Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen
Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that. It makes it pretty hard to determine how the economy is actually doing. You have numbers that look good, but those numbers omit other numbers that would diminish the first set of results. What a wonderful time to be alive.
|
Actually - I was wrong on one thing - with any number over the ~166k per month, the unemployment rate would in fact drop. Just it would take 3 or 4 months at a gain of ~70k per month in jobs to make a .1% decrease. If you factor in the "out of the labor pool" - you are well above 8% still. Its somewhere around 11% - and if you want a source that actually explains the numbers - here ya go:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...-rate-is-11/3/
Yes, its a blog - but its written by a regular comtributor with professional standing and a knowledge of the subject.
However, a lot of talking heads on the right exaggerate the numbers as well. I have heard guys like Rush and Beck claim 16% of higher. How they get these numbers, I don't know - and I suspect some of them may just be "made up". Intellectual dishonesty doesn't exist on only one side, and the talking heads need to be called on to either explain their numbers, or retract the claims.
People like this:
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/bl...t-rate-more-19
Granted - just a blogger - but the explanation doesn't wash - and sorry - we have never counted incarcerated people into the equation.... What a bogus way to try and add 2% to the figure.
Another one - claiming 22% - quoting some guy who doesn't give us real numbers to back up his claim.
http://blogs.smartmoney.com/advice/2...ent-rate-22-6/
If we want to solve the problems of our nation, we have to be willing to require data from those who will "tell" us "facts". Regardless of our political views. Otherwise, we can't identify the real problems, and thus can't find solutions.