Is there any source we can go to for accurate unemployment stats?

[lpbk2713]

It's a given that any (dis)information given out by the BushCo White House is totally unreliable and is always slanted in their preferred direction.

I know there are millions of former workers who are now unemployed due to no fault of their own as a result of all the failed and corrupt BushCo economic policies.

What makes me curious about the actual numbers is I'm sure the BushCo number crunchers are dismissing the millions of people whose unemployment benefits have long ago expired and they are still without a job. Also, there are millions more who at one time were called the "working poor" (BushCo probably now has a more preferable term) who will work two or three McJobs just to put food on the table until they can find some meaningful employment, the Boosh badministration certainly doen't count these as unemployed either. And I'm sure there are many more who have simply given up any hope at all and don't see the point of trying.

So I'm wondering. Is there any source, website etc, that has an unbiased educated guess at reliabale figures of unemployed workers in the USA?

Thanks in advance.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Not That I've Found

I've been looking for a while, and haven't found one.

Good luck! let us know if you find something!

[rocktivity]

2. Just automatically triple the "official" rate, and you'll be close

because you'll be including those who are working part-time because they can't find full-time work, trying to enter or re-enter the job market, whose unemployment benefits have run out, and who have given up looking for work.

:headbang:
rocknation

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. plus, the "underemployed" measurement was cancelled.

WE have a group of nasties in charge, and when the facts don't suit them, as you correctly point out, they either fake them, fudge them, or turn them into a meaningless statistic that looks better than it is.

[newportdadde]

4. Also just as important, the number working for much less wages.

I think this number really gets lost in the shuffle. Someone working a white collar job making 45k with insurance dropping to 30k with no insurance has a significant impact to our economy, our tax base, etc.

[Minnesota Libra]

5. Not anymore - the neocons set it up so the numbers are now padded......

.....in their favor of course. :argh: It would be nice if someone were to take the time and give unemployment numbers at the very least based on unemployment filings for a community of state.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. I have read about 10%

[katinmn]

7. No. Way back in 2002 or 2003 Bush Admin decided to stop publishing

the monthly stats from the Commerce Department.

[silverlib]

8. here's a link from DU that you might find helpful...

I'm at work, so search time is limited. This is really good, but I think there was one where a DUer posted an actual formula with links to come up with an accurate number. .

I hope this helps

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2437998

[ProfessorGAC]

9. There's A Pretty Easy Way To Do It

You go to Commerce and Treasury and get the numbers over the last 5 years for UE, and job creation.

Run a 6 point moving average chart of the UE minus (job creation/population). (You can get those numbers from Census.) The straight line that best fits through the moving averages will be accurate to within 0.4082%.
The Professor