. Maybe your little chart accurately depicts the true unemployment rate after making adjustments to past administrations poor accounting.

 

[30ashopper]

Source? Oh, wait it doesn't matter....:roll:

Obama's economic team was the source -

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

The current unemployment numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If there's manipulation going on with current numbers, Obama is the guy who's doing it. My guess is the numbers are worse, we've seen repeated revisements from the bls over the last few months where initial numbers are revised upward. The revised figures thoughn tend to be pretty accurate.

 

[30ashopper]

Related to unemployment, here's something to show the kids -

Calculated Risk: Unemployment Rate and Level of Education

Stay in school!

 

[Lynnie]

GA unemployment hit over 9% in Jan. or Feb. With the recovery plan.

 

[Winnie]

Obama's economic team was the source -

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

The current unemployment numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If there's manipulation going on with current numbers, Obama is the guy who's doing it. My guess is the numbers are worse, we've seen repeated revisements from the bls over the last few months where initial numbers are revised upward. The revised figures thoughn tend to be pretty accurate.

It would be funny if it weren't so scary.

 

[Mango]

Obama's economic team was the source -

.

What part of my statement above about both parties manipulating unemployment figures did you not get?

As far as I am concerned, I never paid much attention to them. Unemployment was lower, last reporting, however the payroll figures were also lower, so what does that tell you? Tells me that in all likelihood, unemployment will rise again. Or it's kind of like the weather, look outside your window if you want to know what it is doing. Will it be temporary....am I off the mark?....do you know? Please do tell.

Your link also says: A package in the range that the President-Elect has discussed is expected to create
between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010.

Last time I checked it is midway 2009.

 

[Winnie]

What part of my statement above about both parties manipulating unemployment figures did you not get?

It sounds to me like 30ashopper got your entire statement.

Obama's economic team was the source -

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

The current unemployment numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If there's manipulation going on with current numbers, Obama is the guy who's doing it. My guess is the numbers are worse, we've seen repeated revisements from the bls over the last few months where initial numbers are revised upward. The revised figures thoughn tend to be pretty accurate.

I think the point is, that if these are the 'manipulated to their own advantage' unemployment figures, then the actual data are even worse.

Scary.

 

[Mango]

It sounds to me like 30ashopper got your entire statement.

I think the point is, that if these are the 'manipulated to their own advantage' unemployment figures, then the actual data are even worse.

Scary.

They are higher. Most economists believe it to be. That is not news. But they are not the same as the Depression; which, BTW, would have been higher had it not been for some kind deficit spending.

The unemployment rate in the United States was 3.6% in April 1930, this after the Great Depression had ostensibly started. By October 1932, 30 months later, it was 24.8%. It peaked at 25.6% in May 1933.