PDA

View Full Version : Real Unemployment at 15 Percent



mikesilvia
08-05-2012, 11:29 AM
Some interesting numbers rarely reported.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/03/breaking_unemployment_rate_increases_to_83_percent _real_unemployment_at_15_percent

habsheaven
08-05-2012, 12:34 PM
They are rarely reported because they are much harder to calculate with any certainty. What was the "real" unemployment rate in 2008?

shrewsbury
08-05-2012, 12:39 PM
habs, really, there are less americans working and more americans that came into the work force, it is obvious no matter what fuzzy math anyone uses, less americans are working

mikesilvia
08-05-2012, 12:44 PM
They are rarely reported because they are much harder to calculate with any certainty. What was the "real" unemployment rate in 2008?

The record is skipping. That tired old #1 hit from 2008 "Blame Bush". It's 2012, but feel free to look up the 2008 numbers and post them here.

I feel like I could be walking down the street with some people, point to a car accident with a women screaming for help and some people would start telling a story about a car accident four years ago while ignoring the screaming women.

Wickabee
08-05-2012, 01:33 PM
...and here we have yet ANOTHER set of numbers.

You guys should all get together and figure your story out before you start telling it. I haven't heard the same numbers twice yet.

mikesilvia
08-05-2012, 01:56 PM
...and here we have yet ANOTHER set of numbers.

You guys should all get together and figure your story out before you start telling it. I haven't heard the same numbers twice yet.

Are you only tired of hearing the numbers because of Obama is in office? I had the hear negative numbers twice a minute when Bush was in office.

Wickabee
08-05-2012, 02:38 PM
Are you only tired of hearing the numbers because of Obama is in office? I had the hear negative numbers twice a minute when Bush was in office.

No, I want the same numbers, which actually add up, more than once. Every other post it's a whole new set of numbers. When it's pointed out those numbers don't add up, a brand new set of numbers is trotted out.
I'm not sick of hearing numbers. Far from it I want to hear the numbers. But when you trot out a new set to prove your point so constantly, I can't believe any of your numbers. So go back, figure out what numbers you want to go with and what equation to put them into and get back to me. It has nothing to do with Obama, don't be silly.

mikesilvia
08-05-2012, 09:38 PM
But when you trot out a new set to prove your point so constantly, I can't believe any of your numbers. So go back, figure out what numbers you want to go with and what equation to put them into and get back to me. It has nothing to do with Obama, don't be silly.

I'm not your errand boy. If I post facts with numbers and you don't believe them, then that's your problem, not mine.

shrewsbury
08-05-2012, 09:53 PM
habs, i stated 8.4 in the other thread, this one says 8.3, can't I get a little wiggle room, mine was off the top of my head.

there are less jobs and less people working, what else do you want for facts?

Wickabee
08-05-2012, 10:16 PM
I'm not your errand boy. If I post facts with numbers and you don't believe them, then that's your problem, not mine.

Your numbers haven't been the same twice yet. Come up with one set of numbers leading to one sum and I'm happy. It's not that I don't believe you, gimme a break, I can not figure out which set of numbers to go by since you and your compatriots are throwing ariund dozens of numbers and equations. Come up with one set of numbers in one equation. I'd like to believe you guys but whose numbers should I go by and which set of those?

habsheaven
08-05-2012, 11:51 PM
The record is skipping. That tired old #1 hit from 2008 "Blame Bush". It's 2012, but feel free to look up the 2008 numbers and post them here.

I feel like I could be walking down the street with some people, point to a car accident with a women screaming for help and some people would start telling a story about a car accident four years ago while ignoring the screaming women.

I am not blaming Bush. I picked 2008 because it is before Obama. My point being; when did people start paying any attention to the "real" unemployment rate?

habsheaven
08-06-2012, 12:02 AM
habs, i stated 8.4 in the other thread, this one says 8.3, can't I get a little wiggle room, mine was off the top of my head.

there are less jobs and less people working, what else do you want for facts?

Not sure we are on the same wavelength here. This article says the official rate is 8.3% but the "real" rate is 15%. I was asking what the "real" rate was in 2008 so that we can get some perspective.

From my perspective I don't ever recall anyone quoting "real" rates and the flaws in the "official" rate until Obama took office.

Wickabee
08-06-2012, 12:34 AM
Not sure we are on the same wavelength here. This article says the official rate is 8.3% but the "real" rate is 15%. I was asking what the "real" rate was in 2008 so that we can get some perspective.

From my perspective I don't ever recall anyone quoting "real" rates and the flaws in the "official" rate until Obama took office.
Also, why are people automatically going to "don't blame Bush!" when it's completely necessary to look at where things started for Obama. A lot of this unemploymnet talk is beginning to look like smoke and mirrors.