I casually poll business owners in my area on how much interest they get every time they post a job opening. Over 100 resumes still, even for bottom level/part time stuff.

And my area has a worker shortage!

Note to wannabe macro-economic experts: individual, anecdotal claims are not economic statistics.

"Trojan gate"?

And instead don't hint that the government is manipulating the figures to hide the true unemployment - especially when the U6 numbers are far more startling, and always have been, than the government numbers.

Saying the REAL unemployment rate is above 10% is shocking because we've been conditioned, by the government numbers, to believe 10% unemployment is almost unheard of - only reaching that levels a handful of times since the Great Depression. The thing is, with the U6 numbers, it's far more common, happening over 115 times since 1994. But that is always left out when using those numbers.

We have been conditioned to accept things way too easily.

What Bernie said was true. What CNBC and BLS said is true. We need to talk about things honestly.

He didn't put it into the context of the numbers in the past. He just threw out that 10.5 number without any relation to the numbers in the past. 10.5 in U6 is not great - but it's also lower than a bulk of the unemployment in 1994 and on par with what we saw in 1995, just as the 90s economic boom was kicking into high gear.

The problem with what Bernie is doing is that he doesn't mention that, on the whole, the U6 numbers are ALWAYS going to be higher than what the official government numbers are and always have been. This isn't something new and doesn't mean dire, dire circumstances like the 10.5 initially leads many to believe.

As I said in another post, the lowest U6 got in the 90s, when unemployment was at its lowest levels in the Post World War II era, was briefly for 6.8 - and most of 2000 and 2001 was spent in the 7s. That's only 3.5 points, on average, from where we are currently.

But that's not mentioned at all by Bernie. It's not mentioned that 10.5 in U6 isn't horrifically bad like when we hit 10.5 in the official numbers. He's being dishonest - just as the Republicans are when they throw out the 'real number', as if because it's 10.5 things are not getting better. It's manipulating the numbers. 10.5 in U6 is NOT the same as 10.5 in the official numbers.

Without the overall context, it's meaningless. Granted, 10.5 is not great, but the trend is - we've gone from 12.1 a year ago, 14.3 two years ago, 14.8 three years ago and 16.5 at this point in 2009 - yet Bernie didn't mention that at all. At this rate next year, if the trend continues, the U6 numbers in June, 2016, will be around 8% - or about where it was in June, 2001.

But I think my mind is changing.

Yes, I think so.

Don't get upset that Bernie is purposely misleading to make a point. I am not going to take it when the Republicans do it and I won't when Democrats do it either. It's dishonest and distorts the truth. Unless he adds context to his argument, he should be called out.

Frankly it is misleading to say there is 5% unemployment or whatever it is that month.....when it is usually double that.

The "forgotten" are being included by Bernie...I thank him for that.

It is not dishonest, it is not purposely misleading....it is the painful truth for millions in our country.

But then some people really don't care too much about that.

Just own it. He's being just as dishonest as the GOP when they toss around that exact same number as proof Obama has failed this country. The dishonesty is rooted in the fact that many people who have left the workforce have done so willingly - not because they can't find a job. Even still, 10.5% unemployment using those numbers is historically average. But that isn't mentioned. We're conditioned to believe 10.5 is a staggering high number when, in the context of historical U6 data, it's only marginally bad. Moreover, Bernie left out the fact that U6 has improved at a far more rapid rate than the official numbers - indicating that even the U6 is coming down and getting to levels we haven't experienced since the late 90s and early 00s.

Completely dishonest.

Your accusation that he is misleading is dead wrong.

Getting tired of someone saying he's wrong no matter what he says.

He didn't mention at any point the U6 numbers in the 90s or that they're traditionally much higher than the typical unemployment figures released to the media. There was no context. He uses the right-wing FOX News ploy to attack - the 'real' unemployment is 10.5 with no comparable figure to show that 10.5 is, at worst, marginally bad - and he didn't talk at all about how it's seen a dramatic decrease the last four years. He purposely mislead and you're parroting right-wing talking points.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/04/06/time-to-focus-on-real-unemployment-rate/

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/03/important-u6-number-is-up-so-stop-dancing/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/16/the-right-wing-medias-real-unemployment-rate-de/190652

The number he quoted is correct. He did not elaborate because he did not have to make his point.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me cringe.

BTW did you know that most Democrats are terrified to question or criticize the privatizing of education and the marginalizing of career teachers?? They don't want to criticize a Democratic president.

So the right and left meet on the issue, the teachers, parents are rising up against it.

But those of us who try to warn of the financial losses and the misuse of public money are criticized by other Democrats who accuse of us being Obama haters.

Bernie spoke a true thing.

And Donald Trump and Greta Van Sustren and all the right-wing blowhards who have been attacking Obama on U6 numbers are just as dishonest as Sanders.

I'm surprised, though, that someone like Bernie Sanders would borrow from Donald Trump's talking points.

i think most people realize there is a difference between "official" govt unemployment numbers and "actual" (u6) numbers

bernie was not dishonest..he just gave us credit for knowing the difference

bernie was not saying progress has not been made just that we still have much work to do(that was my take anyways)

i learn so much from your ops.....even from your detractors....for example i did not know this was how unemployment is figured......

Where do the statistics come from?
Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed people in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics about them. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate—which tells you the percentage of the labor force that is unemployed—receive wide coverage in the media.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. In 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau took over responsibility for the CPS. The survey has been expanded and modified several times since then. In 1994, for instance, the CPS underwent a major redesign in order to computerize the interview process as well as to obtain more comprehensive and relevant information.

There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys, which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state. (For a detailed explanation of CPS sampling methodology, see Chapter 1 of the BLS Handbook of Methods.)

Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed for more than 4 consecutive months. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months, and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good. As a result, approximately 75 percent of the sample ////////////////////

It appears we are mostly the enemy, not very bright, not able to understand issues, not able to post intelligently.

However, thanks for your kind words.

has various boxes into which they put 'people', I don't care about all the different boxes, I care and Bernie Sanders cares about the PEOPLE, the REAL PEOPLE who are suffering and have been for years, from the effects of the Greedy Corrupt Wall St crooks who were BAILED OUT with trillions of dollars while their victims are still feeling those effects and so are their children.

No one cares about their 'formulas' when they can't feed their children.

made it news when Bush was president, but for those who are suffering, these political games are reprehensible. We have the highest child poverty level of all industrialized nations. Those are PEOPLE, I'm sure the government has more little boxes into which they put all this also, meantime 1 in 6 children have been going to bed hungry in this country for YEARS. THAT hasn't changed. THAT is what Bernie Sanders cares about and that is why so many people are flocking to his campaign. Because he doesn't talk about 'metric's and 'formulas' he talks about real people and it's about time someone did.

...the unemployment rate has essentially been calculated the same way for decades using the same set of criteria and factors.

If it was 9% ten years ago based on a number of factors (including the extraneous factors mentioned above) ant its below 6% now based on the SAME factors, that's GOOD, isn't it?

How can that be portrayed as a negative?

you are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You are also misleading, misleading and so on.

Homes are lost
cars are lost
medical lost
Since this nation insists on working why haven't the owners of businesses that can employ made sure this country functions fairly? Greed and profit....even an idiot can figure that out
I'm sure life is just as painful to the 6% as it was for the 9%-less of a percentage is no big deal

If we make strides in cancer research and save a few lives, but not all, should we just toss in the towel and not save any lives until we can save them all?

I just don't understand your logic.

There is no damn excuse for torturing any human being and that is what happens when any % is accepted....think!! Or does it matter as long as it isn't you who is experiencing this?

....there still are efforts to reduce the 5.8% even lower, hopefully to zero eventually.

But you're acting like any progress should be put on hold until the entire pool of unemployed is eliminated at once.

I have 2 women (older) in my neighborhood that when unemployment ran out....they were just screwed by this system

The status quo 'we don't talk about people, we talk statistics'.

I hope they keep on doing that. It will guarantee that Bernie will continue to rise in the polls as he becomes known to more and of those 'anecdotes' so easily dismissed by the billionaire class.

Those 'anecdotes' translate into millions of potential voters. I know quite a few of them and they KNOW they are of no importance to their 'leaders'. But now they are hearing from someone who does NOT dismiss them as a mere statistic, who knows they are PEOPLE who are struggling to provide for their families.

And many of them are young. And that sentence pinpoints the reason why so many do not vote, but WILL and ARE signing up, though again, not counted in the polls because they don't count to those in power.

They will be counted however WHERE it counts and a whole lot of people are going to wonder wth happened!

Raging over the source...but failed to discuss the issue. Go figure.

Thanks for this and backing up Bernie.

The U6 numbers have historically been much higher than the government numbers - to the point where it's far, far, far more common for the U6 to be over 10%. Even at the height of the Clinton economic boom, the U6 unemployment rate was 7%. Since 1994, the U.S. has been above 10% unemployment in the U6 over 115 times - compared to only 11 times EVER since 1950.

What Sanders left out is that the U6 numbers will always be higher and that 10.5% is not comparable to the government numbers. Even still, that 10.5% is the lowest it's been since July, 2008, which shows that even in the U6 numbers we're seeing great progress.

In January, U6 was at 11.3 - we've dropped nearly a point in six or so months. By the end of the year, we'll be below 10% for the first time since May, 2008.

The trend is there - even if Sanders doesn't want to believe it. But it's also disingenuous to cite U6 numbers in comparison to numbers released by the government. 10% for U6 is not the same as 10% by the government's numbers. It's far normal.

He's always doing something like that.

Good thing he didn't mention how much lower salaries are compared to a few years ago. Right??

You have no real response because what that DUer said is 100% accurate.

Well done, DI!

Tried to stay out of stuff in this crazy forum.

I am so tired of the gloating, of the condescension toward Bernie's supporters.

It's hurting all of us.

So why does it matter if I try to stay positive.

There is nothing to post that someone doesn't jump on.

SO...we'll see if I keep my resolution. I rather doubt it after this spell of gloating.

What on Earth are you going on about?

I vowed not to go negative, not to give my honest pov about such issues as Iraq, TPP...long list.

But no one else is holding back on anything.

It's bait bait bait each other.

Lots of us are trying to be keep it positive. Doesn't matter at all.

Not sure why you seem so offended.

"What on Earth are you going on about? "

unlike eg, Germany, unemployment figures are based ONLY on those who are still collecting unemployment. Did something change where we are supposed to develop amnesia about this FACT?

I imagine the forgotten ones who haven't been counted might be saying thank you Bernie.

I would think.

It's the straight truth from him again, and it's too much for some to handle.

statistic to him, or worse, a statistic that should be hidden away.

Let them keep on doing this. It helps Bernie even more.

Some people are not noticing the sea change that is occurring, not just here in this country but Globally.

But that's fine too because it means they will keep on doing what USED to work when people had not yet felt the full impact of the policies of the past few decades.

But that is no longer the case, people have seen the effects of these policies and when they hear politicians and their supporters refuse to acknowledge, eg, the real unemployment numbers, they get ANGRY.

All over DU we lamented on this very fact (i.e. that Bush was undercounting unemployment by not using U6). U6 is what accurately depicts unemployment. I have NO idea why some on DU are not on board with that. As you said, when Bush was Pretzeldent we ALL pointed out that U6 was the metric that should be used.

Just because someone falls off the unemployment rolls and is no longer collecting unemployment it does not mean that they are no longer unemployed. That's the propaganda meant to hide the reality. And, some DU'ers seem very willing to go along with this. I really don't get it.

Bernie is telling the damn truth.

look good.

But what I am beginning to see on OUR side of the aisle, is disturbing frankly.

We are supposed to be the party of the people. Anyone concerned about people would not go into defensive mode when they see that a lot of Americans are still unemployed. They would not try to deny it. They would actually be concerned that so many people are out of work.

I know this is a fact because I know some of those people. To be out of work when you have a family to take care of is something no one wants to even think of. It is as Gandhi said, 'brutal'. Poverty is Brutal. And all I can think when I see THAT being ignored by people rushing to defend something OTHER than those who are in that awful position is 'what happened to our party'?

And then I think of how differently Bernie Sanders looks at these issues. He KNOWS those numbers are PEOPLE, not about POLITICIANS and he cares about them.

And that is why and increasing numbers of Americans support him.

the discussion about the U6 never came up in the media. It is only now that a Democrat is in office that the press even mentions U6. And is everyday fodder on Fux and talk radio, where I contend it never got a mention under George Derrrr Bush.

The reason some here don't like all this U6 talk is that there has ALWAYS been a U6, only in recent years has it been annoyingly brought to the attention of everyone. And for one reason and one reason only, to make President Obama's steady leadership look not quite as good as it truly is. Pure and simple.

The fact that Bernie is expounding on the same U6 canard is his business, but don't expect it to go unnoticed.

But let's not pretend that UE3 has been the more traditionally followed metric.

And let's also not pretend that UE3 and UE6 are not almost perfectly correlated, which means no matter which metric you use, the trend line is almost exactly the same. And in discussing UE, the trend is critical.

My guess is Bernie know liberals understand this, but that republicans don't . And he's talking to them.

is doing so well in just two months because while you may view people as mere statistics, those 'metrics' as you call them are real people and they are out there looking for a candidate who isn't more concerned about how the facts might affect their politics, but who KNOWS they are people and who knows many of THEM because he TALKS to them.

You can't talk to a metric.

People out of work are people out of work and there in need to discuss how to use those facts to best advantage of any political figure.

And that is what is wrong with our politics, and the reason why so many PEOPLE don't even bother to vote anymore, because they feel they do not COUNT to politicians.

On the good side all this is helping Bernie, when we point to this kind attitude towards human beings where they are 'categorized' and packaged in little boxes for the purpose, as we knew during the Bush era, of trying to make politicians look as good as possible, they simply say 'so what else is new' UNTIL we tell them about Bernie and show them the difference in someone who not only cares, but who has long, long record to prove it.

So far I have signed up a few people who haven't voted in years. For the first time they are excited that maybe at last they have found someone who actually does care about the people.

And when a politician fools around, and switches which metrics they want to use to measure ANY aspect if the economy, that CONFUSES people ... and THAT is one of the things that is wrong with today's politics.

The RW has consistently played a game with these metrics.

They want to use UE3 when they are in power, and UE6 when they are out of power ... and they hope Americans are too stupid to notice.

I don't care which metric Bernie uses when he talks about UE ... but he needs to be very clear about which metric he is using and why he's using it.

Hell ... earlier YOU claimed UE3 is some how "fudged" ... which is nonsense. UE3 and UE6 have different definitions (each of which is useful), and these metrics have been collected and reported by the government the exact same way for decades.

And these metrics are almost perfectly correlated. Which means the trend for one is almost identical to the trend for the other. Which means no matter which of these measures you use ... the rate of improvement has been the same.

And to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

I don't care what metrics the government uses, the question was 'is Bernie correct regarding 10% of Americans being out out of work.

The number 10% is MEANINGLESS unless you know whether its represents an historically HIGH or LOW value for the metric you are referring to.

Historically speaking ... 10% is very high if we're talking about UE3 ... it is not very high if we are talking about UE6.

And this is why you have to be very clear which metric you are using, and where the current value sits from a historical perspective.

UE3 and UE6 are almost perfectly correlated.

The idea that either measure is "fudging" is ridiculous.

UE3 has been the primary measure used for decades. Bush did not invent it, nor did he select it.

If you want to use UE6, that's fine, but then you have to look at hie it has trended historically if you want to use it to assess progress from date A to date B.

To not do so is an attempt to confuse people who dont understand the metrics to begin with.

Because that FACT is laughably wrong. Unemployment is based on household surveys that ask whether you are working, or want to work but lack a job. You are not even asked about benefit status and UE benefits are not even handled by the same department.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

know since you were not here. I stated a FACT which is that during the Bush years Democrats here and on most Democratic forums were outraged at the Bush administration for using only the numbers that reflect those who are still on unemployment. Do not call someone a liar unless you can prove it and even then it isn't a good idea.

The facts are posted here in another OP. Posted by a long time DUer with links and facts to back up her position, giving her the credibility one gets when they post civilly with links and with facts.

"..unlike eg, Germany, unemployment figures are based ONLY on those who are still collecting unemployment. Did something change where we are supposed to develop amnesia about this FACT?"

That's a bullshit lie. Intentional from you personally? I have no clue. It's very plausible you were lied to and just believed it.

But it's still a bullshit lie, as I PROVED. With links. From the people who produce the numbers.

You have zero credibility now which is what happens when you engage in such tactics.

You should learn the facts and issue a mea culpa.

whatthehey was not very delicate, but the facts are 100% on his side, read the BLS link, not some random garbage article someone posted here years ago.

Only marginal outlets would ever mention the U6 numbers when Bush was president. The only time U6 got a lot of play was in 2009 - when Obama became president. Why? Because the U6 numbers for most of Bush's presidency were around the levels they were when Clinton left office - except for a brief period of time around the 2001 recession where they rose into the 10s.

wrong when you say this wasn't a big issue when Bush was in the WH, it was a huge issue which I know because I participated in discussions and was personally outraged that other nations count ALL those who are unemployed and do not just count those who are still eligible for unemployment insurace.

YOU may not have been aware of the outrage but everywhere I went on Dem forums this was a big issue and that is where I learned of how other countries calculate their real unemployment.

I wanted then and I want the same thing now, every PERSON who is out of work to be counted into the unemployment figures, it is reprehensible that we use a system that covers up the real numbers which makes it less likely that anything is going to be done about. And for me it has zero to do with any politician, it has to do with the PEOPLE who are suffering and so are their families, and if politics isn't about people, then what are we doing being involved? I'm not involved in politics for any particular politician most of whom are doing just fine. I'm involved because of the people all this is supposed to be about.

Math is hard!!!!

Not now, and not during the Bush administration. All six measures of labor underutilization are based on Current Population Survey, which is a joint venture between the Census and BLS, and includes 60,000 households each month.

Here is a brief description of each measure below:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

Basically you are counted in the U3 unemployment rate if you report that you are not working, but you sought out or searched for work during that month.

U6 is produced by the same people that produce U3. They also produce U1, U2, U4, and U5, but those don't get much attention.

exported for profit while Americans remain unemployed.

Thank the gods someone is finally talking about it. Maybe, just maybe, if enough people talk about it, something will be done about it.

If you don't include those elements, you are more than likely trying to deceive people.

The RW likes to use UE6 because they hope people will confuse it with the more traditional UE3.

If Bernie wants to use UE6 he needs to put it in a larger context including its historical trend and it's near perfect correlation with UE3.

and also both lower than the historical norm and much much lower than the recession peak? OK. So what?

All the third way globalism free trade usual suspects in one thread...how coincidental they all support HRC as well.

He mentions the forgotten unemployed.

We used to discuss this issue at DU in post years all the time....and I do not recall such bitterness directed at politicians or the poster.

and actually lower than it was in 1994..

... than Gore in 2000 ignoring Clintons recovery and feeding into winger memes about the economy.

The economy is horrible is a winger meme and ignores progress Obama made in fixing conservative econ policy fuck ups