7.8 Unemployment.......................... is that supposed to be impressive?

[kylejack]

Probably the biggest reason the figure went down was because of a further decrease in the work force. If you give up looking for a job, you are no longer considered part of the workforce (workforce participation has been declining since 2007). If you have a smaller workforce, the percent of them out of work (and looking for a job) can go down even if no new jobs are added. Most of those who did get jobs last month took part time ones.

Negative, while it has been decreasing as a general trend, it increased from last month's numbers. So workforce participation increased and unemployment went down in that month's time.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Numbers are all wrong anyways, More like 20%

Indeed. The official numbers are all wrong. In a world using sound money... real sound money... unemployment is zero. There is always work to do... in a world of sound money if someone wants to work... then they can. All they have to do is go to work. This central planned economy is failing people badly.

Anyone got a good article on this unemployment manipulation topic?

I'd like to research this further, thanks.

[Travlyr]

16% maybe more. I'm not sure anybody knows the real unemployment number.

Former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cha...2/03/id/428432

[Zippyjuan]

Negative, while it has been decreasing as a general trend, it increased from last month's numbers. So workforce participation increased and unemployment went down in that month's time.

Thanks. You are right. It barely edged up- from 63.5% to 63.6% (one year ago it was 64.1%). http://www.statista.com/statistics/1...te-in-the-usa/

[Carson]

7.8 Unemployment.......................... is that supposed to be impressive?

To be able to pull off a load of bull like that for as long as they have been, of course it's impressive.


Actually for I did see a increase in people once again able to afford to earn a living that started with a regain in the value of the dollar several months back. Silver dropped from $40.00 and ounce to about $23.00. The stock market also showed the dollar regaining value. I could tell by an increase in traffic in the morning.

A couple months ago that all changed and we are once again on the fast track to a crash in the value of our currency. The counterfeiters and their lawlessness know no bounds.

Don't vote for Kang or Kodos. It isn't throwing away a vote. It is throwing away a country.

Remember! Write in ballot, spelled just like this;

President Ron Paul

Vice President Clyde Coulter

[Madison320]

Even if the numbers are accurate the unemployment rate by itself does not give a complete picture of the health of an economy. Remember from 2002-2007 we had low unemployment. We also had huge budget and trade deficits and a negative savings rate. If the economy were really improving we'd see budget and trade surpluses and a high savings rate.

[Zippyjuan]

A trade surplus or deficit is not by itself a good measure of the health of an economy either. If, for example, one country is simply larger than another. Country A will likely have a greater demand for goods than the other so even if they have the exact same productivity and demand, the larger country will likely demand more imports from B than B will demand from A. A will have a trade deficit with B. Same is true if A is not physically larger but economically larger. If A is wealthier than B, it will have a greater demand for all goods including imports. Another possible reason for a deficit may be resources. Consider Saudi Arabia or other oil producing country. They are wealthy but low in population. We can't produce all of a good we need (oil) so we have to import it. We need a lot of it. But we don't produce anything in large quantities they want from us so a trade deficit exists with them.

We have been running a trade deficit since the late 1970's. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...arts.html?_r=0

[Madison320]

A trade surplus or deficit is not by itself a good measure of the health of an economy either. If, for example, one country is simply larger than another. Country A will likely have a greater demand for goods than the other so even if they have the exact same productivity and demand, the larger country will likely demand more imports from B than B will demand from A. A will have a trade deficit with B. Same is true if A is not physically larger but economically larger. If A is wealthier than B, it will have a greater demand for all goods including imports. Another possible reason for a deficit may be resources. Consider Saudi Arabia or other oil producing country. They are wealthy but low in population. We can't produce all of a good we need (oil) so we have to import it. We need a lot of it. But we don't produce anything in large quantities they want from us so a trade deficit exists with them.

We have been running a trade deficit since the late 1970's. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/bu...arts.html?_r=0

I agree a trade surplus is not necessarily a good thing. I think over time you want to be neutral. Like you said, we've been running a trade deficit for a long time. That means we owe the rest of the world a lot of stuff. We need to run a surplus for many years to make up for the cumulative deficits. The rest of the world is stockpiling cash as a result of our trade deficits. All of that cash is going to come flooding back one day.

[ebod]

Seems California may not have properly reported their numbers although the EDD is denying that they were any problems. Do you wonder how many other blue states may have done the same thing just in time for the election? http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/2012/1...obless-claims/

[Zippyjuan]

Seems California may not have properly reported their numbers although the EDD is denying that they were any problems. Do you wonder how many other blue states may have done the same thing just in time for the election? http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/2012/1...obless-claims/

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not use that (the report was of new applicants for unemployment) to calculate the unemployment numbers. They conduct telephone surveys. They will report the number of people filing for unemployment the first time but don't add that to anything to get the total unemployment figure.