Unemployment rate hocus-pocus (cartoon)

[marmar]

http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/unemployment_20150605

[DCBob]

1. Haven't there always been "hidden" unemployed??

[Democat]

2. No, everything bad started when Obama became president

Look around DU, it's all Obama's fault.

[brush]

3. You forgot the sarcasm gif, right? nt

[DCBob]

4. Seems alot of people want to change the way we calculate unemployment now.

Its been fine for the past several decades.. but now that President Obama has scratched and clawed this country's economy back to something reasonable they want to change the metrics so it looks bad.

[raouldukelives]

17. I don't know who those people are.

But I have personally been complaining about the way they determine unemployment rates for over a decade.

And not just unemployment rates. Seems like if there is an economic statistic that can be skewed towards rosier sunrises, they will skew it. A little nudge here, a slight massage there, a little rounding up and voila, "What? Me worry?"

If we say there is low unemployment, or minimal inflation, when people can plainly see it is an issue. That doesn't make us clever. That makes us afraid to observe ourselves honestly. Once we lose that, we can never truly address the problems we face. Just continually kicking the can down the road.

I can see how some would notice it now though, facing unemployment levels not seen since the great depression will bring that out of folks. As for our enemies, they will latch onto anything to diminish our President, even using their own past failures against him.

We all need to grow up and start facing reality. Not solely for the betterment of ourselves, but for the betterment of all who come after.

[DCBob]

18. I think its simply a very difficult number to determine accurately.

They try their best but its always going to be off one way or the other. To me the only thing significant are the trends up or down and comparisons to past levels.

For sure there are big problems in certain parts of the country but overall the trend is up. That doesn't mean we should ignore the places with problems but it also doesn't mean we should ignore where things are going well.

[CrispyQ]

23. Infaltion rates that don't include food or energy,

the two things we all use every day & that constantly go up. I don't care that washing machines have only gone up 2% over the past 10 years. I do care that bread goes up another 10-25¢ per week. I used to pay $2.55 for Rudi's Organic Rye bread. It's now almost $6! I've learned to bake my own bread. It's not as good - I'm not a good baker - but I can buy a 5 pound bag of organic flour for less than a loaf of bread.

Good grief.

[raouldukelives]

39. Crazy, right? And yet, they always seem to be telling us to live in reality. Yikes! nt

[Recursion]

41. Yes, the CPI includes food and energy. I wish this zombie would die

The "core" CPI excludes food and energy, but that's not what's used to calculate benefits. The CPI-U includes food and energy.

[nxylas]

5. The cartoon never even mentioned Obama

Not everything is about the president.

[DCBob]

7. It suggests the government is not taking into account the millions of "hidden" unemployed.

[nxylas]

14. Which is true

It doesn't say anything about it being unique to the current administration.

[DCBob]

15. Well, did this cartoon ever run prior to the current administration?

I doubt it.

[nxylas]

19. But that's pretty circumstantial evidence

There's a big difference between "Barack Obama was president when this cartoon ran" and "this cartoon blames President Obama for the difference between the official unemployment figure and the real one". I don't know what was going through the cartoonist's mind when he drew it. It may be that he has a long history of ODS and of blaming Obama for everything. But based purely on the evidence of this cartoon, I don't see any specific attack on Obama in there.

[Pooka Fey]

20. You mean did it run before 2015, 7 years after the 2008 financial crises, right?

Why would it have?

[SCVDem]

12. After six years of Obama Derangement Syndrome,

it has become a Pavlovian response. That really sucks .

On the upside, even the Prez has used that line in his speeches. Thanks Obama!

(I just noticed the smilie's mouth. It's saying Thanks Obama!)

[MADem]

28. The cartoonist's work is regularly featured at Townhall.com

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/ericallie/

All I can say is "Consider the source."

[nxylas]

31. Well, that changes things

I was considering the cartoon in isolation, but obviously, context is everything.

[CrispyQ]

24. DU didn't trust unemployment figures back when Bush was prez.

Why would we believe them now?

[awoke_in_2003]

26. The way it is tallied

started under Clinton and has continued since.

[Luminous Animal]

35. No. it started under JFK. Then Reagan took it several steps further. Then Clinton.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. Thanks, didn't know it went back that far....

the official rate of inflation is another scam number the government likes to toss out there.

[Luminous Animal]

37. JFK removed "discouraged workers" from unemployment figures in 1961.

Clinton removed them from the labor force altogether.

[Luminous Animal]

33. I've been complaining since Reagan. Though, since JFK, the govt. has been fudging the numbers.

Just tell us the damn truth.

[BuelahWitch]

38. Thanks for the info

I was going to blame Reagan. Had no idea it went back over 50 years.

[jwirr]

21. Of course - for instance - when they tell us that the rate is "5.5 percent" that is overall - it

hides the real rate in chronically unemployment areas such as the inner cities and reservations. That is the point of the cartoon. And it does not help us understand a damned thing about what is really going on or what is needed.

Imagine you are one of the 1% and you see the "5.5" stat. To you it looks good and you wonder what all the hype is about no jobs. After all the unemployment rate is no different than it was back in the 60s. Things were good then - what are they complaining about now?

IMO we should never use an overall figure for unemployment. Jobs need to be targeted to some areas regardless what the overall stat says. We do not do that and what has happened is that the New Deal never reached many of these areas. It has allowed some areas to thrive while other areas are ignored.

[hifiguy]

30. Yes, but not to the extent there are today.

And when did the books start getting cooked as to what the REAL unemployment rate is? Under King Ronald the Simple of course.. Need you ask?

[DCBob]

32. Yes, I am sure it worse today than before..

but it still existed and it was just a big problem for those affected.

[Luminous Animal]

34. Nop. Started with JFK who removed discouraged workers in 1961. But Reagan did more to fudge the

numbers and it is largely his legacy we live with today.

[Gothmog]

6. Great cartoon

[SmittynMo]

8. I am one of those shadows at the end of the line.

Once you're over 45-55, look out.

[DCBob]

9. Sorry to hear that.. I was almost there too being an IT guy in mid 50's.

Fortunately I got rehired by a company that I worked for before and knew me well. I am sure you know this but connections are everything nowadays. Old colleagues who are still working are good resources.

[SheilaT]

10. The official unemployment rate almost always

undercounts real unemployment, as those who are no longer working for work aren't included.

But there are also those who vastly overstate the "real" unemployment rate.

[Recursion]

42. Those who aren't looking for work are counted, in the U-4, and it's 0.5% of the population

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026709772

The U-3 is people looking for work, and it's 5.4%. The U-4 is the U-3 plus those who have stopped looking for work, and it's 5.9%.

[Pooka Fey]

11. K&R

[Agony]

13. We need a policy of full employment

using the Federal government as the employer of last resort.

[relrod]

40. There will NEVER be 'full employment'!

This is because of something we call 'disability'. I am one of those that are disabled. Now, before you start ranting on and on, I am legally disabled due to a fractured disc in my back, causing a pinched nerve, mild autism and fibromyalgia.

[uppityperson]

43. Full employment for those able to work.

[Cryptoad]

16. Toon shows,,,,

a total ignorance of what and how these terms are computed. Think I saw this toon on a Right wing site somewhere,,,,, they loved it!

[MADem]

29. You did--see post 28! nt

[Rex]

22. Homeless rate...er um sputter...FREEDOM! AMERICA! WE'RE NUMBER #1!!!!

Sad.

[whatthehey]

25. Of course suggested alternatives are either a) already given or b) fucking stupid

What about people whose benefits have run out? Already in the headline declining U3 if looking for work just once in a month. Benefits have ZERO ZIP NADA impact on being counted in any U- rate.

What about people who have to work part time? Already covered in U6, also declining.

What about people who haven't looked in a couple months for contrived extreme "reason" X, Y, Z? Already covered in U5, also declining.

What about people who haven't looked in a year? They are not fucking unemployed workers, they have not the slightest interest in working. If you can't get off your arse to apply once in a whole fucking year what's the difference between you and a non-worker like a homemaker by choice or a trust fund dilettante? If you make not a single effort to find work in a whole year how can you in any sense claim to want to, and be able to, work (I'm sure many profoundly disabled folks want to work,but just can't, and they are thus not unemployed workers either, but out of the workforce entirely)? There are no jobs? Bullshit - there are over 5 million openings. You might have to find something else to do other than underwater welding in Boise ID, but that doesn't mean there are no jobs, just no jobs that fit your narrow self-imposed limitations. I'm not doing the kind of work I started doing, or in the same state I started in. There is no immutable right to the same career in the same town if you really want a job.

What about the LFPR! That proves it's all smoke and mirrors! Except the LFPR is based on anyone out of jail or the military who is over 16, two years before graduating HS, with no upper limit. More kids stay in school? Good thing, but LFPR goes down. More go to college? Ditto. More people hit retirement (gosh that's a surprise 60-odd years after a massive baby boom eh)? Yep LFPR goes down. Those darned 68 year old retired ironworkers with decent pensions but pain-wracked bodies are really unemployed? They should be working or looking for it? Few would say so but they are in that LFPR just like my 80-something Emeritus Prof father in law who retired a decade or more ago. He is shadow unemployed? Like hell.


Oh and I notice the old canard about "seasonal adjustments are just manipulations to make things look better" isn't coming up much now the unadjusted rate is lower. It's OK doomers, come winter you can start using that bullshit again too.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

27. K&R