Unemployment Rate Facts

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 13:19
VIEWED: 54220
PAGE 7 of 94

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

Dow was 10,991 in May of 2001. 500+ point difference.

I'm sure it bounced around from day to day, but I'm getting all of these figures from this particular graph.

Quote:
Get back to us when you've corrected your Maths.

My maths be fine.

Quote:
All of the Real World understood that a Market Crash started in 2001.
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.

No it's not. The NASDAQ did take a huge dive when the article said it did. The tech bubble bursting is what started the market crash. Just because it didn't show in the DOW until later didn't mean that it didn't begin earlier during the first year when the NASDAQ initially plummeted over 30% before it started effecting the DOW overall, and finally bottomed out after losing 78% when both indexes hit their lows for the time.

I don't even understand why you're being so obtuse about the issue.

All you've done here is moved the timeline forward so that it all happened while GWB was in office, rather than it's true beginnings at the end of the Clinton Administration.

Aren't you arguing against your Conserveitard principals here?

I'm trying to help you out here, buddy.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:41 AM

If your source isn't giving you adequate information, then it is crap.
Try looking up "historical DJIA prices"

Looks like Dow may have been around 10,991 on 1 May 2001, or 30 May. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 May 2001 was 11,400.
An almost 4% change in a couple weeks is not often ignored by serious investors, and you shouldn't either.

A 1% drop is not a crash, whether in a day or in 18 months, like you are claiming.

Making up stories, lying, rewriting history doesn't serve anybody except liars.
Denying history is the domain of Libtards.
First clearly identify history, then analyze why. Don't lie about history just to support your bias.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
If your source isn't giving you adequate information, then it is crap.
Try looking up "historical DJIA prices"

I'm fine with the numbers. I gave you the source that we're getting them from. Oddly, you're fine with the first one, but take issue with the second one.

Quote:
Looks like Dow may have been around 10,991 on 1 May 2001, or 30 May. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 May 2001 was 11,400.

So. Then we're agreed that at some date in May of 2001 it was 10,991. Who cares what date it was? I'm assuming that every number on any graph is from a certain date.

I'd love to see a graph that showed the average for the month, for every month, going back at least as far as the 90's. I haven't found one. If you do, let me know.

Quote:
An almost 4% change in a couple weeks is not often ignored by serious investors, and you shouldn't either.

Maybe not, but you're ignoring it right now. Because it suits you, you're going with data that gives a 1% drop from a different website or graph that you haven't linked. I'm going with whatever number they put for the month on this graph. I seriously doubt that the creators of this graph put it together with numbers that would make your argument look bad on this particular forum. Geez.

Quote:
A 1% drop is not a crash, whether in a day or in 18 months, like you are claiming.

I'm not claiming it is.

Quote:
Making up stories, lying, rewriting history doesn't serve anybody except liars.
Denying history is the domain of Libtards.
First clearly identify history, then analyze why. Don't lie about history just to support your bias.

I've given a link with numbers. You've given nothing.

Your'e the one that's lying right now. And I have no idea why. The difference between 1% and 4% is moot.

What is important is while the DOW lost 1% to 4%, the NASDAQ lost over 30%, then the DOW lost well over 30% as the NASDAQ lost another 40+%.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Don't lie about history just to support your bias.

I thought about this more, and frankly I want to know what you think my bias is here.

You're hung up on this little detail that has gone so far off the original topic that I just don't get it.

Honestly, I'll say that I don't even know why I'm arguing you at this point other than the fact that you're being insulting every time you post.

We seem to have wandered pretty far off the map.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 11, 2018 1:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Don't lie about history just to support your bias.
I thought about this more, and frankly I want to know what you think my bias is here.

You're hung up on this little detail that has gone so far off the original topic that I just don't get it.

Honestly, I'll say that I don't even know why I'm arguing you at this point other than the fact that you're being insulting every time you post.

We seem to have wandered pretty far off the map.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

This was meant in generic terms, a general rule of thumb.

Whatever your bias, or anybody's bias, rewriting history to backstop a delusion, or fabricating evidence to support a spin, does not serve the logical argument.
Look at the evidence first, then draw conclusions. Do not create conclusions first and then search for errant wisps of evidence to support them.

I had already moved on, you weren't getting anywhere. I only replied to this due to your direct question.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, April 11, 2018 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This was meant in generic terms, a general rule of thumb.

Whatever your bias, or anybody's bias, rewriting history to backstop a delusion, or fabricating evidence to support a spin, does not serve the logical argument.
Look at the evidence first, then draw conclusions. Do not create conclusions first and then search for errant wisps of evidence to support them.

I had already moved on, you weren't getting anywhere. I only replied to this due to your direct question.

Bullshit. You didn't move anywhere. You're hung up on a single line of a table that doesn't do anything to bolster either of our arguments either way.

The only thing that line decides is the beginning of the market crash and what somebody would perceive as it's beginning.

I happen to agree 100% with the source that the NASDAQ falling over 30% signaled the beginning of the crash, since the crash was tech based. You don't agree with that.

Big fucking deal.

There's no "bias".

I've already asked you what you think my bias is here, and you won't answer that question. Why is that?

The link that you're so hung up over that single line in the table doesn't go out of its way to make the Right look bad, as far as I can tell. It seems to be fair and actually put the worst of times during Democratic Administrations. So what gives?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 13, 2018 6:40 AM

And splitting the table into 2 smaller versions:

I will refer to this set of data as Table JSF-URF-1AB

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
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 13198 08.6% 5235 3.5% 18433 12.1%
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 18875 12.3% 8675 5.7% 27550 18.0%
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 22255 14.6% 9161 5.9% 31416 20.5%
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 21580 14.1% 9027 6.0% 30607 20.1%
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 20036 13.1% 8747 5.7% 28783 18.8%
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 19962 12.9% 8506 5.5% 28468 18.4%
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 17363 11.2% 7617 5.0% 24980 16.2%
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 15965 10.2% 7125 4.6% 23090 14.8%
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 14475 09.2% 6234 4.0% 20709 13.2%
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 14083 08.9% 6127 3.8% 20210 12.7%
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 12553 07.8% 5380 3.4% 17933 11.2%

Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 12243 07.6% 5241 3.2% 17484 10.8%
Mar18 06671 04.1% 4793 3.0% 11464 07.1% 4975 3.1% 16439 10.2%

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 20237 12.9% 8218 5.3% 28455 18.2%
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 20327 13.1% 7723 5.0% 28050 18.1%
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 18169 11.7% 8003 5.2% 26172 16.9%
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 17883 11.5% 7768 5.0% 25651 16.5%
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 17899 11.6% 7898 5.0% 25797 16.6%

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt WAJb Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U-6%
Jan08 08221 05.4% 4977 3.2% 18433 12.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5% 5866 3.8% 27550 18.0% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6% 6108 4.0% 31416 20.5% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8% 6643 4.3% 30607 20.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8% 6495 4.3% 28783 18.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5% 6781 4.4% 28468 18.4% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0% 6508 4.2% 24980 16.2% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1% 6467 4.1% 23090 14.8% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3% 6166 3.9% 20709 13.2% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1% 5934 3.8% 20210 12.7% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 04.5% 5364 3.3% 17933 11.2% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4% 5152 3.2% 17484 10.8% 256934 161494 62.9 08.6
Mar18 06671 04.1% 4793 3.0% 16439 10.2% 257097 161548 62.8 08.1

Jul 12 13400 08.6% 6837 4.3% 28455 18.2% 243354 156526 64.3 15.2
Aug12 12696 08.2% 7631 4.9% 28050 18.1% 243566 155255 63.7 14.6
Sep12 11742 07.6% 6427 4.1% 26172 16.9% 243772 155075 63.6 14.2
Oct12 11741 07.5% 6142 4.0% 25651 16.5% 243983 155779 63.8 13.9
Nov12 11404 07.4% 6495 4.2% 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.

Well, gee whiz. The default font must still be different from one compute

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 13, 2018 6:46 AM

It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 13, 2018 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's not readable here. You should probably link the source table, or create a google spreadsheet with the data.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Sure.
You find a source with all the relevent data, or create your spreadsheet, and then post it.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 13, 2018 12:24 PM

I will refer to this set of data as Table JSF-URF-1

Found some data prior to 10 years ago:
Jan 2002 is listed twice. First with original report data from February 2002. Second with revised data from new Census data, published in February 2003.

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%
Jan98 07069 05.2% 5026 3.7% 12095 08.9% 4090 3.0% 16185 11.9% 204238 135951 66.6 09.3
Jan99 06604 04.8% 4800 3.5% 11404 08.3% 3645 2.6% 15049 10.9% 206719 137943 66.7 08.5
Jan00 06316 04.5% 4354 3.1% 10670 07.6% 3355 2.4% 14025 10.0% 208782 139621 66.9 07.8
Jan01 06647 04.7% 4474 3.2% 11121 07.9% 3559 2.5% 14680 10.4% 210889 141049 66.9 08.1
Jan02 08935 06.3% 4872 3.5% 13807 09.8% 4249 3.0% 18056 12.8% 213089 141074 66.2 10.5

Jan02 09051 06.3% 4938 3.4% 13989 09.8% 4453 3.1% 18442 12.9% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5
Jan03 09395 06.5% 4779 3.3% 14174 09.8% 5003 3.4% 19177 13.2% 219897 145301 66.1 11.0
Jan04 09144 06.3% 4913 3.4% 14057 09.6% 5152 3.5% 19209 13.2% 222161 146068 65.7 10.9
Jan05 08444 05.7% 5136 3.5% 13580 09.2% 4793 3.3% 18373 12.5% 224837 147125 65.4 10.2
Jan06 07608 05.1% 5095 3.4% 12703 08.5% 4513 3.0% 17216 11.5% 227553 149090 65.5 09.2
Jan07 07649 05.0% 4633 3.0% 12282 08.1% 4620 3.0% 16902 11.1% 230650 151924 65.9 09.1
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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME