This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What will the unemployment rate be 1 year after 1/1/14 (Obamacare's start date)

#31RRtexasranger13Posted 4/2/2013 8:09:52 AM
Red XlV posted...
From: _Itachi_Uchiha_ | Posted: 4/1/2013 2:49:39 PM | #019
I'm not a fan of using U-3 in this situation.

Why's that? Because you're one of the conservaderps who as soon as Obama took office started trying to redefine U-6 as "real unemployment", despite it never having been considered such before?


You think its just conservatives that do that?

Literally found this in 10 seconds using Google.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x282552

Hi All,

The latest employment numbers were released today and the news is not good, 93,000 jobs lost in August. We learned from the FED yesterday that the jobless recovery is real. Additionally, the NY Federal Reserve Bank released a study showing that many of the lost jobs will never return.

...

However, U3 becomes a dysfunctional indicator as more and more individuals exhaust their unemployment benefits and are no longer counted in U3. That is why U3 can decline even though the job losses continue. In this situation the more reliable U6 measure should be used. The article on U3 and U6 is linked as well<


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x3778
Below is the true Nov 2003 unemployment number (called U-6 and includes discouraged workers) of 9.7% versus Nov 2000's 6.7%, and the seasonally adjusted number employed of 130174 (pre-lim est) for Nov 2003 versus the Nov 2000 number of 132345, or a decrease of 2,471,000 jobs over the last 3 years.


http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/01/odd_jobs.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7081439/#.UVsBqZNJM98

This stuff literally gets brought up in every recession. The ones that are saying it just depend on who happens to be in office at the time. There's an a NYT article (I've linked to it before, I might look for it later) that addressed concerns that Bush was "cooking the books" during the recovery.
---
Politics is weird. And Creepy. And now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality. - Shepard Smith
Rubio 2016
#32Red XlVPosted 4/2/2013 8:28:29 AM
So, you found somebody on Democratic Underground that bought into the false claim that U3 is determined by who's receiving unemployment benefits. Congratulations. U3 is anyone who doesn't have a job but has actively looked for work in the last month. Whether they've exhausted their unemployment benefits is immaterial to the U3 stats.
---
A bad enough dude to save the President.
"We chose more government instead of more freedom." - Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
#33RRtexasranger13Posted 4/2/2013 8:56:46 AM
Red XlV posted...
So, you found somebody on Democratic Underground that bought into the false claim that U3 is determined by who's receiving unemployment benefits. Congratulations. U3 is anyone who doesn't have a job but has actively looked for work in the last month. Whether they've exhausted their unemployment benefits is immaterial to the U3 stats.


Both DU posts are examples of people saying that the U6 is the better set of data to look at. One person out of the 4 links I posted misrepresented what the U3 was, but his point was clear: "We should use the U6 instead of what the media is using right now (U3)." And based on his post, even if someone corrected him with the correct dentition of U3, I'm 99% sure his argument wouldn't have changed because a slight change to wording would have fixed the issue and without harming his main argument.
---
Politics is weird. And Creepy. And now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality. - Shepard Smith
Rubio 2016
#34chaoslordisgoodPosted 4/2/2013 9:37:03 AM
Red XlV posted...
From: _Itachi_Uchiha_ | Posted: 4/1/2013 2:49:39 PM | #019
I'm not a fan of using U-3 in this situation.

Why's that? Because you're one of the conservaderps who as soon as Obama took office started trying to redefine U-6 as "real unemployment", despite it never having been considered such before?


You are well aware that the unemployment (and employment) situation in this current recession is different from past situations in a number of factors that U-3 is not good at considering. Please stop pretending this is a distinction made only by the right to discredit Obama.
---
Lik-Sang was a criminal organization - C4111