On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:30 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

From 2010

How nation's true jobless rate is closer to 22%

Last Updated: 6:33 AM, January 12, 2010

Posted: 2:22 AM, January 12, 2010
More Print
headshotJohn Crudele

This'll make you laugh.

Back in November 2003 an economist named Austan Goolsbee from the
University of Chicago wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times
criticizing a Labor Department announcement about job growth the month
before.

And he attacked the idea that the country had just experienced nothing
more than a mild recession.

"Unfortunately, underreporting unemployment has served the interest of
both political parties," wrote Goolsbee. "The situation has grown so
dire, though, that we can't tell whether the job market is recovering."

OK, I promised you a laugh. So here it comes.

Goolsbee no longer works at the University of Chicago. He now has a job
at the White House as President Obama's top economic adviser.

So the president and Goolsbee will now have to convince the American
public that the slight statistical improvement in the employment
situation over the past year really is credible -- even if Goolsbee
doesn't believe it.

Laughing yet? Of course not. There's nothing funny about what we went
through either back in 2003 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks or what we
are experiencing now.

As you already know the Labor Department last Friday announced that
another 85,000 jobs disappeared from the economy in December and that
the unemployment rate stayed, unbelievably, at 10 percent.

On one level it was -- to say the least -- a disappointment for the
White House, Wall Street and every American who is out of work or thinks
they might be.

Yet on another level, the negative 85,000 figure was a blessing for
Goolsbee and President Obama.

At least, as they are quick to point out, this job loss wasn't as bad as
the hundreds of thousands per month that were coming earlier this year.

As any regular reader of this column already knows, I take the side that
Prof. Goolsbee took when he was in Chicago -- the government's
employment numbers aren't believable.

I thought it would be interesting today to present a few (not-so) fun
facts about the jobs market.

Fact 1: The next employment report will be worse.

When the Labor Department puts out the January employment figures on
Feb. 4, they will include an assumption that a lot of companies went out
of business.

This is something called the birth/death model that is used by the
department. Last year it caused 356,000 jobs to be subtracted from the
January job count.

So, the next employment figure should be shockingly bad.

Fact 2: The birth/death model will then turn optimistic in the spring,
causing jobs that really don't exist to be added to the Labor
Department's count.

It won't make the people who are unemployed feel any better. But it
could give Wall Street another excuse to rally and, really, isn't that
what it is all about?

Fact 3: Nobody in the media will pick up on this, but the Labor De
partment will also do something called a benchmark revision on Feb. 4
that will subtract around 840,000 jobs that the government thought
existed, but really don't.

This will mostly make up for the mistakes created by the birth/death
model.

Fact 4: That 840,000 job adjustment will only correct errors up to March
2009. Mistakes for the April 2009 to March 2110 period will be corrected
next year.

Fact 5: You keep reading that the unemployment rate stayed at 10
percent. But the press has been playing up the 17.3 percent rate that
includes those "underemployed," meaning they can't find a full-time job
but want one.

I've been mentioning that under-employed figure -- called U-6 by the
Labor Department -- for years and I'm glad everyone else has finally
caught up.

But that larger figure doesn't include a huge number of unemployed folks
who have given up looking for work because they feel the search is
hopeless. Last Friday's report said 661,000 such people left the labor
force in December.

If you count these hopelessly unemployed, the real jobless rate is
probably close to 22 percent. If these all weren't such important
issues, this would all be a big joke.

Read mo
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz1bYUoErwY