With how well the economy seems to be doing, I'd be interested to know what the true unemployment is.
According to Shadow Stats, we still have not recovered from the 2008 recession: not even close. And the U6 statistic, which is a more accurate unemployment number than U3, is nowhere near as bad as the Shadow Stat.
So the truth is somewhere between the 3.9% U3 statistic and the 40% actual unemployment of working age Americans.
21.5% vs. 40% is a huge difference. 18.5% difference.
18.5% of the population is ~50.0 million Americans who are not working that are excluded from shadow stats. That's stay at home parents that don't need to work, for example.
I'd like to see if Shadow Stats is really accurate. The only way we can find true unemployment stats is by going door-to-door asking how many adults are there and how many are employed. As part of a census....
Because I'd like to know what the true unemployment numbers are.
“Don’t believe these phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment,” Mr. Trump said in his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night. “The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.”
And this is why people hate the media(they have tried to pull the same shit with this figure as this weasel just did). What Trump just said here is not the same as flat out stating "Yeah, unemployment is at 42%".
Doesn't mean what Trump is saying about 28, 29 ,etc. is any better, but...yeah, figured I'd let you see what was actually said.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on May 23rd, 2018 at 05:38 PM
Ah, so you don't at all feel what you just did was misleading, because of course you don't.
Solid trolling, a B+
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Let me guess, when Trump said "I even heard recently 42 percent", he didn't really mean it and wasn't pushing bullshit as truth; as he often does. Trump's never the one misleading; it's everyone else cos reasons.
Neat, don't care. Your initial statement was misleading, the person you made it to now knows it. Moving on.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
The fact is true, though. It's a bit more than 40%. That's if you include every working age adult, 16 and older. But that figure does not take into consideration stay at home parents or the extremely disabled.
What should be included in a true unemployment stat?
The top level premise of the stat would need to be:
Unemployment is defined as:
0. Currently unemployed or underemployed
1. Not currently extremely disabled that prevents working in any form (ie. extreme deformities and cognitive impairments)
2. Not currently a fulltime student and a. Fully financially supported by another adult/household. b. Not on any type of public assistance programs. c. Not obtaining financial support from public funds for education.
3. Not below the age of 16.
4. Not above the age of 67 where point 0 also does not apply (ie. post 67 wants to be employed but cannot obtain employment or is underemployed).
To me, those would be all the conditions that need to be met to create a "one number fits all" unemployment number. And that number does look a lot closer to 20% than the U6 stat.
We could easily find the numbers on most of the above list. However, the problem is, there is overlap in some of those and eliminating the numbers from the total as an absolute will subtract too many from the list.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Well, I'm not an expert in tax data here, but 42 and 40 (the number ddm mentioned) isn't too far apart.
Plus, it's sleazy but the "I heard X" claim is similar in credibility to "we heard from an anonymous source" claim that the media likes to use, and I've had ppl here defending those and using articles that have that level of credibility in their claims going "lol" as long as its some hit piece against Trump.
Unemployed should be people who are actively looking for a job, but are jobless.
I don't see it as being realistic if we include:
-16 to say 22/23 who are full-time students and not looking, they're waiting to graduate to find a job (edit: or any full-time student, regardless of age)
-People who have retired early due to wealth/security
-People who have permanent providers, eg stay-at-home moms/dads, trophy wives/husbands, a sex/companionship arrangement etc
-People incapable of working (mentally ill, commas, certain handicaps etc)
Though we should include people who can work but are not looking because they're content leeching off the system, like year round welfare abusers, workers comp abusers etc.
Like I said, unemployment may not be in the single digits, but 42%, it would be very noticed. Even the 20ish seems a bit high to me, but possible.
Gender: Unspecified Location: 30.3322 degrees N 81.6557 degrees S
I'm not sure what Shadow Statistics is. All the sites I've Googled have given me a few different answers. But from what I've managed to gather it's basically a look at the labor workforce participation rate against the current employment rate.
So, current unemployment charts only counts those who are seeking employment. Whether that be structural, cyclical, or frictional is irrelevant to the unemployment data. But those who don't have jobs and aren't actively looking for work won't be counted in that chart.
I thought Shadow Statistics is the Real Unemployment Rate which is the unemployed, underemployed and the discouraged. But the graph that dadudemon provided has a different line for Shadow Statistics and Real Unemployment Rate.
Maybe someone listed it here and I just didn't see, but what exactly is Shadow Statistics? Sorry, I'm not super informed on economic terms. My exposure to economics is a few university classes and listening/reading to some of the more well-known economists out there.
No, that's the dishonest stat. It should also include people depending on the state (SNAP and the like), people who gave up looking because they couldn't find jobs.
I don't see it as being realistic if we include:
You exclude those if and only if they are not state dependents and/or fully supported by guardians. Else, they are unemployed and state burdens.
Gotcha. I forgot about those. But these types are less than 1% of the population.
I mentioned this prior but did not include it in my concise list. I need to update with this, too.
Got that listed. A doctor determines this and it can be 100% disabled listing which makes them a state dependent who cannot work and cannot be counted as unemployed. So the good news is, unless you can prove that the person committed fraud, this 100% disabled person will always be excluded.
Right. This are not very common, however. More common than your independently wealthy types by a large number, however. Still very uncommon.
I agree with everything, here. I basically want to see how he comes up with his shadow stat. It could very well be close to 21.5% and the U6 stat is nigh worthless. Why is it that the Shadow Stat was very near the U6 stat until the Great Recession? The economist who runs Shadow Stats thinks his number is far more accurate and protests people parading the economy as doing well because he says his data points to a sick economy with pseudo-employment stats that are highly misleading (another bubble).
And I think he is right but the degree to which he is right is what I want to determine. Your input is helpful.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 2nd, 2018 07:37 PM
