Unemployment under Bush at record lows? Why do I doubt this?

Probably because it's coming from some dittohead on Usenet, but I'd like to hit back at him with the facts. I seem to recall the definition for "unemployment" being changed in such a way that it makes the numbers under Bush look better. Can anybody help?

And it's not worker's comp, but I can't think it what it is - whatever the payment for unemployment is.

The national unemployment figure only counts those who are collecting - or so I've been told, anyway. I can't back that up with any footnotes or proof.

So, a scrupulous and good president will try to lower unemployment by getting people jobs.

A jackass unscrupulous president, like we have now, or Reagan, will lower the unemployment figure by making it damn near impossible to collect unemployment, and then cutting it off as quickly as possible for the lucky few who DO get it.

People have been unemployed so long they are dropping off the rolls.

How can unempoyment be down when homelessness--look around you--is booming like it's 1983 all over again?

But - there certainly have been some unscrupulous means to make this look better.

Seems I remember a discussion a couple of years ago indicating the use of seasonally-adjusted numbers - or perhaps just the opposite - as one way to make the numbers look more favorable to junior and his band of cretins.

Of course there is also the loss of high-tech jobs being replaced by service industry jobs. And it seems service industry jobs have increased, so the numbers look positive, but the middle-class screwing is completely hidden in this statistic.

unemployment benefits - you know, you can only collect unemployment benefits for so long. Once you have used all those up, you are dropped from their list. You are still unemployed, you just are no longer counted.

for the entire Bush presidency? There is a difference between "unemployment under Bush at record low" and "unemployment, under Bush, at record low".

People who lost good paying jobs have had to replace them with much lower paying jobs.

It is entirely possible for the number of jobs to be greater than the number of workers. By one means of calculation, thet means that Bush may actually bring about negative unemployment. And people will still be starving.

because their benefits/compensations have run out. Therefore, they are not counted in the published numbers.

some reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

And this site:
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=341

As comparative to the US gov't site:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

They stopped using traditional methods of measuring employment and started using the, "household survey," because of reasons stated above, it doesnt account for things like businesses folding, employees dying or peoples benifits running out. It doesnt rely on hard data, instead using a survey.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Using this method under Clinton would have shown unemployment in the minus range. It's all a frigging game.

Someone who used to make $90-100K as a programmer now making 1/3 - 1/2 that in some other position is counted as employed.

Those two stats would sure be telling.

The numbers counted are different than they used to be. So, it's only a record low based upon this new counting. If other periods were counted the same way, it would be nowhere near a record low. The datasets are different, so the statistical comparison is invalid.
The Professor

I think he did, and this has made the picture seem better than it really is. And as others have said, many have just dropped off the radar screen becuase they are no longer collecting unemployment. When the money stops, they no longer count you as unemployed. You just no longer matter.

Also, a lot of people have taken part time and lower quality/lower paying jobs just to try to make ends meet. The true compass of the employment situation in America would be the overall number of people actually working full time, and whether or not those jobs were minimum wage/no benefit vs. well paying with benefits.

Overall, the quality of jobs in America has suffered under Bush. (Big surprise, huh?) I saw a good article about this, I'll see if I can find it and post it here if I can. I think I have it saved on another computer that I can check this afternoon.

Depends on the meaning of the word "Job."

:crazy:

if your business tanks you can't apply for unemployment.

Under Clinton, the rate got as low as 3.8% for one month (April 2000) and was under 4.0% for four straight from Sept 2000 to Dec 2000. Unemployment under Bush has never gotten beneath 4.0%

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

I seem to recall a Bush program where an out of work person would accept funds to retrain and job hunt but doing so effectively booted him from the Unemployment Compensation system for life. I assume that would also make him a non-statistic for life.

If you have a BA in management but could only find a job as a janitor, you're considered "employed." You are not considered "unemployed," and the government doesn't track people who are "underemployed."

If your unemployment compensation runs out, you drop off the unemployment rolls.

If you are a "discouraged" worker who stopped looking for work but are capable and willing to work, you also drop off the unemployment rolls.

If you counted as unemployed workers whose compensation ran out in addition to discouraged workers, the way the government used to count the unemployed before 1960, you're probably looking at 12 percent unemployment.

In a good economy, unemployment is probably around 7 to 9 percent. I'm talking about the old definition of unemployment, not what the government defines as unemployment today.

Fast food or Convenience store work for minimum wage. Y'all can live on that'! Can't you?

as reported under "hidden unemployment" in the NYT.

Includes 3 categories, the fake number we see on TV, plus those dropped from unemployment insurance rolls plus part-time (no benefit) workers who need a FT job.

13.8% of American adults are seeking a full-time job.

The Enron-style accounting of Bushco is a fraud.

People who used to work in manufacturing at a decent wage are now flipping burgers. (And, wouldn't you know, under Busho the production of of Mickey D's burgers has now been dubbed "manufacturing.")

I think their figures and our figures are roughly equal in their soundness and reliability.

IIRC, payroll reports usually overstate unemployment since they don't quickly and easily include the self-employed, and the monthly numbers often have to be adjusted as the quarterly or half-year reports from smaller employers come in.

The household survey usually, IIRC, understates unemployment, although I don't know or recall why. But it includes the self-employed.