Why dosen't Obama hammer the GOP with the real unemployment

[ChandlerJr]

rate from his own Labor Dept.? He's has got to push the real numbers to the American public.

Broader Jobless Rate Hits 16.5%, Highest Level of 2011

The U.S. jobless rate was flat at 9.1% in September, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment rose to 16.5%, the highest rate this year.

The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs.

The key to the rise in the broader unemployment rate was due to a 444,000 jump in the number of people employed part time but who would prefer full-time work. That number could reflect a rising number of workers who saw their hours cut back by concerned bosses or new part-time hires who would prefer full-time work.

The U-6 figure includes everyone in the official rate plus “marginally attached workers” — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that’s all they could find.

These are his own Labor Dept. numbers and he has to hang them around the necks of Boner and Cantor.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/07/broader-jobless-rate-hits-16-5-highest-level-of-2011/

[FarLeftFist]

1. NOW is the time to expose the GOP's hijacking of America.

With the right messaging we could make the GOP a national embarrassment and almost completely extinct. Obama needs to garner some populist rage and use it to his advantage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Yep. It is absurd to claim that my son-in-law, unemployed for two years now,

is not unemployed, simply because he fell off the far end of the table.

[pinqy]

4. I'm not sure what you mean..

If he's looking for work, he's officially unemployed. If he he's not looking for work, he's not unemployed...just like full time students, stay home spouses and retirees are not unemployed...they're not trying to work.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. If he's not collecting unemployment, he's not officially 'unemployed'.

He's completely off the grid. He could be looking for work every fucking day, but nobody but HIM knows it. To collect unemployment, you have to show you are looking for work. Once the unemployment payments end, they don't want to see you.

He can only be OFFICIALLY unemployed if someone is counting him. He's no longer being counted. He doesn't exist.

edit for grammar.

[pinqy]

8. Wrong

The Unemployment figures are NOT based on unemployment insurance. It's a survey. If he's looking for work, he's officially unemployed. So in the official figures of 14 million or whatever, he is included. It doesn't matter if he's never answered the survey or reported to anyone...that's the point of a survey...he doesn't have to be individually counted to be included.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Which means it is a bullshit number.

Have YOU ever been included in an unemployment survey? Neither have I. Or anyone I know.

Unemployment is based on the #s collecting unemployment. Period. If you have been told otherwise, you were lied to.

[pinqy]

12. Cite your source the the UE rate comes from those collecting unemployment

Here are mine: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm">BLS Technical Note

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

And if you look at the published data for reason for unemployment http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t11.htm">Table A-11 you'll see the reasons include job leavers (people who quit), new entrants and reentrants. None of whom would be eligible for benefits.

Then compare the benefits numbers for all collecting benefits from http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm">Dept of Labor you'll see that for the week ending Sept 14th, there were 6,862,004 and yet BLS has 13,520,000 unemployed (not seasonally adjusted)http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm">Table A-11

I won't hold my breath for you to support your claim.

[Cool Logic]

3. Because that would make this graph look very, very, bad--instead of just plain ol' bad.

[area51]

6. We're past 1930s Depression level unemployment.

According to this article we have 30.5% unemployment.

[pinqy]

13. Except the BS way they calculated the 30%...

is nothing like the way the figures for the Depression were calculated, or the way anyone has ever calculated UE and they're also using terrible math....adding to the numerator but not the denominator.

[DainBramaged]

7. No guts, period.

[Kingofalldems]

10. Familiar. Nice try.

[Mimosa]

11. Because it would backfire on HIM

Obama is President NOW.