11-05-2016, 06:00 AM
Ca Bob wrote:
[quote=max]
[quote=Steve G.]
"unemployment rate dipped to 4.9 percent"
No, SteveG, real unemployment is double your fudged up fantasy, it is actually at 9.5 percent...
It's true that there are different categories for reporting unemployment, but you have to compare U1 with U1, etc. If you want to use a different category and claim that the number is twice as high as the 4.9% figure, then let's also have the same category for the end of George W Bush's presidency and for the first 6 months of Obama's presidency. (It's like the pitcher who is taken out of the game with a couple of runners on base is charged for any runs scored by them -- the president has to make things happen, and it takes a while, say six months to a year.) For more than a century, Democratic presidents have done better than Republican presidents in job creation and economic growth. One theory is that the Republicans are obsessive about curbing inflation, whereas the Democrats are equally obsessive about job growth.
And by the way, there are more than 2 categories, do you can claim that the real rate of unemployment is even higher, but again, it's an apples to tangerines comparison.
Wrong, Bob, if anything I have been very consistent in my comparisons:
http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?2...sg-1801383
I do understand how numbers work and that is why I use U6 for these purposes, since it is closest to the pre-1978 unemployment algorithm and it is the most stable one since then. The politically expedient U3 formulas cited by the weak minded has ben repeatedly tweaked for political reasons several times since 1978, most recently under Clinton in 1994, and is pretty much useless for long range statistical comparisons.
So, Bob, I do have a pretty good idea what I am talking about, or otherwise I would have kept my mouth shut....