Unemployment Rate Facts
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 13:19
VIEWED: 54220
PAGE 4 of 94
That U-6 data is hidden pretty well. I added the data to my earlier post. Found it in Table A-15 after 2010.
Your table is littered with Libtard BS.
Stock Market Crash in March 2000? Do you believe that?
And 3.8 is the lowest differential, while the prior 2 years are 3.1% - Libtard Maths at work.
And 9.9% us as low as 8.4% - more Libtard Maths at work. Sheesh.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Updated with today's report:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.
So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.
I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.
Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U-6%
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9
Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 12243 07.6% 5241 3.2% 17484 10.8% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 04.1% 4793 3.0% 11464 07.1% 4975 3.1% 16439 10.2% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1
Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3 15.2
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7 14.6
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6 14.2
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8 13.9
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6% 244174 154953 63.5 13.9
Quote:
The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure.
The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.
The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Deep State must be deeply embedded at BLS. Reading their report, summary says no change, little change, no difference, nothing to see here folks, these are not the improvements you are looking for, never mind that man behind the curtain.
Any way to gloss over the horrors of Obamanomics.
But the actual numbers show a whole different story. Every raw figure of bad column is now the lowest since Bush43. Every Subtotal percentage is not only lowest, but also less than half of the figures Obama generated.
And the Labor Force Participation Rate continues to be the best in years.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The corporations don’t need BLS numbers. Corps don't need the unemployed to be profitable. So why hire them? You know corps aren’t run like charities for the unemployed.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/06/how-12-experts-would-en
d-inequality-if-they-ran-america/?utm_term=.4e3e366d2f37
The economy in which we live now is one where lots of business models that had once been illegal are essentially immunized from antitrust liability. Among them: vertical integration (owning multiple stages of production in the supply chain, as many telecom companies do); misclassification of employees as independent contractors; the rise of the gig economy.
As a result, corporate profits as a share of economic output have risen from less than 5 percent to more than 15 percent. They're a much larger share of national income, at the expense of both workers and traditional capital investment. If profits are high, as they are now, corporations are supposed to be expanding and investing under threat of competition. But that's not happening. They're at high profits without needing to invest, which is evidence that they don't face competition.
We need new antitrust legislation to set the policy back on track. That legislation should consist of a revision of monopolization enforcement — particularly Section 2 of the Sherman Act — since we have not seen a meaningful case brought by the government since it took action against Microsoft in the early 2000s.
Companies should face legal liability not just in the product markets but also through antitrust action in the labor market when they exert “monopsony” power. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/how-widespread-labor-monopsony-some-new-
results-suggest-its-pervasive/
The goal is to change how corporations work, to reduce their profitability and to create space for other players to compete, creating an economy that works for a wider set of stakeholders than the corporate CEOs and their shareholders. It would help reverse the decline of entrepreneurship and small-business growth and ensure the economy works for everyone.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's still not good jobs though.
It might be better than it has been during the Obama Administration, but that's not saying much at all. During most of GWB's Administration it wasn't all that great either. The job market has been taking a shit since around 2002 and hasn't ever had any meaningful recovery.
The problem right now is that even if the economy improved, there still won't be all that many great jobs to be had. Automation and Outsourcing have just taken so many of them. We'll never get the ones that automation took away back, and we won't get the ones we lost to outsourcing until these cheaper countries become so well off that our labor is competitive to theirs. That's not something we should be looking forward to.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe you should repeat this to yourself a few times until you understand: American Corporations don't hire in order to reduce your unemployment. Corporations hire to increase their profits and they don't give a damn about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It doesn't make Corps any money.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's still not good jobs though.
It might be better than it has been during the Obama Administration, but that's not saying much at all. During most of GWB's Administration it wasn't all that great either. The job market has been taking a shit since around 2002 and hasn't ever had any meaningful recovery.
The problem right now is that even if the economy improved, there still won't be all that many great jobs to be had. Automation and Outsourcing have just taken so many of them. We'll never get the ones that automation took away back, and we won't get the ones we lost to outsourcing until these cheaper countries become so well off that our labor is competitive to theirs. That's not something we should be looking forward to.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Corporations are making excellent profits now. Why would the Corps want to share all that money with the unemployed, unless it would make them even more profits? Since American Corporations are run this way, millions of people will not be getting that good paying job because that does nothing for the owners of the Corporations.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Maybe you should repeat this to yourself a few times until you understand: American Corporations don't hire in order to reduce your unemployment. Corporations hire to increase their profits and they don't give a damn about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It doesn't make Corps any money.
Corporations are making excellent profits now. Why would the Corps want to share all that money with the unemployed, unless it would make them even more profits? Since American Corporations are run this way, millions of people will not be getting that good paying job because that does nothing for the owners of the Corporations.
Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.
Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Arguing pro or con about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does you no good, but why should it? The BLS serves the Feds and political parties, not you.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.
Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.
Looking at the BLS numbers, the Feds could decide to beat the Corporations into submission so that one of them will hire you at a good wage. Or the Feds can decide to do nothing useful. Depends on who controls Congress and by the word "control" I mean 67% majority, not a measly 51%. In the range between 66% and 50%, things tend to not change for the better because of the rules of Congress, but rather devolve into chaos. At 67%, things can change fast. (See for example: WWII where more than 67% of Congress was willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Ford Corp, as one example, hated that the Feds bullied it to make B-24 bombers and hire more workers. Henry Ford refused on principle to hire women. He was bitter. He was forced to resign because he was standing in the way of what the Feds wanted.)
Whether you believe that fast change in the future is for the better or worse depends on which party you prefer. It does not matter what the BLS unemployment numbers are. Those are just for Congress and the President. If they want to do something about unemployment, then Congress and the President could use force on the Corporations. But a 67% majority in Congress does not care, and they won't in the near future, which leaves Corporations to do as they please -- maximize their profits rather than employment.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wherever your numbers are coming from, they are reading U-6 at 0.7% below the BLS figure.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Unemployment/Underemployment hasn't been under 8% since at least 2000.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198Quote:
The real unemployment rate (U-6) is a broader definition of unemployment than the official unemployment rate (U-3). In February 2018, it remained at 8.2 percent.
The U-3 is the rate most often reported in the media. In the U-3 rate, the Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are in the labor force. To remain in the labor force, they must have looked for a job in the last four weeks.
The U-6, or real unemployment rate, includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers. For that reason, it is almost double the U-3 report.
EDIT: My bad... according to this table, it's been over 8% since 2002.
Year---(U3)-----(U6)---(U3/U6)--(Comments)
1994 6.6% 11.8% 56% The first year BLS reported U6
1995 5.6% 10.2% 55%
1996 5.6% 9.8% 57%
1997 5.3% 9.4% 56%
1998 4.6% 8.4% 55%
1999 4.3% 7.7% 56%
2000 4.0% (Record Low) 7.1% 56% Stock market crashed in March
2001 4.2% 7.3% 58%
2002 5.7% 9.5% 60% U3 closest to U6
2003 5.8% 10.0% 58%
2004 5.7% 9.9% 58%
2005 5.3% 9.3% 57%
2006 4.7% 8.4% 56%
2007 4.6% 8.4% 55%
2008 5.0% 9.2% 54%
2009 7.8% 14.2% 55% High of 10.2% in Oct
2010 9.8% 16.7% 59%
2011 9.1% 16.2% 56%
2012 8.3% 15.2% 55%
2013 8.0% 14.5% 55%
2014 6.6% 12.7% 52%
2015 5.7% 11.3% 50%
2016 4.9% 9.9% 49% Both return to pre-recession levels
2017 4.8% 9.4% 51%
2018 4.4% 8.2% 50%
Man... fff.net is terrible at showing tables.Quote:
The point is to make sure you compare apples to apples. If you say the government is lying during a recession, then you've got to make the same argument when times are good.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
So the newest 8.1% could be the Lowest, or 2nd or 3rd Lowest in the history of them tracking it.
But your table is still chock full of imaginary data, so it's difficult to translate facts from it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wherever I got the data from? I linked it.
Go do some research. The data is sound. It's just not what you want to hear.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME