Most precise unemployment rate (as of Oct 2011): 16.2%

[brentspeak]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.......16.2%

[emilyg]

1. K

[Hissyspit]

[golfguru]

3. Economy is improving, may be a little slow,

but trend is up. 80,000 new jobs created, which is actually 107,000 since 27,000 gov't jobs were lost.

[MNBrewer]

12. But it's still only a gain of 80K

[Skittles]

4. that sounds about right to me

[BklnDem75]

5. Goalposts...

If U-3 numbers shows too much improvement, start griping about U-6 numbers. Different standards are a-ok for this President.

[JoePhilly]

6. Its pretty transparent.

[brentspeak]

8. Who said I would hold any other President under different standards?

You evidently don't know me very well.

[BklnDem75]

11. Why haven't you?

Where are the comparisons?

[brentspeak]

13. Is Bush President right now?

[BklnDem75]

18. Does he need to be to make a comparison?

[brentspeak]

19. No, because I already have

Many times in the past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2548857#2548939

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2493578&mesg_id=2493712

What "different-standard" did I impose on Obama that I wouldn't hold to another President? You made the claim: now back it up. Otherwise, get back to your latte.

[BklnDem75]

20. It is true that I'm laughing

This thread is proof enough of the double standard. The moving of the goalposts was pretty obvious.

Edit:
Not sure what your two links was suppose to disprove. U-3 numbers is the measurement used for every President. What's the purpose of tossing in U-6 numbers?

[denem]

7. Nope. U5 (Unemployed) 10.5% + 5.7% (~U6) Part Time Underemployed = 16.2%

U5 Broadest Definition Unemployment
U6 "plus total employed part time for economic reasons"

[DCBob]

9. If you are using that definition for unemployment the we need to go back and recalc the rate..

for all the years past with the same defintion to have a useful comparison to past values. 16% may not sound so bad when comparing apples to apples.

[Sheepshank]

10. I agree

compleiely disingenious to use numbers that have no long term comparative rates.

Un rec.

[brentspeak]

15. So you recommend that ALL the unemployment numbers be disregarded?

"compleiely disingenious to use numbers that have no long term comparative rates.

Un rec."

BLS says this about U-2 (where the 9.0% figure comes from)

"Beginning in Jan. 2006, data are not strictly comparable with data for 2005 and earlier years because of the revisions in the population controls used in the household survey."

Read more: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2008 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html#ixzz1cxnflD6K

I assume you actually researched this issue before you agreed with the prior poster and unrecced.

[Sheepshank]

21. Statistical numbers only mean something if you are comparing apples to apples.

You attempt to throw out a number that means nothing out of context. You know full well that most are completely unfamiliar with U-6 historical trend. Yet you throw it out there as if the number in and of iteself means something. Bullshit on that attempt at the misleading data and misleading the reader, and bullshit on making up shit.

[brentspeak]

22. So tell us all about the "U-6 historical trend" that "most are completely unfamiliar with"

Your lack of historical knowledge concerning the U-3 has already been exposed (typo from before: I typed "U-2" instead of "U-3"), so maybe you actually know something about the U-6 -- though that seems unlikely.

[Sheepshank]

23. bwahh ahha haa

post the long terms trends...make some sense of you own numbers. Why is it my job to clarify your fucking numbers and what they mean?

obfuscating is telling.

[rug]

14. It was 17.0% one year ago.

[MNBrewer]

16. See how AWESOME the Obama recovery is right now!!!!11!!!!!!1

[rug]

17. Pick me up, I've fainted.

[DCBob]

24. Using that definition then I think about 10% unemployment would be the goal..

to be in the "normal" range.

[woo me with science]

25. K&R Denial helps no one. nt