MSNBC says unemployement lowest ever! lol

[WLKjr]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11159680/


up is down and left is right.

Didn't ford and GM just lay off a, I don't know a 5 digit number of employees? how many other companies have folded along with them since 2001?

[wicket]

1. GM & Ford layed off 30,000 workers each

God the corporate media makes me so sick :puke:

[calico1]

10. And don't forget Kraft. n/t

[unblock]

2. i don't know if anyone's actually been laid off YET

they announce plans to lay off over the course of the next 6 years; i don't know the exact schedule. i'd guess that union agreements require some lead time.

[AX10]

3. people are settling for less.

.

[kentuck]

4. If you can't sign up for unemployment, you don't exist. ..

Therefore, you are not unemployed.

[brmdp3123]

6. True, but that's nothing new.

[berni_mccoy]

5. Please correct your subject line

It doesn't say lowest ever, it says lowest since July 2001.

But you are right... They are WAY OFF BASE.

Read my analysis on the TRUE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=105343

[WCGreen]

7. Those lay offs won't be completed until 2008....

And the Labor Department has been doing a lot of adjusting to the numbers...

The economy has to produce 155k jobs per month, every month in order to keep even with the increase in population...

They have been playing with the control number since 2001....

[Skidmore]

8. When the bloated media start losing their jobs the tune will change.

I keep telling people do not purchase entertainment from them. No DVD, CDs, etc. for a while. The entertaiment segment of the business keeps the news section in business. Drain the swamp.

[Yollam]

9. Because unemployment extensions are a thing of the past...

...and millions have just given up, and either dropped out of the work force, or taken crap jobs at Wally World.

When the Wal-Mart opened in Oakland last year, there were 400 openings for low-wage slaves, and there were 11,000 Occupants!

To me, that totally exposes the lies that a) the employment situation is great and b) "blacks don't want to work".

:mad:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/17/MNGDPE91AH1.DTL



Melvin Brown, who's been out of work for six months, dropped off an application at the new Wal-Mart store. "You start low and aim high," he said. Chronicle photo by Eric Luse

[MadHound]

11. As a public service announcement, here is how umemployment is computed.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does a phone survey of 60,000 households each month. Here, in essence, is how the survey goes. "Are you employed ten hours or more a week?" If the answer is yes, you are tallied onto the "employed" side of the ledger. If the answer is "No", a followup question is asked; "Are you actively looking for work?" If you answer yes, you are tallied onto the "unemployed" side of the ledger. If you answer no, you are not tallied at all, and the survey is ended.

There are several problems with this methodology, but a couple of the more significant ones are this. What is the one of the first things to go when you are unemployed and short on cash? The utilities, and generally the phone goes first. This leads to a significant undercounting of the unemployed, in and of itself. Also amongst the poor, where most unemployment exists, a phone is considered a luxury in many households. Again, this leads to some severe undercounting. And quite frankly, who in the hell can live on a ten, fifteen, twenty hour a week job? That's not employed, that's underemployed. In addition, presidents and others have played numbers games with the unemployment figures all to boost their own political careers. One of the more notorious instances was when Reagan decided to start counting all military people as employed. Talk about skewing the numbers.

Various honest experts on this subject estimate that we're undercounting the unemployed by at least 1.5%, and probably much more. It is time that we demanded real accounting and real numbers from our leaders. Sadly, with both sides having a vested interest in keeping the numbers artificially low, we're not going to get them.

[nickinSTL]

16. so...if you're not actively looking for work,

you're not unemployed?

What about those who spent THREE YEARS actively looking, got NOTHING...and are still unemployed after FIVE YEARS?

My fiancee fits this description, and she's damn well unemployed, regardless of the fact that it's pretty f*ing difficult to keep motivated to look actively for FIVE YEARS!

She was a computer programmer, was fired from her last 2 jobs (for completely bogus reasons) - and hasn't been able to get work since. Wally World-like jobs won't hire her because she's "overqualified", and programming jobs won't hire her because 1. she was fired 2x and 2. she hasn't worked in 5 years.

Sorry about the rant, but this crap p!$$#$ me OFF! :mad:

:rant:

[MadHound]

17. Yep, you've got it

If you aren't looking for work, you are not unemployed, you're not employed, you are simply not counted. Lovely, just lovely, eh?:eyes:

I don't blame you for ranting, I rant about lots of this shit also. Government numbers are, for the most part, a shell game. And when you do find out what the real numbers are, you're simply appalled. For instance, did you know that we are now paying fifteen percent of our annual GDP simply to pay the interest due on our debt. Just the interest, nothing on the principle. Country's headed over the cliff with this one.

And don't get me started on the "magic" that they use to figure out the Consumer Price Index, ie inflation. You wanna talk shell games, there's one right there:eyes: This whole "core inflation" concept was simply inserted a couple of decades ago to keep people from getting restless. Yeah, take out "volitile food and energy prices" and everything's just hunky dory. Trouble is, food and energy are vital to our survival in this country.:grr:

[hatrack]

22. I do a lot of job and employment-related number crunching in my job

For our metro area, which has about 1.9 million residents, total net job growth - that is, total net growth of the work force - from 2000 to 2004 was 0.65%.

Oh, and just last week, new numbers came out. For all of 2005, the same region created 5,100 net new jobs.

What was it Elaine Chao said today about the "fairy-tale economy"? She sure got that right.

[Gabi Hayes]

12. that's NOTHING....look at this

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19286

25 THOUSAND applicants for 325 jobs in Evergreen Park, IL

[smartvoter]

13. That's not what they said. Plus under the math, it's all bogus anyway.nt

[Mythsaje]

14. I just received notice of termination today...

And filed for Unenjoyment as soon as I got home.

I have an interview somewhere else this afternoon, but...well...

I think they're full of shit.

[chelsea0011]

15. I had to sit through Faux News while waiting for my car to be repaired and

they reported that the unemployment rate WASN'T 4.9% but that the employment rate is 95.1% for "people who want to work". So this must mean that the 41% postive poll numbers for Bush will now be refered to has the 59% can't stand Bush numbers. Maybe not.

[Luke21]

18. I want to puke

...every time I hear about this great old economy. Working people are having a heckuva time. Gas prices and inflation every time I go to the store remind me of the Ford/Carter years.

[BushOut06]

19. Those numbers dont' count yet

Let's see how the unemployment figures are for the next quarter. Plus, when your unemployment benefits run out, regardless of if you have a job or not, you no longer count in those figures.

[lpbk2713]

20. Hundreds of thousands of workers' unemployment benefits

(perhaps millions) have expired while they have been looking for work with no success. They are not included in the statistics as "unemployed". Many others have given up on looking for meaningful work and they aren't counted either.

It's all smoke and mirrors. One big damn shell game.


It's the same old rethug mindset. As long as everything is alright with them personally, then everything is alright with the whole world.

[AllegroRondo]

21. which is why 24,000 people applied for 350 jobs at a new Wal Mart

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html

[leesa]

23. They have to get the headlines out quick before all those just laid-off

file. How bout those 20,000+ applying for the 250+ WalMart jobs outside of Chocago?

[DELUSIONAL]

24. 1984 -- Those who collect the numbers and control the numbers

can control the message.

Probably just another fabrication in a long line of fabrications.