Wall Street Guy: Real Unemployment 37%, Misery index worse

[TGHusker]

Time for all Obama supporters to come to the aid of their guy.

 

How do we really measure this 'recovery' when so many have been removed from the job force and are no longer looking? - I assume many have moved from seeking employment and are on the growing food stamp list, disability list and perhaps a few in comparison have hopefully built their own life line - created their own job.

 

 

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wall-street-adviser-actual-unemployment-is-37.2-misery-index-worst-in-40-years/article/2542604/comments

[QMany]

Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent.

That number seems VERY high. Is this guy counting the retired or what?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

There's a difference between what's factual and what's factually important.

 

Yes, the percentage of people living in the United States who don't have a job is probably around 37%. But people who don't have a job include the people who aren't old enough to have a job or who are old enough to be retired.

 

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

 

--People who are in the work force are employed

--People who are jobless, but actively seeking jobs are unemployed

--People who are neither employed or unemployed are not in the labor force

 

That last part is important. Those who are neither in the work force, nor actively seeking jobs are not in the labor force. That's how unemployment should be measured. It shouldn't include a large chunk of people who have no desire to have a job (retired people and young children for example). It's ridiculous to consider those groups of people.

 

Later on in the article they mention using the full national unemployment percent, which includes discouraged workers and say that that sits at 10.2 percent. And then some other way of calculating inflation, which would put the Misery Index at 14.7 instead of the 8.2 it currently rests at.

 

Very puzzling article, picking and choosing which statistics to use and which statistics not to use and not remaining consistent with what they report. Heck, the Misery Index could even be 41.5 if it wanted to be.

[The Dude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULAfBllREZs

[carlfense]

Time for all Obama supporters to come to the aid of their guy.

 

How do we really measure this 'recovery' when so many have been removed from the job force and are no longer looking? - I assume many have moved from seeking employment and are on the growing food stamp list, disability list and perhaps a few in comparison have hopefully built their own life line - created their own job.

http://washingtonexa...542604/comments

What do you think that Obama should do about it?

 

As QMany pointed out . . . the 37% number is irrelevant. Stay at home parent? Unemployed. Retired? Unemployed. Hell . . . if his standard is "people who do not have any job" it could include children.

 

Not to mention that it's provided purely for shock value (37%!!!!) with no context whatsoever. Using the same methodology what was this rate 50 years ago? 100 years ago? I'd venture a guess that it was fairly high before women entered the workforce in large numbers.

[TGHusker]

My main interest would be - how do you count people who were looking for a job but have now dropped out of the labor force because they have stopped looking. I keep hearing of stories of how the labor participation rate keeps dropping. This in turn makes the unemployment #s look better than what they are. A quick Google search brought up this article:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/people-not-labor-force-soar-record-918-million-participation-rate-plunges-1978-level

Curious why despite the huge miss in payrolls the unemployment rate tumbled from 7.0% to 6.7%? The reason is because in December the civilian labor force did what it usually does in the New Normal: it dropped from 155.3 million to 154.9 million, which means the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels not seen since 1978, at 62.8% down from 63.0%.

And the piece de resistance: Americans not in the labor force exploded higher by 535,000 to a new all time high 91.8 million.

The jobless, laborless recovery continues to steam on.

[carlfense]

My main interest would be - how do you count people who were looking for a job but have now dropped out of the labor force because they have stopped looking.

And that would be a good point. And an accurate point. The difference is that that number isn't 37.2%

 

The jobless, laborless recovery continues to steam on.

Indeed. I guess since Congress won't act we are left to hope that the private sector decides to reinvest those incredible profits in the labor force.

[Junior]

I guess we just have to wait for the job creators to create more jobs. Maybe if we gave them more money with tax breaks it would do the trick.

 

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_4632157.html

 

The world’s 85 wealthiest people hold as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion, or half the world population, according to a new report from global anti-poverty group Oxfam.

That’s roughly $1.7 trillion for both the 85 richest people, and the poorest half of the planet.

 

The global economy has become so skewed in favour of the rich that economic growth in many countries today “amounts to little more than a ‘winner takes all’ windfall for the richest,” Oxfam said in a statement.

 

• In the U.S., the wealthiest one per cent captured 95 per cent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 per cent became poorer.

 

 

Hmm... you would think, given they made more money since 2009, the job creators would be increasing employment. I wonder why they aren't?

[carlfense]

I guess we just have to wait for the job creators to create more jobs. Maybe if we gave them more money with tax breaks it would do the trick.

 

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_4632157.html

 

The world’s 85 wealthiest people hold as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion, or half the world population, according to a new report from global anti-poverty group Oxfam.

That’s roughly $1.7 trillion for both the 85 richest people, and the poorest half of the planet.

 

The global economy has become so skewed in favour of the rich that economic growth in many countries today “amounts to little more than a ‘winner takes all’ windfall for the richest,” Oxfam said in a statement.

Trickle down, baby! Trickle down.

[TGHusker]

Trickle down will never work unless there are incentives - most people (businesses) act in their own self interest - human nature. There are some good socially conscience companies that may act more benevolently. That is why I believe that tax policy, trade policy should create incentive for companies to create jobs here. If it make more sense business profit wise to outsource overseas, and build plants overseas - that is where the jobs will go.

[TGHusker]

My main interest would be - how do you count people who were looking for a job but have now dropped out of the labor force because they have stopped looking.

And that would be a good point. And an accurate point. The difference is that that number isn't 37.2%

 

The jobless, laborless recovery continues to steam on.

Indeed. I guess since Congress won't act we are left to hope that the private sector decides to reinvest those incredible profits in the labor force.

correct the # isn't 37%. But there must be an honest # out there to capture those who have dropped out but still want a job.

[tschu]

Trickle-down is a joke and a farce and a pipe dream at best. The current private sector American economy concentrates everything at the top. That's why when the market "recovered" the job market did not. All of the profits went to the 1%. And indeed, over the past 40 years, wages for the bottom 85% have remained basically stagnant while big gains are made in the top 5%.

[TGHusker]

Trickle-down is a joke and a farce and a pipe dream at best. The current private sector American economy concentrates everything at the top. That's why when the market "recovered" the job market did not. All of the profits went to the 1%. And indeed, over the past 40 years, wages for the bottom 85% have remained basically stagnant while big gains are made in the top 5%.

Your solution to this dilemma is what?

[carlfense]

correct the # isn't 37%. But there must be an honest # out there to capture those who have dropped out but still want a job.

Sure. Take your pick: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

[carlfense]

Trickle-down is a joke and a farce and a pipe dream at best. The current private sector American economy concentrates everything at the top. That's why when the market "recovered" the job market did not. All of the profits went to the 1%. And indeed, over the past 40 years, wages for the bottom 85% have remained basically stagnant while big gains are made in the top 5%.

Your solution to this dilemma is what?

1. Tax all income from whatever source derived at the same bracketed rates.

2. Reinvest the proceeds in infrastructure, education, research, etc.

 

That's where I would start but it's no silver bullet.