Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Real US unemployment rate at 16 pct: Fed official

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:29 AM
Original message
Real US unemployment rate at 16 pct: Fed official
Edited on Thu Aug-27-09 11:44 AM by Purveyor
The real US unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday. "If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart. He underscored that he was expressing his own views, which did "do not necessarily reflect those of my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee," the policy-setting body of the central bank.

Lockhart pointed out in a speech to a chamber of commerce in Chattanooga, Tennessee that those two categories of people are not taken into account in the Labor Department's monthly report on the unemployment rate. The official July jobless rate was 9.4 percent.

Lockhart, who heads the Atlanta, Georgia, division of the Fed, is the first central bank official to acknowledge the depth of unemployment amid the worst US recession since the Great Depression.

Lockhart said the US economy was improving but "still fragile," and the beginning stages of a sluggish recovery were underway.

"My forecast for a slow recovery implies a protracted period of high unemployment," he said, adding that it would be difficult to stimulate jobs through additional public spending.

"Further fiscal stimulus has been mentioned, but the full effects of the first stimulus package are not yet clear, and the concern over adding to the federal deficit and the resulting national debt is warranted," he said.

More...

AFP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090826/ts_alt_afp/useconomyrecessionunemploymentbank
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sorry Breitbart. You do not get to measure unemployment one way for Bush and Reagan and another way
for Obama, much as you would like to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yep... isn't it funny how they suddenly get all open about this stuff
when the Dems are in charge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Breitbart is down there with Drudge. WTF anyone links to him is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I sure don't see a need for it.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Well fine then. I edited the link to take all to Yahoo News for this AFP aritcle so now you can
quit your fucking whining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. U6
Unemployment, by this standard, probably hasn't been in single digits for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. You knew the conservatives would try to do that though.
All of a sudden they care about real unemployment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. Only matters if you are going to use the "real" numbers when looking at Bush's term....
...and all past terms.


You have to use the same numbers all the time, or they mean nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theothersnippywshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-27-09 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. During the Reagan recession U6 would have been over 25%.
. . .

Not only is the unemployment rate set to rise significantly heading into <2009>, we are either already at or close to setting records for the number of workers working part time not by choice as employment conditions erode rapidly. Those who are working part time for economic reasons jumped to 6.70 million last month, close to the 6.86 million record in 1982. Those who are working part time due to slack business conditions reached a new record of 4.73 million. While these numbers are alarming, they are absolute numbers and don’t take into account a growing work force. Taking the absolute numbers of workers working part time as a percent of total employment shows an alarming trend, though still below record levels seen over the past half century.





Summing up the three categories to measure the total number of part time workers shows that we are nearing the all-time high of 13.3 million people working part time because there are not full employment opportunities available. On a relative basis as a percentage of total employment, we are still significantly below the peak of 15.2% set in 1982.

. . .

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/cpuplava/2008/1126.html (emphasis added)

U3 during the Reagan recession reached over 10%. That figure plus the 15.2% part time figure plus the discouraged workers percentage would equal the U6 figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC