What is the commonality of these three numerical representations? 10.2%, 190,000, and 1%

[Stinky The Clown]

10.2% is the current unemployment rate. Numerically, that is the highest since the 70s. That said, pretty much every administration since then has screwed around with their definition of "unemployment". Most wrongheaded of all the diddling with the numbers is excluding the "chronically" unemployed, who are just people who have run through every last nickle available from the social safety net and are now just plain fucked. They also fail to count the underemployed. I think every part timer who wants to be full time, and every person working for a temp agency, ought to be counted as **at least* a half point. I think *real* unemployment is north of 20%.

190,000 is the number of jobs lost this past month. They join the TWENTY MILLION PLUS jobs lost through this debacle, which started and gathered momentum under the REPUBICANS. Our fault in it all is the course we're sailing with the Goldman Sachsers in charge. It is my firm belief that Obama is getting some very bad advice from Geithner and Summers.

1% - that is the percentage of the COUNTRY's GDP that is the equivalent of what will be paid in BONUSES to a few thousand lucky motherfuckers who work for the BIG BANKS.

All the above as we hear that the recession (Great Depression II, in my view) is over.

[Birthmark]

1. Minor point

Unemployment was last 10.2% was in 1983 actually. That doesn't change your point one bit though.

[Jim__]

2. The government does publish alternative unemployment numbers.

here.

10.2 is the U3 number. The highest number they compute is U6 - 17.5% for October.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. I'd be much happier if they were honest and used the U-6 number

What I **really** want to see is the U-7. We all know there's a U-7. They just don't admit it.