Gallup: Unemployment rate drops to new post recession low: 7.1%.

I just don't know where you guys get these bizarre notions you believe as fact. Disinformation from right wing propaganda is all I can figure.

Labor force
1981: 106.562 million
Today: 155.063 million

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

 

There is a big difference between the workforce participation and the population.



I am citing the population numbers to highlight the fact we have the same number of folks in the work force as we did when the population was 84 million less people.

 

But that is precisely what is false. We have *far* more people in the work force than we did in 1981.

The participation rate is down about that low. But the absolute number of people working is far higher.

 

Let me re-post my post. You apparently missed it as you continue to assert the same false nonsense.

 

If ya'all doubt the veracity of the businessinsider.com's chart, by all means eMail them and have them correct it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/labo...-falls-to-its-lowest-level-in-31-years-2012-9

There is the article.

 

If ya'all doubt the veracity of the businessinsider.com's chart, by all means eMail them and have them correct it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/labo...-falls-to-its-lowest-level-in-31-years-2012-9

There is the article.

 

Why should we do that? Numbers directly from the source (BLS) prove you are once again flat out wrong, and that article doesn't even support your assertion.

But don't let that stop you from repeating the same false claim. It never has in the past.

 

You seem to fail to grasp the concept of percentage.

Thats graph is in percentage of the population, not absolute numbers as you wrongly claimed.

Perhaps learn how to read a chart before posting?

 

Unfortunely for Obama no one believes the crap you an others are stating! Obama looses and the lies will not help! Gets no more simple then that, no graph needed no cooked up numbers will have any effect on the election next week.

 

It is unfortunate. A little dose of truth would be a good think.

The right wing propganda mills are far better funded than I am, as this thread demonstrates.

 

Yea there is plenty of left leaning propaganda mills out there, in fact they are well funded but lies are lies. Lies only go so far, as some on the left (big editorial people) are saying, Obama is a small type of politician not what they thought originally. In other words he isn't no JFK.

 

Unemployment Rate Decline Is Misleading

A good explanation for the artificial drop.

http://behavioraleconomy.gallup.com/2012/10/unemployment-rate-decline-is-misleading.html

 

I grasp it just fine. We have 84 million more people and 53 million more participating in the labor force at the same rate as 1981.

Ya'all can herniate yourselves all you want over a few thousand more or less employed. The bottom line is the job market's not going anywhere as long as the Obamanomics economy is stuck at less than 2% growth in GDP. Stagnant malaise just isn't cutting it.

 

Basically, as workforce participation drops as it has been quite steadily and if you created the same number of jobs each month, the unemployment rate would decrease. That is why the unemployment rate is artificially low. It is not a sign more people working, but a sign of fewer people participating in the work force.

 

He's talking about the percentage of total population employed, not the unemployment rate.

 

The unemployment rate has always been a measure of how many people want jobs, not how many people do not.

 

The real picture and projection.

 

perfect example of a low information voter....

 

Thank you, Professor! And, yes, this is one of the main reasons why the U3 report, which was the standard of "decades" is no longer the report we should be using. We should be using U6, because in the context of the 21st Century, everything else is irrelevant: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Apples to apples; oranges to oranges... but none of it means anything if we don't even know the difference between fruit and vegetables....

 

We have 84 million more people and 53 million more participating in the labor force at the same rate as 1981. That's a 31 million person difference.

 

U6 includes people who have part time jobs and are not unemployed.

U6 gives a false impression compared to earlier periods which have used U3 as the standard for many decades.

But I'll tell you what. If Romney gets elected, you and I can start using U6 as the standard just as soon as he takes office. Deal?

 

66% of the jobs created in September were part time low pay, little to no benefits jobs, how is that helping?

 

As I said in another thread, if Romney does get elected, he won't have uttered the last syllable of the Oath of Office before the Left starts kicking his teeth down his throat. So only Obama deserved the customary "honeymoon"? Obama had two full to begin to get this thing right without any serious opposition from Republicans because Obama OWNED the House AND the Senate, and, he stuck two of his hyperlib goons on the Supreme Court for good measure.

Still, fair is fair. So, yeah, if Romney is elected, U6 should be the measure because, as I said, it's still the same 21st Century, no matter whether it's a RINO, or a Marxist-Socialist in the White House.

 

Their chart does not claim that the labor force is the same size it was in 1981.

 

Fair enough. I'll look forward to you using the U6 number when Romney takes office.