Someone on another message board wrote that unemployment

[napi21]

was it's lowest ever...even lower than the Clinton years. BTW, this is NOT a political board in any way! Another member posted the following:

"interesting thing about statistics...not exactly true picture. data
is based on collected information. if information is uncollected then
the data is not true. unemployement rates are based on the number of
claims on file. that is, if a recipient has used up the allotment,
they cannot receive anymore funds...but they are still unemployed. in
order to file a claim -- have to have a residence. homeless don't
have residencse and are unemployed (usually) and therefore are not
included in the data.
understand, I'm not making a political statement -- just stating that
reports are not always accurate and should be used as a 'weathervane'
and not a premise."


Is this true? I have always through the same thing, but "Labor Stats" keeps insisting that I'm wrong!

[applegrove]

1. They no longer count 18 & 19 year olds. And - many people who lost

jobs in mid-sized corporations have resorted to starting their own small business. And that means long hours and less pay.

Underemployent keeps inflation down. What are the rich doing to help out and sacrifice?

Nothing.

[China_cat]

2. Don't forget that statistics are no longer being kept on

women in the workplace.

[Rainscents]

3. My understanding...

People who run out of unemployment, they are not counted as unemployed! Only the who is counted as unemployed is the one is collecting the unemployed benefits!

This administration has been lying to us since they took office!

[applegrove]

4. Stats! gotta love it. The middle class & the poor fight inflation by

being underemployed while the RICH - SACRIFICE NOTHING! And they make tons of money on the stock market. A transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. Another subsidy to the Oil Industry to keep it rocking!

[shraby]

5. The government even found a way to

get rid of the long lines there used to be at the unemployment office so the news org. couldn't film them. They started having people file by mail during Reagan's term.

[niallmac]

6. Maybe I'm being a little premature with this question but

if the unemployment stats do not represent what percentage of our potentional workers are employed or unemployed, then WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY GOOD FOR?

[seabeyond]

7. yes it is true and it is wonderful that someone knows it

does my ears good. when bush did his first tax cut? i believe, he dropped the period for unemployment, or something. way back started manipulating the unemployment numbers. he is doing it one other way, i cant remember

[punpirate]

8. A few points...

1) The unemployment figure now is better than in some periods of the past, but, at 5.0%, it has yet to top the best of the Clinton years, which held at 3.7% for two or three quarters.

2) The formula for calculating employment was changed in 2003, so it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

3) The number of people who are considered "discouraged workers," those whose benefits have run out and can't be tracked any longer or who have given up looking for work at this time is far higher than in the Clinton years, and may be no lower than an additional 4% of the workforce, and perhaps as high as 7%.

4) Underemployment (people who want full-time work, but can only find part-time work) is higher now than at any time since the Bush I administration.

5) The number of jobholders at the time of Bush's second inauguration was still about 250,000 shy of the number of job holders at the time of Bush's first inauguration. Since it requires the creation of approximately 150,000 new jobs per month to accommodate people newly entering the job market, simple math suggests that the 2.6 million jobs lost early in the Bush administration have not been recreated.

Cheers.

[Nabia2004]

9. They lie, it was in the 4s under Clinton

No, I don't have a link, just my memory.

[kikiek]

10. It isn't true. As usual those are outright lies. Geez talk about the good

days. People were getting decent wages because there were so many jobs. I remember that. And to boot Clinton inherited an unemployment rate of over 7 pct when he took over for Bush. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1.html

[napi21]

12. Well, I don't remembe #'s either, but I know where I was working,

we were having a terrible time finding workers! I was the Dir. of Accounting at a Distribution Company, and we were always looking for people to pick and pack orders. It wasn't a bad place to work, but the pay wasn't great for those jobs. I'm thinking $6.50-$7.50/hr. It was full time and offered benefits, including a nice 401K with 100% co. match. My Distribution Mgr. always said, when unemployment fell below 5%, all the really good workers were already working and finding people became very hard.

[kikiek]

13. Yeah now my husband hasn't had a raise in 4 1/2 years. Fortunately

I am union so our income has increased, but so has gas, health care, food, etc etc.

[Hamlette]

11. Clinton inherited a 7.3 rate, was less than 5% for last 4 years in office

you don't have to have a residence to file an unemployment claim.

They do fall off the unemployment chart after 6 months.

I heard early in Bush's admin he changed the way unemployment rates were determined but now I can't remember how. It was to make them go down.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

[Caleb]

14. They are wrong

It's 5.0% right now. I think Clinton got it to 3.9% in 2000. But for the most part, under Clinton it was in the 4s.