Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > unemployment revisions?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 raxarsr
Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 2
view profile
History
unemployment revisions?Page 1 of 2    (1, 2)
sounds like they did something like carter did.......unemployment was really bad then too..........suddenly things got better when the aded the number of people in the military as employed...........up till that point......they werent counted one way or the other........
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 3
view profile
History
unemployment revisions?
Posted: 2/6/2010 8:00:26 PM
The unemployment figures have always left out those who are not receiving unemployment benefits. It is nothing new. Not that I'm totally for Obama but he did inherit the Bush administrations mess.





sounds like they did something like carter did.......unemployment was really bad then too..........suddenly things got better when the aded the number of people in the military as employed...........up till that point......they werent counted one way or the other........


While the Carter administration encountered (caused?) many economic problems, employment growth was not one of them. Nonfarm payrolls grew by nearly 10.5 million jobs during his four-year term; that is nearly 90 percent greater than the 5.6 million jobs created during the first seven years of the Bush-Cheney era.

Even the 52-month "Bush boom" in job growth pales by comparison. Employment growth averaged 159,600 during this period. As noted above, the Clinton-era monthly average exceeded 240,000 jobs; that was more than 50 percent higher than the average during Mr. Bush's 52-month streak. Even less well-known is the fact that 26.7 percent (nearly 18,000 jobs per month) of Mr. Bush's relatively minuscule monthly average of 67,000 jobs (2001-2007) were created in the government sector. By contrast, only 8.3 percent of the job growth during the Clinton years occurred in government.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/15/job-growth-since-the-carter-years/
 NurbyDriver
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
History
unemployment revisions?
Posted: 2/7/2010 12:52:28 PM
We all blinked furiously when we read the government’s claim that the number of unemployed rose in January by 20,000 but the unemployment rate fell from 10% to 9.7%. Somebody has obviously been cooking the numbers in a most ingenious manner. On Meet the press, Alan Greenspan explains the absurdity thus:

MR. GREGORY: Dr. Greenspan, one more question about jobs. So you think that unemployment rate goes up again before it comes down?

MR. GREENSPAN: I’m not sure. One of the reasons is the official data on unemployment is a sample and it fluctuates, and–as we observed in, in the January report. If you literally took it seriously as to the exact numbers, there were 784,000 job increase in January. Now, that didn’t happen. And so that what we can expect is a backing and filling. I think we’re going to stay at approximately the 9 to 10 percent level here for a goodly part of the rest of this year with the sole exception of that period when they start to hire a very large number of census workers. Remember, this is the decennial census.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. GREENSPAN: And that’s going to have some positive effect. But it’s very difficult to make the case that unemployment is coming down anytime soon.
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 13
view profile
History
unemployment revisions?
Posted: 2/9/2010 7:27:36 AM

I find that the current administration has decided that-"once your unemployment benefits run out, whether you find a job or not, then you are no longer considered unemployed"-



I don't like the numbers being fudged to make the current administration look better.


I don't believe I was attacking you although I was trying to point out that the view of unemployment was not new and did not occur with this current administration.

I agree that it would probably be somewhat difficult to get exact figures of the unemployed although I feel that they could come up with better figures if they would simply followup with the people who have ran out of unemployment pay to see if they were still looking for work or if they had been hired, given up, etc. That would still leave out many people who had no job yet desired one.
 Strings6
Joined: 7/14/2007
Msg: 17
view profile
History
unemployment revisions?
Posted: 2/9/2010 4:58:02 PM
Jelunc,oh my.....you've provided a link...the ultimate arbiter of all truth..the link ..we all know that every single word of any link is the absolute truth....too funny.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > unemployment revisions?