Unemployment Rate Facts
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 13:19
VIEWED: 54220
PAGE 6 of 94
I don't know who you're talking to, son, but I can math far better than you.
You don't seem to do English to gud though. If you're going to ask somebody questions, make sure the questions you're asking make sense.
Don't downplay the Nasdaq. 78% is a huge loss, and since we're talking a crash in tech that's where the biggest numbers in the drop would have occured. The dotcom crash was a thing. You will find 100% bipartisan agreement about it being a thing. It was a very big thing, and although it was not GWB's fault it did start off his presidency poorly. It also coincided with the first time we saw $2 per gallon of gasoline. A ton of jobs were lost, and mine was one of them at the time.
Consider yourself lucky that you managed to dodge two bullets if you've remained employed this entire time.
Now that you've gone back and re-articulated yourself, I'll eventually get to answering your questions when I have some time.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh.... and BTW....
The DOW was at 17,004 in December of 1999.
By September of 2002, it had dropped from 17,004 to 10,446. This was a drop of 39% in the same time frame that the NASDAQ dropped by 78%.
The DOW would not see 17,000 again for 14 years until November of 2013.
The only way that you could deny that this was a market crash is if you're suffering form Conservitard delusions of your own.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart
More later...
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:no.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh.... and BTW....
The DOW was at 17,004 in December of 1999.
Quote:no.
By September of 2002, it had dropped from 17,004 to 10,446.
Quote:14 years? No.
This was a drop of 39% in the same time frame that the NASDAQ dropped by 78%.
The DOW would not see 17,000 again for 14 years until November of 2013.
Quote:GWB was not President in 2000, let alone March.
The only way that you could deny that this was a market crash is if you're suffering form Conservitard delusions of your own.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart
More later...
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
no.
Quote:
no.
Quote:
No.
Upon further investigation, I couldn't get the same numbers anywhere. I was about to email the site that I linked and call them lying bastards, until I realized that they have a checkbox for "adjust for inflation" automatically checked.
WTF? Why would they do that? Who talks about the DOW with inflation?
Quote:
GWB was not President in 2000, let alone March.
Correct. My mistake.
Using the same website, without the gorram box for inflation checked, the DOW was at 11,497 in December of 1999. By October of 2002, it had bottomed out at 7,591.
That is still a loss of 34% of the value of the entire DJIA during the same time frame that the NASDAQ took a loss of 78%.
Still a Market crash, no matter which way you look at it.
The DJIA did not see those numbers again for nearly 7 years in September of 2006 when it reached 11,679. And the further gains and good times only lasted about a year and a half, when in May of 2008 it started free falling again until finally landing even lower to 7,062 in February of 2009 in the aftermath of the housing bubble bursting.
So. Question 1 answered. Are you still denying there was a market crash that began in 2000?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One reason they want to use "adjusted" figures is so they can float different numbers every day, based upon backwards adjustment of each different day you try to obtain the numbers. This makes it impossible to nail down their lies, because the "historical" numbers change every day.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
no.Quote:
no.Quote:
No.
Upon further investigation, I couldn't get the same numbers anywhere. I was about to email the site that I linked and call them lying bastards, until I realized that they have a checkbox for "adjust for inflation" automatically checked.
WTF? Why would they do that? Who talks about the DOW with inflation?Quote:
GWB was not President in 2000, let alone March.
Correct. My mistake.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The same applies to "adjusting" the figures like BLS does. They work tirelessly to gloss over the actual figures in order to obfuscate how bad Obamanomics was. Did you read this month's summary? A although the real numbers are the best we've had in decades, they are proclaiming No Change, No Difference, Little Change, No Significant Difference, move along now, ignore these numbers, these are not the figures you are looking for.
Another observation: this month shows that the Want A Job category plus the Involuntary Part-Time category totals less than 10 million, for the first and only time on my table. I could not find accurate data from before January 2008.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reposting for top of the page reference:
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
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
One reason they want to use "adjusted" figures is so they can float different numbers every day, based upon backwards adjustment of each different day you try to obtain the numbers. This makes it impossible to nail down their lies, because the "historical" numbers change every day.
I don't doubt this at all. It's unfortunate that they do this though since the interactive graph on that site is better than any that I've found anywhere else in terms of the ease of use and how the information is presented.
It's a good thing I noticed that you can uncheck the "Lie To Me" option they set to default. Thanks for making me check my facts.
Quote:
The same applies to "adjusting" the figures like BLS does. They work tirelessly to gloss over the actual figures in order to obfuscate how bad Obamanomics was. Did you read this month's summary? A although the real numbers are the best we've had in decades, they are proclaiming No Change, No Difference, Little Change, No Significant Difference, move along now, ignore these numbers, these are not the figures you are looking for.
There's no doubt the DOW is doing better than it ever has, or pretty close to the high today at least. I still don't think that translates at all to helping the average working class family in the least bit though.
In case you didn't notice it, I re-stated the case after unchecking the websites "Lie To Me" option. The DOW still lost 34% from December of 1999 to October of 2002. The same time frame that the NASDAQ lost 78% of its value.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here is your newly altered post.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
no.Quote:
no.Quote:Upon further investigation, I couldn't get the same numbers anywhere. I was about to email the site that I linked and call them lying bastards, until I realized that they have a checkbox for "adjust for inflation" automatically checked.
No.
WTF? Why would they do that? Who talks about the DOW with inflation?Quote:Correct. My mistake.
GWB was not President in 2000, let alone March.
Using the same website, without the gorram box for inflation checked, the DOW was at 11,497 in December of 1999. By October of 2002, it had bottomed out at 7,591.
That is still a loss of 34% of the value of the entire DJIA during the same time frame that the NASDAQ took a loss of 78%.
Still a Market crash, no matter which way you look at it.
The DJIA did not see those numbers again for nearly 7 years in September of 2006 when it reached 11,679. And the further gains and good times only lasted about a year and a half, when in May of 2008 it started free falling again until finally landing even lower to 7,062 in February of 2009 in the aftermath of the housing bubble bursting.
So. Question 1 answered. Are you still denying there was a market crash that began in 2000?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
From Dec 1999 until May 2001 the DOW dropped 100 points, right? And you are claiming that this drop of less than 1% over the span of 18 months is a crash, or part of your crash, right?
Yes, I most certainly dispute that a change of 1% in the DOW is a crash, of any sort, using any reasonable definition.
If you correct your claim to state that a crash of 34% started in May 2001, then people could see that you have swerved into reality.
Instead of Feb 2009, you might check 9 March 2009.
Using your flimsy definition of "crash" the crash that ended in early 2009 started in July 1997 - it doesn't matter how high the DOW got in between those dates according to your definition.
Sector crashes happen all the time. Currently the FANG sector is in what some call a crash.
The broader Market indices of DJIA and S&P 500 did not have a crash starting in 2000, so it is no problem for me or anybody to deny what did not happen. Both of these did start a crash in 2001.
Crashes of Russell 2000, IEFE, NASDAQ, Wilshire 5000, or any other subsector indices do not define a Stock Market Crash. Many times these falter while the Bull Market roars onward and upward.
When the Market Crashed in 2001, few if any sectors withstood the environment without dropping also, so it is no surprise that a sector did not gain during an actual Market Crash.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
From Dec 1999 until May 2001 the DOW dropped 100 points, right?
No. It lost over 550 points in between those dates.
Quote:
And you are claiming that this drop of less than 1% over the span of 18 months is a crash, or part of your crash, right?
Part of the original website's crash, which was referencing the steep decline of the NASDAQ that early as a precursor to what would happen to the DOW.
Quote:
Yes, I most certainly dispute that a change of 1% in the DOW is a crash, of any sort, using any reasonable definition.
Okay. Then look between May of 2001 (10,911) to September of 2002 (7,591) instead. That's still a loss of 31% of the DOW in even less time. It also puts it completely under GWB's watch.
During that time, the NASDAQ went from 2,956 (May 2001) to 1,612 (Sept 2002). That's a drop of 45%.
Not the 78% drop that was figured in the original link using the original dates that primarily effected the NASDAQ, but these numbers of 31% and 45% are a lot closer. (And they don't include the original 33% drop in the NASDAQ before we begin counting with our new date of May of 2001).
If anything, this is evidence that the earlier beginnings of the total 78% crash of the NASDAQ brought about the 31% crash of the DOW a year later.
Not really anything we didn't already know. The dotcom bubble bursting was terrible for the economy, and it was followed by the beginning of the never-ending wars we still find ourselves mired in today.
Just curious, now that this is all cleared up. Are you denying that a 31% loss in a year is a crash?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You Stated Dow was at 11,497 in Dec 1999. Dow was at about 11,400 in May 2001. For most people, simple subtraction reveals the difference of about 100.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:No. It lost over 550 points in between those dates.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
From Dec 1999 until May 2001 the DOW dropped 100 points, right?
Get back to us when you've corrected your Maths.
Quote:Welcome to reality. Nice of you to visit.Quote:Part of the original website's crash, which was referencing the steep decline of the NASDAQ that early as a precursor to what would happen to the DOW.
And you are claiming that this drop of less than 1% over the span of 18 months is a crash, or part of your crash, right?Quote:Okay. Then look between May of 2001 (10,911) to September of 2002 (7,591) instead. That's still a loss of 31% of the DOW in even less time.
Yes, I most certainly dispute that a change of 1% in the DOW is a crash, of any sort, using any reasonable definition.
Quote:Again, welcome to reality.
During that time, the NASDAQ went from 2,956 (May 2001) to 1,612 (Sept 2002). That's a drop of 45%.
Quote:All of the Real World understood that a Market Crash started in 2001.
Not the 78% drop that was figured in the original link using the original dates that primarily effected the NASDAQ, but these numbers of 31% and 45% are a lot closer. (And they don't include the original 33% drop in the NASDAQ before we begin counting with our new date of May of 2001).
If anything, this is evidence that the earlier beginnings of the total 78% crash of the NASDAQ brought about the 31% crash of the DOW a year later.
Not really anything we didn't already know. The dotcom bubble bursting was terrible for the economy, and it was followed by the beginning of the never-ending wars we still find ourselves mired in today.
Just curious, now that this is all cleared up. Are you denying that a 31% loss in a year is a crash?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
You were arguing that a drop of 1% from early 2000 to mid 2001 was a crash, which few would really believe.
Everybody knows a crash started in 2001.
Claiming that a Stock Market Crash occurred in March 2000 is pure hocum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME