If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US House of Representatives)   Don't like how the unemployment rate looks? One GOP Congressman has a fix   (hunter.house.gov) divider line 197
    More: Dumbass, GOP, unemployment, formulations, Bureau of Labor Statistics  
•       •       •

16041 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Mar 2012 at 8:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-03-09 06:04:08 PM
Desperate much?
 
2012-03-09 06:10:02 PM
This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.
 
2012-03-09 06:11:04 PM
And then, when the Republicans sweep Congress and retake the White House, SURPRISE! The unemployment rate MAGICALLY lowers because they dun cut taxes and other capitalism!
 
2012-03-09 06:11:30 PM
That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.
 
2012-03-09 06:42:06 PM

Nadie_AZ: That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.


It's not the only reason. Should we really include people who decide to go back to school and finish their degree as "the unemployed"?

U-5 is a measure that is available, and it includes them. It is also decreasing.

Hell, the reason the official (U-3) rate didn't go down this month because the Participation Rate is *increasing*. That's a really good sign! It hasn't done that in ages. People are starting to look for work again, and are LESS discouraged.
 
2012-03-09 06:47:42 PM
what a shock that this birdbrain comes up with this now that Chimpy McFlightsuit is gone.
 
2012-03-09 06:53:23 PM

Msol: Nadie_AZ: That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.

It's not the only reason. Should we really include people who decide to go back to school and finish their degree as "the unemployed"?

U-5 is a measure that is available, and it includes them. It is also decreasing.

Hell, the reason the official (U-3) rate didn't go down this month because the Participation Rate is *increasing*. That's a really good sign! It hasn't done that in ages. People are starting to look for work again, and are LESS discouraged.


It seems the more I learn, the less I know. Thank you for that.
 
2012-03-09 07:17:31 PM
No problem. I teach this stuff, so I know most people don't know what to look for.

Here's a link with all the different measures (new window). It includes both seasonally adjusted figures and unadjusted.

There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers. Here is a table with the participation rate and other useful info. (new window)
 
2012-03-09 07:23:40 PM
how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.
 
2012-03-09 07:24:41 PM

Msol: No problem. I teach this stuff, so I know most people don't know what to look for.

Here's a link with all the different measures (new window). It includes both seasonally adjusted figures and unadjusted.

There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers. Here is a table with the participation rate and other useful info. (new window)


Bookmarked.
 
2012-03-09 07:28:04 PM
"Oh, shiat! The jobs report is doing nothing but going up under an opposition-party administration in an election year! If this keeps up until November, even the propaganda machine over at Fox News won't be able to cover up how bad that looks for us! Quick, fire up the Desperation Spin-O-Tron! We can't let Americans know that things are getting better! Screw the public...We must protect OUR jaerbs!"

Republican's f*cking suck.
 
2012-03-09 07:38:57 PM

MaxxLarge: "Oh, shiat! The jobs report is doing nothing but going up under an opposition-party administration in an election year! If this keeps up until November, even the propaganda machine over at Fox News won't be able to cover up how bad that looks for us! Quick, fire up the Desperation Spin-O-Tron! We can't let Americans know that things are getting better! Screw the public...We must protect OUR jaerbs!"

Republican's f*cking suck.


Yep. The suck even harder than that limerick.
 
2012-03-09 07:42:58 PM

EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.


Well, the data I found here (new window) says that 5.4 million people have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. I'll see what else I can find.
 
2012-03-09 07:43:29 PM

EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.


Good question. Look it up and get back to us.
 
2012-03-09 07:57:26 PM
I don't understand how this represses women. This actually makes sense. Are you sure it's from a Republican?
 
2012-03-09 08:01:55 PM

EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.


0/10 - You guys should stick with the "women are sluts" narrative. At least that's something that you can understand. Economics is best left to the adults.
 
2012-03-09 08:09:54 PM
Okay, so I did find something here, and to be honest it wasn't that easy to find. About 30% of the unemployed have been that way for over 52 weeks.That number has been relatively stable for the past 2 years. It used to be 10% before the recession. But yeah, that's 4 million people out of... 242 million people of working age. There are 142 million people with jobs in the USA.

Oh the humanity.
 
2012-03-09 08:22:31 PM
As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.
 
2012-03-09 08:27:14 PM
Duncan hunter is neptotism at it's worst.
 
2012-03-09 08:27:16 PM

Msol: No problem. I teach this stuff, so I know most people don't know what to look for.

Here's a link with all the different measures (new window). It includes both seasonally adjusted figures and unadjusted.

There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers. Here is a table with the participation rate and other useful info. (new window)


Good links. I've always thought that a more useful measure for governance and future planning would be total employment; adjusted to add people working - actually working - in the home like houswives and subtracting people - maybe partially - who are underemployed. Of course I have no idea how you would measure these things.
 
2012-03-09 08:29:37 PM
Thanks to the econ gurus in the board, I just figured out both U-3 & U-5 unemployment rates have been dropping throughout the last 12 months.

That is somehow missing from Duncan Hunter's (R-etard) derpy press release.
 
2012-03-09 08:30:02 PM
People who vote republican need to be sterilized.
 
2012-03-09 08:30:25 PM
There could be a form you sign that just says -
I, Citizen of the United States of America, do hereby give the fark up.
 
2012-03-09 08:30:41 PM
He's almost as smart as his daddy. Almost.
 
2012-03-09 08:31:17 PM
Didn't the government officially use the U5 figure at some point before switching to the current numbers? I mean, it's not THAT crazy to go back to including discouraged workers, is it? I get that this particular congressman's motivations are partisan and not based on having a more accurate statistic, but I'm not sure why I should feel outraged at the idea.
 
2012-03-09 08:34:16 PM
Just build a bunch of construction sites and teamsters... sheds, that's how I handle that in Tropico.
 
2012-03-09 08:34:34 PM

Msol: This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.


Literally the first word that entered my mind after clicking on that article was "pathetic".

Don't they realize how petty and childish they look when they do things like this? What are they thinking.... "oh look, the GOP redefined the unemployment rate to be 15%?!? I'm voting Republican now!"

/that chicken
//keep f*cking it
 
2012-03-09 08:36:36 PM
First things first.

1.) GOP clearly only wanting to report the number because it makes the president look bad.
2.) The only reason the number looks as good as it does is because the government (no matter who's in charge) uses the data that looks the best, which then gives everyone who doesn't understand what the unemployment numbers mean, a false sense of how bad the unemployment problem is.

Solution: The U-5 should become the official measure "after" election day. That way we track a more accurate number and nobody makes any political hay off of it.
 
2012-03-09 08:37:26 PM

randomjsa: And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.


By the standards of calculating U-3, and using the standard of the statistical methods accepted for use by the BLS, and using the accepted standards of the quality of the polling process, then, yes, unemployment is under 9%. It's 8.3%, in fact.
 
2012-03-09 08:38:06 PM
Isn't the entire purpose of tracking the unemployment rate to get an idea of how many people are out there looking for a job, but don't have one? From a governing standpoint, do we really care how many people are not working and not looking?
 
2012-03-09 08:38:57 PM

dukeblue219: Didn't the government officially use the U5 figure at some point before switching to the current numbers? I mean, it's not THAT crazy to go back to including discouraged workers, is it? I get that this particular congressman's motivations are partisan and not based on having a more accurate statistic, but I'm not sure why I should feel outraged at the idea.


The thing that gets me is that this is purely a partisan thing. As soon as a Republican is back in office. They'll pretend that the U5 and U6 numbers don't exist and go back to using the U3 like they did prior to 2009.

/subby
 
2012-03-09 08:39:39 PM
Didn't Republicans pitch a big fit about the census using statistical methodology for counting inner city and homeless?
 
2012-03-09 08:40:13 PM
So they can redefine the numbers during the next GOP presidency? Do these people honestly never plan anything past next week?
 
2012-03-09 08:41:59 PM
Damn this site went from questioning goverment to blindly following anything they are fed quickly.
 
2012-03-09 08:42:05 PM
All you need to know is that there are fewer people working now at 8.4%, than at the last 8.4%. If a bunch of seniors were nuked at Fukoshima and that accounted for it, that would be one thing. But its not. They just arent counting them.

Number goes down.. Good job Obama.
Number goes up? Good job Obama, people are confident in the economy and looking for work.

win.
 
2012-03-09 08:43:57 PM

mikeray: Damn this site went from questioning goverment to blindly following anything they are fed quickly.


1/10

I'm being nice.
 
2012-03-09 08:45:15 PM

randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.



THIS.; Republicans try to make numbers worse while Democrats try to soft--pedal it and say it is not so bad, but things are not as good as they were 6 years ago, all agree.

No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.
 
2012-03-09 08:46:10 PM

mikeray: Damn this site went from questioning goverment to blindly following anything they are fed quickly.


Well, here's one comment that'll get 0 smart/funny votes.
 
2012-03-09 08:46:15 PM
And he measures his dick in centimeters.
 
2012-03-09 08:46:30 PM
Congressman Hunter is attempting to move the goal posts. People can see what you're doing, congressman.
 
2012-03-09 08:47:04 PM

olddinosaur: randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.


THIS.; Republicans try to make numbers worse while Democrats try to soft--pedal it and say it is not so bad, but things are not as good as they were 6 years ago, all agree.

No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.


Bout to break that record this November.
 
2012-03-09 08:47:11 PM

olddinosaur: but things are not as good as they were 6 years ago, all agree.


Well of course. We were riding a bubble 6 years ago. What's your point?
 
2012-03-09 08:49:55 PM
The economy has changed, and demographics aren't the same, so be wary of making multi decade comparisons.

For example, in the 1970s, assembly lines, starting with cars, had their numbers reduced with power assistance and then with automation in the 1980s. The layoffs among blue collar workers were so pronounced that politicians deregulated the real-estate finance industry in order to ensure that blue collar workers had some sort of jobs.
In the 1980s and 1990s, workplaces were computerized, thus all of the clerking jobs went away,
In the 1990s and 00s, networking demolished the middleman businesses and lengthened supply chains.

The result: amazing productivity. The trouble is that when productivity (and therefore GDP) goes up, the level unemployment also goes up. It doesn't matter what you do, those jobs are never, ever coming back.

What to do? What to do?

This will be a critical problem for everyone to solve in order to maintain social cohesion.
 
2012-03-09 08:49:58 PM

Nadie_AZ: Msol: Nadie_AZ: That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.

It's not the only reason. Should we really include people who decide to go back to school and finish their degree as "the unemployed"?

U-5 is a measure that is available, and it includes them. It is also decreasing.

Hell, the reason the official (U-3) rate didn't go down this month because the Participation Rate is *increasing*. That's a really good sign! It hasn't done that in ages. People are starting to look for work again, and are LESS discouraged.

It seems the more I learn, the less I know. Thank you for that.


Did you learn how they know that some poeple that have no work, but arent collecting benefits, are out looking for work because they are so encouraged because the economy is steamrolling?
 
2012-03-09 08:50:33 PM

olddinosaur: No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.


You are incorrect.

FDR was re-elected twice with unemployment in the double digits.
 
2012-03-09 08:52:15 PM
THEY. ARE. ALL. farkING. CON. MEN.

(( well, the five that aren't (1 senate, 4 house) ARE. farkING. PERVERTS!))

How stupid are you farking people?
 
2012-03-09 08:52:32 PM

olddinosaur: randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.


THIS.; Republicans try to make numbers worse while Democrats try to soft--pedal it and say it is not so bad, but things are not as good as they were 6 years ago, all agree.

No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.


FDR??
 
2012-03-09 08:52:51 PM
So glad I moved back to Canada after 47 years of watching a once great country fall into an utter state of pathetic stupidity. I feel sorry for those in the US that are stuck there... Land of the free...?Keep the kool aid flowing.
 
2012-03-09 08:55:18 PM

slc11082: Duncan hunter is neptotism at it's worst.


NewportBarGuy: He's almost as smart as his daddy. Almost.


These.

/Lives near (but not in Hunter's district)
//At least Hunter's not as much of an attention whore as Issa
///They're both *very* safe :(
 
2012-03-09 08:56:48 PM
Nice idea, but does it address the amount of unemployed sluts?
 
2012-03-09 08:57:08 PM
I think we need to include children and the elderly too, they could be working.. If you consider that the unemployment rate is like 40% OMG1!!!!
 
2012-03-09 08:59:06 PM

randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.


Try this site (new window)
 
2012-03-09 09:01:09 PM

mechaaardvark: randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.


Try this site (new window)


Looks like a better laid out version of Time Cube.
 
2012-03-09 09:03:39 PM

Nadie_AZ: That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.


While I agree that the Republicans would likely switch it back once they get back in power (if they do), I am still okay with the bill becoming law.
 
2012-03-09 09:05:58 PM
The frigin transparent cheek of Republicans to try this shiat. U3 was the same measuring stick for Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Obama, and whoever comes after him. The obvious attempt to pander on this issue is so farking sickening.

Democrats didn't propose changing it to U5 back in Sept/Oct 2008 to make Bush look worse fyi, so don't bother with "Both sides are bad". I'm sure there were a few Liberal commentators using U5 to make him look worse, but then again, so is Rush.

Good lord these guys are laughably corrupt/stupid.
 
2012-03-09 09:06:19 PM
Maybe Hunter needs to leave Congress and look for real work. There's nothing wrong with measuring the labor force participation rate. This figure exists historically so we can see what it is today and what is what over the past years. Of course, part of the cause for the decline in the current labor force participation rate is due to the problem of the long-term unemployed. But let's also factor in the increasing prison population and the number of fulltime students. And let's not forget the military because even though they are "employed" it's only because of our need to fight perpetual wars. Hunter is just another Congressional simpleton demonstrating that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
 
2012-03-09 09:09:35 PM
I'd also like to see the "underemployed" reflected in the rate. If I can only get 20 hours, I should be considered 50% unemployed. I'd likewise think that someone who takes full-time work at 50% accustomed pay 50% unemployed. I've heard estimates that this would put the rate around 26%. No citations, sorry.
 
2012-03-09 09:10:19 PM
Hey, it's the same damn thing the Democrats wanted to do under Bush's presidency.
 
2012-03-09 09:14:30 PM
How about this for a rate: Anyone taking unemployment, welfare, or food stamps is considered "unemployed".. Think we'll hit 40%?
 
2012-03-09 09:15:04 PM

limboslam: Hey, it's the same damn thing the Democrats wanted to do under Bush's presidency.


I know. Throw-away comments on websites are exactly the same as congressman-sponsored bills.
 
2012-03-09 09:15:05 PM
...add to that anyone incarcerated... 45%?
 
2012-03-09 09:16:19 PM

limboslam: Hey, it's the same damn thing the Democrats wanted to do under Bush's presidency.


Actually, it isn't, but never let the truth get in the way of a good "both sides are bad", right?
 
2012-03-09 09:17:08 PM
Losing an election? Black man got you down?

Why play by the rules when you can just change them to make your bullshiat talking points reality!
 
2012-03-09 09:18:46 PM
I got some overtime this week. I should count as 1.25 people employed.
 
2012-03-09 09:19:29 PM

dukeblue219: Didn't the government officially use the U5 figure at some point before switching to the current numbers? I mean, it's not THAT crazy to go back to including discouraged workers, is it? I get that this particular congressman's motivations are partisan and not based on having a more accurate statistic, but I'm not sure why I should feel outraged at the idea.


From wiki:

"Prior to 1994, the alternate measures of unemployment had different names because the BLS drastically revised the questions in the CPS and renamed the measures: U3 and U4 were eliminated; the official rate U5 remained the same measure but was renamed U3; U6 and U7 were revised and renamed U5 and U6."

The current U5 formulation was never used as the official measure. It has always been what's now called U3.
 
2012-03-09 09:21:31 PM

Teufelaffe: olddinosaur: No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.

You are incorrect.

FDR was re-elected twice with unemployment in the double digits.



Obama ain't FDR and this ain't the 1930's.
 
2012-03-09 09:24:19 PM
We are not winning the war on the unemployment numbers to win the Presidency. Therefore we will come up with a bill that totally skews the numbers in our favor.
In the mean time we will still break unions, ship manufacturing jobs overseas and feed the wealthy.
Typical rhetoric from any republican.
The Republicans are so caught up in their own beliefs that they actually believe their own lies...
 
2012-03-09 09:24:31 PM

EnviroDude: Teufelaffe: olddinosaur: No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.

You are incorrect.

FDR was re-elected twice with unemployment in the double digits.


Obama ain't FDR and this ain't the 1930's.


Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
 
2012-03-09 09:25:01 PM

robbrie: Thanks to the econ gurus in the board, I just figured out both U-3 & U-5 unemployment rates have been dropping throughout the last 12 months.

That is somehow missing from Duncan Hunter's (R-etard) derpy press release.


He's a douche, but when I lived in his district he mention the same idea, and I think that was during Bush's first term.
 
2012-03-09 09:25:15 PM

Msol: But yeah, that's 4 million people out of... 242 million people of working age


I can no longer see the number 4 million without wanting to add "best part...forever"
 
2012-03-09 09:27:43 PM

olddinosaur: No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.


Do you just flit from thread to thread lying about things?
 
2012-03-09 09:28:01 PM

reggaejunkiejew: I think we need to include children and the elderly too, they could be working.. If you consider that the unemployment rate is like 40% OMG1!!!!


Don't forget fetuses.

/next up, sperm and eggs
 
2012-03-09 09:30:03 PM

GDubDub: I'd also like to see the "underemployed" reflected in the rate. If I can only get 20 hours, I should be considered 50% unemployed. I'd likewise think that someone who takes full-time work at 50% accustomed pay 50% unemployed. I've heard estimates that this would put the rate around 26%. No citations, sorry.


The U6 rate accounts for everyone marginally attached to the workforce and everyone who is underemployed. That rate was 16.4% in September, and now it's 14.9%.
 
2012-03-09 09:30:20 PM
I gave up looking because the jobs sucked and weren't worth my time. Am not yet inspired to look again. I know some other people who got super depressed and gave up, started working for free, etc etc. Why shouldn't such people count in unemployment numbers? I'm not strapped for cash, but some of these people are.

The numbers shouldn't be skewed for political gain and paraded out only once every four years, but they should be viewed objectively so that voters and job seeking public can make educated decisions.

//Ok, I take that back. Anything that makes our economy look more depressing should definitely be hidden from the public view.
 
2012-03-09 09:30:38 PM
Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the issue here, but wouldn't the same problem be solved by making the U-5 the primary measure of unemployment rather than the U3?
 
2012-03-09 09:31:26 PM

gaslight: The economy has changed, and demographics aren't the same, so be wary of making multi decade comparisons.

The result: amazing productivity. The trouble is that when productivity (and therefore GDP) goes up, the level unemployment also goes up. It doesn't matter what you do, those jobs are never, ever coming back.

What to do? What to do?

This will be a critical problem for everyone to solve in order to maintain social cohesion.


Make sure we collectively provide/pay for birth control for as many people as will take it to reduce the amount of people in the future.

:)
 
2012-03-09 09:31:52 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: 0/10 - You guys should stick with the "women are sluts" narrative. At least that's something that you can understand.


Ha! They think women have to take a birth control pill EVERY TIME they have sex. Like they're like boner pills (which I will give them credit for understanding).
 
2012-03-09 09:33:22 PM

DarwiOdrade: Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the issue here, but wouldn't the same problem be solved by making the U-5 the primary measure of unemployment rather than the U3?


For those of us who are not American, can you please explain what these U-3s and U-5s are, please?
 
2012-03-09 09:36:16 PM
After the GOP solves this one, they need to tackle the "contents may have settled" bullcrap on bags of chips.
 
2012-03-09 09:36:25 PM

Serious Black: GDubDub: I'd also like to see the "underemployed" reflected in the rate. If I can only get 20 hours, I should be considered 50% unemployed. I'd likewise think that someone who takes full-time work at 50% accustomed pay 50% unemployed. I've heard estimates that this would put the rate around 26%. No citations, sorry.

The U6 rate accounts for everyone marginally attached to the workforce and everyone who is underemployed. That rate was 16.4% in September, and now it's 14.9%.


Really appreciate the info. I guess I need to read up more.
 
2012-03-09 09:37:17 PM

gaslight: DarwiOdrade: Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the issue here, but wouldn't the same problem be solved by making the U-5 the primary measure of unemployment rather than the U3?

For those of us who are not American, can you please explain what these U-3s and U-5s are, please?


I think they are Mexican and Salvadoran versions of U-2.
 
2012-03-09 09:38:06 PM

gaslight: DarwiOdrade: Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the issue here, but wouldn't the same problem be solved by making the U-5 the primary measure of unemployment rather than the U3?

For those of us who are not American, can you please explain what these U-3s and U-5s are, please?


U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
(new window)
 
2012-03-09 09:39:41 PM
This guy ran for president once.
 
2012-03-09 09:41:27 PM

gaslight: DarwiOdrade: Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the issue here, but wouldn't the same problem be solved by making the U-5 the primary measure of unemployment rather than the U3?

For those of us who are not American, can you please explain what these U-3s and U-5s are, please?


WWII era German Navy submarines...what that has to do with unemployment numbers remains to be seen
 
2012-03-09 09:42:50 PM

Arkanaut: This guy ran for president once.


Once
content.internetvideoarchive.com
 
2012-03-09 09:43:34 PM

logic523: reggaejunkiejew: I think we need to include children and the elderly too, they could be working.. If you consider that the unemployment rate is like 40% OMG1!!!!

Don't forget fetuses.

/next up, sperm and eggs


And cats. Those lazy bastards won't lift a finger to help out.
 
2012-03-09 09:44:26 PM
NO MORE HUNTERS
 
2012-03-09 09:46:59 PM
Ok, I'm sure one of the econ folk can tell me why it can't work, but why not track a hard number like the social security tax collected on the quarters.

Wouldn't this be a very direct correlation on the health of the economy?
 
2012-03-09 09:49:44 PM

Cewley: what a shock that this birdbrain comes up with this now that Chimpy McFlightsuit is gone.


Like it was his idea amirite?
 
2012-03-09 09:52:03 PM

Skleenar: gaslight: DarwiOdrade: Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the issue here, but wouldn't the same problem be solved by making the U-5 the primary measure of unemployment rather than the U3?

For those of us who are not American, can you please explain what these U-3s and U-5s are, please?

I think they are Mexican and Salvadoran versions of U-2.


Do they have similar versions of Bono and The Edge?
 
2012-03-09 09:52:11 PM

gaslight: DarwiOdrade: Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the issue here, but wouldn't the same problem be solved by making the U-5 the primary measure of unemployment rather than the U3?

For those of us who are not American, can you please explain what these U-3s and U-5s are, please?


They are technical terms from the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the unemployment rate in the US.

Generally, as the numbers get higher, that is a more permissive standard about what counts as "unemployed"

U-1 is people who have been unemployed for at least 15 weeks.

U-2 is people who are unemployed because they have recently lost a job (leaving out first time job hunters)

U-3 is the "standard" unemployment figure. It is what percent of the population is not employed, but is actively seeking employment. Basically who is unemployed but is trying to get a job.

U-4 is U-3 adding in "discouraged workers", people who want to work, but have given up trying because they do not believe jobs are available.

U-5 is U-4 and adding in "marginally attached", people who might have something to do with a company or job but are not regularly employed. Occasional consultants, freelancers, other people who might work sometimes but definitely not regularly.

U-6 is U-5 but adds in underemployed, like those people who work on an "as needed" basis or doing odd jobs, or getting too few hours, basically people who are working, but not enough to make any plausible ability to support themselves.

It's a technical numbers game, normally U-3 is all anybody ever looks at. Everything else is for statisticians and politicians trying to score points.
 
2012-03-09 10:04:27 PM
Since when did unemployed mean not employed?

/czarcasming and getting blood spatter from the kick
 
2012-03-09 10:05:54 PM
Someone should tell the DOL that the numbers from March will be +1 employed 30-year-old college grad in the DC-Metro area (MD).

BOOYAH!!

// ever gotten an offer letter at 9pm on a Friday?
// Hawaiian company
 
2012-03-09 10:09:50 PM

syrynxx: I don't understand how this represses women. This actually makes sense. Are you sure it's from a Republican?


Democrats don't count unemployed women on birth control since they are effectively being paid to have sex. I am sure the GOP is waiting until September to release the real numbers.
 
2012-03-09 10:18:37 PM

chi_tino: Yeah, keep telling yourself that. If employment is going up so much, why is GDP barely growing and at less than the rate of inflation?

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]

Labor Force Participation Rate = People who are actually working! (new window)


No, sweetie, the participation rate is the proportion of people who are actually working. Lots of baby-boomers are retiring and not being replaced. That's driving down participation.

GDP is the value of all the final products sold in a country. Equivalently it is the total income of all those within a country. A low GDP simply means that the value of these measures are less than that of other countries. It doesn't really have anything to do with unemployment.
 
2012-03-09 10:20:57 PM

DarwiOdrade: It doesn't really have anything to do with unemployment.


Well, except that the unemployed aren't earning any income. But that's more than offset by the lopsided gains among top earners - commonly called the 1%
 
2012-03-09 10:23:36 PM
Honest numbers are great, Republicans juking stats professionally, playing to win are another thing.
 
2012-03-09 10:27:55 PM

chi_tino: If employment is going up so much, why is GDP barely growing and at less than the rate of inflation?


Are you really that stupid? It's not like it takes a genius to figure out that we're trying to recover from an artificial housing bubble that created, then destroyed, billions of dollars in assets. The Republican mind astounds me. "Hey, times were GREAT when we were trashing the world economy and running up huge amounts of unsustainable mortgage derivatives! Why can't things be like that again?"
 
2012-03-09 10:35:29 PM

King Something: MaxxLarge: "Oh, shiat! The jobs report is doing nothing but going up under an opposition-party administration in an election year! If this keeps up until November, even the propaganda machine over at Fox News won't be able to cover up how bad that looks for us! Quick, fire up the Desperation Spin-O-Tron! We can't let Americans know that things are getting better! Screw the public...We must protect OUR jaerbs!"

Republican's f*cking suck.

Yep. The suck even harder than that limerick.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-03-09 10:42:22 PM
So wait...

Under Reagan, they "adjusted" the unemployment rate to make it look better, because figures don't lie but liars figure....

And now under a Democratic president, Republicans aren't satisfied by the metric they themselves set 30 years ago?

fark them. fark them in the ass.
 
2012-03-09 10:50:01 PM
Thank you to people like Msol, who clearly knows much more about these things than I do. This thread is incredibly useful in helping me understand this stuff, so that I can explain it to my right-wing father, who just keeps shouting "0bama's cooking the books on unemployment!"

Now, can someone explain the seasonal adjustments cited in these tables, which is apparently another nefarious Fartbongo plot to cook the books?
 
2012-03-09 10:51:04 PM

Cewley: what a shock that this birdbrain comes up with this now that Chimpy McFlightsuit is gone.


I'll never get tired of that.
 
2012-03-09 10:54:15 PM
not much on repeating myself, but: HOW farkING STUPID ARE YOY CLOWNS?
 
2012-03-09 10:56:14 PM
Why doesn't the president just create jobs already?

PS: I want a small government with a minimal amount of employees, that keeps its nose out of private sector business.
 
2012-03-09 10:57:02 PM

Mavent: chi_tino: If employment is going up so much, why is GDP barely growing and at less than the rate of inflation?


Are you really that stupid? It's not like it takes a genius to figure out that we're trying to recover from an artificial housing bubble that created, then destroyed, billions of dollars in assets. The Republican mind astounds me. "Hey, times were GREAT when we were trashing the world economy and running up huge amounts of unsustainable mortgage derivatives! Why can't things be like that again?"


That's quite the nonsequitur. Are you attempting to directly link asset values with employment and GDP? Are you saying that GDP rises and falls by 10+% a year like the stock market?

GDP tracks employment, and both of these measures haven't been going anywhere. The fact that we were offering 100-to-1 leverage to welfare recipients to buy real estate is another point entirely.
 
2012-03-09 10:57:46 PM
hunter.house.gov

I'm imagining this guy in a red argyle sweater, tan trousers and red shoes.
 
2012-03-09 10:57:51 PM

olddinosaur: No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.


Then I guess whoever beats Obama in November had better count on being a one termer because no president is going to be able to get the unemployment rate down to 7% by 2016.
 
2012-03-09 11:04:40 PM
That sounds pretty reasonable & I'd support it -- provided it takes effect on (say) January 1, 2013. At least that way it's nonpartisan.
 
2012-03-09 11:09:52 PM
And I suppose those that went past their unemployment benefits are being accounted for.... right?

I have an idea! Lets blame it on the GOP that someone there pointed out the low unemployment number! YAH!!!

Guess what? Those that fell off the roll call, but are non-employed, are a number unaccounted for in the current methodology for figuring out unemployment numbers (past their unemployment benefit limit). Do you think they all died or moved to another country? Or are they burdening the existing infrastructure for welfare and other publicly funded programs?

Don't be naive and assume this is a "party" related issue. Our economy sucks. And it looks like neither the current administration or in the near future contenders are up to making the situation better.

But if you want to spew party affiliated crap... go ahead and keep peeing into the wind and expect different results every time you unzip.
 
2012-03-09 11:16:34 PM
Here's number that you'd think would think would be easy to find, but isn't:

Only 40% of Americans are employed. That's counting retirees, children, the imprisoned, the invalid, etc.

That number's not going to get any better as the Boomers start to retire. It's really terrifying to think about.
 
2012-03-09 11:21:24 PM

Msol: This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.


Liberals listen to Rush? Not a single conservative I know does. Is that like the Howard Stern thing?
 
2012-03-09 11:21:42 PM

chi_tino: why is GDP barely growing and at less than the rate of inflation?


Thirty years of stagnant wages....
 
2012-03-09 11:23:52 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: And he measures his dick in centimeters.


I just checked and I gotta say 19.6cm sounds pretty hefty!
 
2012-03-09 11:26:00 PM
Oh what a surprise, it's this incredible tool:

hunter.house.gov

I'd forgotten he still occupies a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives that could otherwise be employed by a non-retard.

THANKS LOADS, east San Diego County, you mouthbreathing morans.
 
2012-03-09 11:27:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Bout to break that record this November.


Yes, we know we have an utterly dishonest media that will not only not hold Obama accountable for anything but will actively work to cover for him, but thanks for reminding us.
 
2012-03-09 11:27:54 PM
One more time: Statistics 101: "Figures lie and liars figure". HOW farkING STUPID ARE YOU? THESE PEOPLE ARE NARCISSISTIC SOCIOPATHS WHO LIE EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO NEED TO!

/my mother calls me cynical
//I tell her I'm a realist
///She is probably right.
 
2012-03-09 11:32:07 PM

gameshowhost: [hunter.house.gov image 640x83]

I'm imagining this guy in a red argyle sweater, tan trousers and red shoes.


content6.flixster.com

Why, yes, in fact, he IS retarded!
 
2012-03-09 11:33:28 PM
Rush bad, Bill Maher good, 1 million dollars to Obama.
 
2012-03-09 11:36:41 PM

Msol: This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.


Ya, real easy for you to say, "This morning on my way to work".

//suck it because those who don't have jobs CAN'T "even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers," That's you
 
2012-03-09 11:40:38 PM

Thunderpipes: Rush bad, Bill Maher good, 1 million dollars to Obama.


false equivalency is still false. Tell me when Mahr goes after a private citizen for 3 days straight.
 
2012-03-09 11:41:26 PM

Thunderpipes: Rush bad, Bill Maher good, 1 million dollars to Obama.


This retarded non-sequiter is brought you you by......well, no one, anymore.

If you feel bad for Rush, you can send him a Pick-me-up Bouquet from Pro Flowers.
 
2012-03-09 11:41:30 PM

EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.


Thanks, Winterturd. And without any ellipses!
 
2012-03-09 11:43:39 PM

randomjsa: Yes, we know we have an utterly dishonest media that will not only not hold Obama accountable for anything but will actively work to cover for him, but thanks for reminding us.


And yet you have no proof that is the case.

Just because they don't report every retarded thing the right-wing derposphere comes up with doesn't mean they're covering for Obama.

You need to go to Walgreen's and get some Preperation H stat!
 
2012-03-09 11:43:56 PM

mudesi: People who vote republican need to be sterilized.


Thank you for you insightful post.
 
2012-03-09 11:47:19 PM

NewportBarGuy: I think they are Mexican and Salvadoran versions of U-2.

Do they have similar versions of Bono and The Edge?


Well, yes. But they are called Bueno and el Edge.
 
2012-03-09 11:48:59 PM
I have a job only because I created a job for myself. If I had waited for someone to call me back I would still be jobless. I am doing better than before I lost my job. So I feel very lucky and am grateful.
What happens to those who don't know how to create a job for them self. We are in bad shape but I don't know we would be better off if we had a different president. This just may be one of those things we need to ride out.
 
2012-03-09 11:55:38 PM
You farking clowns will never know what any real numbers are. Stupid is as stupid does..
 
2012-03-10 12:01:01 AM

randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.


I must give you credit for saying something reasonable.
 
2012-03-10 12:05:30 AM
No matter which set of numbers you look at, the unemployment rate has been slowly but surely going down. Despite all the efforts of the GOP.
 
2012-03-10 12:07:51 AM

Msol: This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.


The real unemployment rate isn't an issue? Seems like kind of a big deal if our government is deceiving us.

But nah, Obama gets a pass.
 
2012-03-10 12:16:23 AM
What is the current bootstraps rate?
 
2012-03-10 12:18:49 AM
Pitiful, just pitiful. Why are these people still comprising a major political party?
 
2012-03-10 12:18:51 AM

Msol: EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.

Well, the data I found here (new window) says that 5.4 million people have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. I'll see what else I can find.


Don't bother. That douchebag doesn't want an honest discussion about unemployment.
 
2012-03-10 12:20:18 AM

randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.

And you're an absolute fool if you think the unemployment rate is actually less than 9% right now no matter what standards are in use.


You should have stuck with the first sentence and left off the second. The second means nothing when it isn't relative to the first.
 
2012-03-10 12:21:33 AM

randomjsa: cameroncrazy1984: Bout to break that record this November.

Yes, we know we have an utterly dishonest media that will not only not hold Obama accountable for anything but will actively work to cover for him, but thanks for reminding us.


Uh huh. That utterly dishonest media that you can't actually prove is dishonest, it's just what Fox News tells you.
 
2012-03-10 12:22:53 AM

gaslight: The economy has changed, and demographics aren't the same, so be wary of making multi decade comparisons.

For example, in the 1970s, assembly lines, starting with cars, had their numbers reduced with power assistance and then with automation in the 1980s. The layoffs among blue collar workers were so pronounced that politicians deregulated the real-estate finance industry in order to ensure that blue collar workers had some sort of jobs.
In the 1980s and 1990s, workplaces were computerized, thus all of the clerking jobs went away,
In the 1990s and 00s, networking demolished the middleman businesses and lengthened supply chains.

The result: amazing productivity. The trouble is that when productivity (and therefore GDP) goes up, the level unemployment also goes up. It doesn't matter what you do, those jobs are never, ever coming back.

What to do? What to do?

This will be a critical problem for everyone to solve in order to maintain social cohesion.


If the GDP is going up, then the money going around in a country should also be going up.

Thus we have more money, but less actual "physical" work that people are having to do.

The logical conclusion would be that everyone gets a raise while getting their hours cut. Same basic take home pay, but shorter work periods (maybe a 3-4 day work week instead of a 5 day).

Ideally, this situation should be full of win.

Instead, they laid off the people who weren't needed for that particular physical work and kept the other people working 40-60hr weeks. Ensuring that one side slowly slips into abject poverty, while the others die young from stress. Those in abject poverty are brought up to take the place of the dead worker and are grateful for it.

/it's farking evil.
 
2012-03-10 12:23:37 AM

SamFlagg: First things first.

1.) GOP clearly only wanting to report the number because it makes the president look bad.
2.) The only reason the number looks as good as it does is because the government (no matter who's in charge) uses the data that looks the best, which then gives everyone who doesn't understand what the unemployment numbers mean, a false sense of how bad the unemployment problem is.

Solution: The U-5 should become the official measure "after" election day. That way we track a more accurate number and nobody makes any political hay off of it.


Uh, no, if they wanted to use the data that looks best they would use U1. Dumbass. They use U2 because they have been using it for a long damned time.
 
2012-03-10 12:24:35 AM
Go ahead. As we said in the "70's, "Major in the minors". Stupid farks.

Another G&T and off to bed.
 
2012-03-10 12:26:49 AM

crabsno termites: THEY. ARE. ALL. farkING. CON. MEN.

(( well, the five that aren't (1 senate, 4 house) ARE. farkING. PERVERTS!))

How stupid are you farking people?


Go back to your Youtube comments.
 
2012-03-10 12:27:35 AM

crabsno termites: Go ahead. As we said in the "70's, "Major in the minors". Stupid farks.

Another G&T and off to bed.


I am betting halfway through "off to bed" means "passed out in a chair".
 
2012-03-10 12:29:11 AM

Mrtraveler01: mechaaardvark: randomjsa: As long as we retroactively apply this standard going back at least 20 years so we have a basis for comparison on unemployment rates, this is fine.


Try this site (new window)

Looks like a better laid out version of Time Cube.


Oh, Jesus. We found an alt. I forget who was touting the whacky shiat but he just got killed in a thread.
 
2012-03-10 12:32:41 AM

GORDON: Msol: This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.

The real unemployment rate isn't an issue? Seems like kind of a big deal if our government is deceiving us.

But nah, Obama gets a pass.


The "real" unemployment rate is going down at a faster rate than the U2 so I am not sure why you are so "concerned".
 
2012-03-10 12:36:06 AM

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: THEY. ARE. ALL. farkING. CON. MEN.

(( well, the five that aren't (1 senate, 4 house) ARE. farkING. PERVERTS!))

How stupid are you farking people?

Go back to your Youtube comments.


Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Go ahead. As we said in the "70's, "Major in the minors". Stupid farks.

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Go ahead. As we said in the "70's, "Major in the minors". Stupid farks.

Another G&T and off to bed.

I am betting halfway through "off to bed" means "passed out in a chair".



Another G&T and off to bed.

I am betting halfway through "off to bed" means "passed out in a chair".


Never been on youtube 'cept for music.

Bed = reading ( tolstoy, capstick, "mental junk food:").


fark you very much

/66year old vet with 2 yrs combat in RVN when you were still shiatting your diapers.

// KISS MY ASS!
 
2012-03-10 12:36:49 AM

Skleenar: Thunderpipes: Rush bad, Bill Maher good, 1 million dollars to Obama.

This retarded non-sequiter is brought you you by......well, no one, anymore.

If you feel bad for Rush, you can send him a Pick-me-up Bouquet from Pro Flowers.


I feel bad for you. You liberal morons have no morals at all. You really are just terrible people, like horses.
 
2012-03-10 12:37:53 AM

crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: THEY. ARE. ALL. farkING. CON. MEN.

(( well, the five that aren't (1 senate, 4 house) ARE. farkING. PERVERTS!))

How stupid are you farking people?

Go back to your Youtube comments.

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Go ahead. As we said in the "70's, "Major in the minors". Stupid farks.

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Go ahead. As we said in the "70's, "Major in the minors". Stupid farks.

Another G&T and off to bed.

I am betting halfway through "off to bed" means "passed out in a chair".



Another G&T and off to bed.

I am betting halfway through "off to bed" means "passed out in a chair".

Never been on youtube 'cept for music.

Bed = reading ( tolstoy, capstick, "mental junk food:").


fark you very much

/66year old vet with 2 yrs combat in RVN when you were still shiatting your diapers.

// KISS MY ASS!


Damn, I am sorry, Rambo. I didn't mean to imply you are a very drunk, very angry man. Please don't blow up my house.
 
2012-03-10 12:39:23 AM
Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.
 
2012-03-10 12:41:31 AM

crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.


Did you just say you are not drunk?
 
2012-03-10 12:44:45 AM

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?


You do realize there are benefits in taking the high road... right? Cleaner air, better sleeping, more self-respect, better looking chicks (SAY What?), etc.

/Just saying
 
2012-03-10 12:46:30 AM

CasperImproved: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?

You do realize there are benefits in taking the high road... right? Cleaner air, better sleeping, more self-respect, better looking chicks (SAY What?), etc.

/Just saying


Pfft, where the hell do you think you are?
 
2012-03-10 12:46:44 AM

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?


Yup. Liberal arts education and have difficulty with comprehension?
 
2012-03-10 12:48:39 AM

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?



Yup. Liberal arts education and difficulty with comprehension?
 
2012-03-10 12:49:30 AM

crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?

Yup. Liberal arts education and have difficulty with comprehension?


I comprehended that you were going to have yet another gin and tonic, you are outrageously belligerent and you use capital letters when they are not called for. I think it is a logical assumption that you are loaded. NTTIAWWT.
 
2012-03-10 12:55:40 AM

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?

Yup. Liberal arts education and have difficulty with comprehension?

I comprehended that you were going to have yet another gin and tonic, you are outrageously belligerent and you use capital letters when they are not called for. I think it is a logical assumption that you are loaded. NTTIAWWT.


Another might = 2. caps might be called for when dealing with the ignorant. Again: Liberal arts?
 
2012-03-10 12:56:50 AM

crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?

Yup. Liberal arts education and have difficulty with comprehension?

I comprehended that you were going to have yet another gin and tonic, you are outrageously belligerent and you use capital letters when they are not called for. I think it is a logical assumption that you are loaded. NTTIAWWT.

Another might = 2. caps might be called for when dealing with the ignorant. Again: Liberal arts?


It might but I don't think so.
 
2012-03-10 12:58:21 AM

GORDON: The real unemployment rate isn't an issue? Seems like kind of a big deal if our government is deceiving us.


You do realize that words mean things, yes?
 
2012-03-10 12:59:43 AM
I like how a guy who can't even type a coherent sentence accuses others of being uneducated.
 
2012-03-10 01:00:29 AM

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?

Yup. Liberal arts education and have difficulty with comprehension?

I comprehended that you were going to have yet another gin and tonic, you are outrageously belligerent and you use capital letters when they are not called for. I think it is a logical assumption that you are loaded. NTTIAWWT.

Another might = 2. caps might be called for when dealing with the ignorant. Again: Liberal arts?

"Don't think so" implies capable of independent thought. Apologize for suggesting liberal arts.

It might but I don't think so.

 
2012-03-10 01:02:55 AM

crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?

Yup. Liberal arts education and have difficulty with comprehension?

I comprehended that you were going to have yet another gin and tonic, you are outrageously belligerent and you use capital letters when they are not called for. I think it is a logical assumption that you are loaded. NTTIAWWT.

Another might = 2. caps might be called for when dealing with the ignorant. Again: Liberal arts?

"Don't think so" implies capable of independent thought. Apologize for suggesting liberal arts.

It might but I don't think so.


Are you insane?
 
2012-03-10 01:09:36 AM

Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Sabyen91: crabsno termites: Not angry, not drunk, just can't believe you youngsters are so naive.

Did you just say you are not drunk?

Yup. Liberal arts education and have difficulty with comprehension?

I comprehended that you were going to have yet another gin and tonic, you are outrageously belligerent and you use capital letters when they are not called for. I think it is a logical assumption that you are loaded. NTTIAWWT.

Another might = 2. caps might be called for when dealing with the ignorant. Again: Liberal arts?

"Don't think so" implies capable of independent thought. Apologize for suggesting liberal arts.

It might but I don't think so.

Are you insane?


What an amusing little man you are.
 
2012-03-10 01:12:10 AM
Ok, this is becoming insipid and I am partially at fault. My apologies to everybody.
 
2012-03-10 01:15:28 AM
The Democrats are lying about unemployment and jobs "created". This is NOT Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad - it's Republicans applying a correction to Democrats trying to make themselves look good.
 
2012-03-10 01:16:16 AM

LoneCoon: Here's number that you'd think would think would be easy to find, but isn't:

Only 40% of Americans are employed. That's counting retirees, children, the imprisoned, the invalid, etc.

That number's not going to get any better as the Boomers start to retire. It's really terrifying to think about.


I'm not sure that 40% working is such a bad number?

If I spend the first 22 years of my life going to school, work for 45 years, retire at age 67 and die at 75 - I'd only spend 60% of my life working.
 
2012-03-10 01:17:13 AM

j0ndas: The Democrats are lying about unemployment and jobs "created". This is NOT Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad - it's Republicans applying a correction to Democrats trying to make themselves look good.


So using the same formula that has been used in all of modern times suddenly turned into lying on Jan 21, 2008?
 
2012-03-10 01:19:07 AM

GDubDub: I'd also like to see the "underemployed" reflected in the rate. If I can only get 20 hours, I should be considered 50% unemployed. I'd likewise think that someone who takes full-time work at 50% accustomed pay 50% unemployed. I've heard estimates that this would put the rate around 26%. No citations, sorry.


I'm making 5 figures less than I was 2 years ago and being treated like a piece of entry level shiat by a manager that, literally, can't even tie her own shoes (farking velcro farking shoes in a professional place of business, give me a break you fat, lazy piece of shiat.) I would love to see how many people are in the same position as I am. Over half my team members are career professionals that desperately took this shiatty little cubicle rat job just to pay some bills. Morale, as one might expect, could not possibly be lower. Underemployment is a serious problem. It can make you devalue yourself and lose all confidence when you get stuck somewhere far below your abilities.

Suffice it to say, I'll either be promoted to another department or resigning by the end of March. I'm no longer frightened of being unemployed in the short term. I have my confidence back and I have the money to just say "fark it" for a year or so if need be.

I must say, it's one of the most liberating feelings I've had in a very long long time. I don't know where I found this resolve all of a sudden, but by god I feel like a farking king.
 
2012-03-10 01:21:40 AM

Sabyen91: Ok, this is becoming insipid and I am partially at fault. My apologies to everybody.


A gentleman. Off to Capstick, who was also a gentleman, a sportsman, and a conservationist. Trolling can be fun, but only if it is done with a purpose.

/not "loaded" (a rather quaint term)
//have a ruffed grouse hunting friend from st. Paul, and spent a good deal of time there in the '80's

///I wish that I were as smart now as I was when I was your age, or as you will be when you are my age.
 
Oak
2012-03-10 01:29:56 AM

Sabyen91: j0ndas: The Democrats are lying about unemployment and jobs "created". This is NOT Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad - it's Republicans applying a correction to Democrats trying to make themselves look good.

So using the same formula that has been used in all of modern times suddenly turned into lying on Jan 21, 2008?


No; it was lying long before then, which Democrats were only too happy and honest to point out prior to 1/21/08. Hell, one of my favorite Democrats was going on and on about it in 1993.
 
2012-03-10 01:31:47 AM

Oak: Sabyen91: j0ndas: The Democrats are lying about unemployment and jobs "created". This is NOT Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad - it's Republicans applying a correction to Democrats trying to make themselves look good.

So using the same formula that has been used in all of modern times suddenly turned into lying on Jan 21, 2008?

No; it was lying long before then, which Democrats were only too happy and honest to point out prior to 1/21/08. Hell, one of my favorite Democrats was going on and on about it in 1993.


The only lying would be changing it to a lower U to make yourself look better. Nobody is doing that.
 
2012-03-10 01:44:58 AM
EnviroDude:It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.

You nailed it. Politicians (left and right) will always say what's in their best interest no matter how blatant the lie. Obama has gotten a pass due to running largely uncontested, so we'll see as we get closer to the fall.

We have seen the doozies on display from Romney, santorum and Gingrich. Shameless! Works for conservative voters though, what with all the faith-based honesty they spew.
 
2012-03-10 01:53:43 AM

Spaced Cowboy: GDubDub: I'd also like to see the "underemployed" reflected in the rate. If I can only get 20 hours, I should be considered 50% unemployed. I'd likewise think that someone who takes full-time work at 50% accustomed pay 50% unemployed. I've heard estimates that this would put the rate around 26%. No citations, sorry.

I'm making 5 figures less than I was 2 years ago and being treated like a piece of entry level shiat by a manager that, literally, can't even tie her own shoes (farking velcro farking shoes in a professional place of business, give me a break you fat, lazy piece of shiat.) I would love to see how many people are in the same position as I am. Over half my team members are career professionals that desperately took this shiatty little cubicle rat job just to pay some bills. Morale, as one might expect, could not possibly be lower. Underemployment is a serious problem. It can make you devalue yourself and lose all confidence when you get stuck somewhere far below your abilities.

Suffice it to say, I'll either be promoted to another department or resigning by the end of March. I'm no longer frightened of being unemployed in the short term. I have my confidence back and I have the money to just say "fark it" for a year or so if need be.

I must say, it's one of the most liberating feelings I've had in a very long long time. I don't know where I found this resolve all of a sudden, but by god I feel like a farking king.


I was self employed as an operations management consultant. Worked primarily with manufacturing companies. Worked steadily for 25 years. Downturn in economy, manufacturing in the tank (at least locally) and there are no jobs for independents - the big houses have cut their rates to the point that I don't want to work for that. So I have retired to my farm and am turning it from a hobby to a business. But I went from well into 6 figures to nothing and never showed up on any unemployment stats. Several of my neighbors are also self-employed types. Builders, excavating companies, plumbers. Some of them haven't had a job in months, several have had to let their crews go. As self-employed, none of them show up on any unemployment numbers. Given how many of those guys are just in our rural area, one has to wonder how many self-employed types there are unaccounted for around the country.
 
2012-03-10 02:01:20 AM

Msol: No problem. I teach this stuff, so I know most people don't know what to look for.

Here's a link with all the different measures (new window). It includes both seasonally adjusted figures and unadjusted.

There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers. Here is a table with the participation rate and other useful info. (new window)


Can you please teach a few politicians please.
 
2012-03-10 02:07:58 AM
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (among others)
 
2012-03-10 02:11:06 AM

gaslight: The economy has changed, and demographics aren't the same, so be wary of making multi decade comparisons.

For example, in the 1970s, assembly lines, starting with cars, had their numbers reduced with power assistance and then with automation in the 1980s. The layoffs among blue collar workers were so pronounced that politicians deregulated the real-estate finance industry in order to ensure that blue collar workers had some sort of jobs.
In the 1980s and 1990s, workplaces were computerized, thus all of the clerking jobs went away,
In the 1990s and 00s, networking demolished the middleman businesses and lengthened supply chains.

The result: amazing productivity. The trouble is that when productivity (and therefore GDP) goes up, the level unemployment also goes up. It doesn't matter what you do, those jobs are never, ever coming back.

What to do? What to do?

This will be a critical problem for everyone to solve in order to maintain social cohesion.


Well, people can stop having so many God damned kids for starters.
 
2012-03-10 02:11:45 AM

illannoyin: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (among others)


Except if a statistic is used consistently over a period of years you can compare it against itself. Sorry, not lying.
 
2012-03-10 03:55:33 AM

Thunderpipes: Msol: This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.

Liberals listen to Rush? Not a single conservative I know does. Is that like the Howard Stern thing?


I live in Canada and teach at two universities that are very far from each other, so I need something to entertain me during my commutes. Canadian politics are pretty boring here in Vancouver, and my car radio picks up the conservative talk shows from Washington State. Limbaugh, Beck, then Hannity. It's definitely... something.

GORDON: The real unemployment rate isn't an issue? Seems like kind of a big deal if our government is deceiving us.


I'm sorry if I wasn't making myself clear; Rush was talking with his usual sense of authority... but he was completely incorrect. The Labor Force Participation rate is how many people either have jobs or are LOOKING for jobs. That percentage increased this month for the first time in years, basically. People are not as discouraged as they used to be.

Rush made it a big point to explain the Labor Force Participation Rate as the number of jobs available to workers. It made NO sense, and so it ticked me off. It's right there on Wikipedia, for fark's sake!

KimNorth: That's you


I have no idea why you're mad at me.
 
2012-03-10 05:25:24 AM

Teufelaffe: olddinosaur: No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.

You are incorrect.

FDR was re-elected twice with unemployment in the double digits.


Dude! FDR was like... a million years ago. America was a different country then. I think OldDinosaur meant to say, "No 21st Century American president has ever been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact0r'd!!1!"
 
2012-03-10 05:26:30 AM

EnviroDude: Teufelaffe: olddinosaur: No President has ever been re--elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact.

You are incorrect.

FDR was re-elected twice with unemployment in the double digits.


Obama ain't FDR and this ain't the 1930's.


No but he is the magic negro and he is going to win in November. You may just as well prepare your 2016 candidates early. Don't blame me - I don't vote for him but I'm sure as hell not going to vote for the GOP offerings this year either.
 
2012-03-10 07:02:34 AM
In before the GOP/DEM derp...

/woohoo!
//why, yes, I do take meds, why?
 
2012-03-10 07:29:27 AM
Yeah, that'll last until a Republican is in the White House again.
 
2012-03-10 08:09:22 AM
Yup, than they'll fix unemployment, and this whole economy in general
 
2012-03-10 10:13:13 AM

Thunderpipes: Skleenar: Thunderpipes: Rush bad, Bill Maher good, 1 million dollars to Obama.

This retarded non-sequiter is brought you you by......well, no one, anymore.

If you feel bad for Rush, you can send him a Pick-me-up Bouquet from Pro Flowers.

I feel bad for you. You liberal morons have no morals at all. You really are just terrible people, like horses.



This makes.......no sense.
 
2012-03-10 10:14:40 AM

Nadie_AZ: That'll last right up until a Republican gets in office- and then they'll switch it back.

This is the only reason the idea is dumb.


It's not the only reason. It doesn't really matter what measure they use as the primary one but it should be consistent. While U-5 or U-6 probably makes more sense as the unemployment rate we've been using U-3 so we should continue to use U-3 so we can compare apples to apples.

Teufelaffe: Isn't the entire purpose of tracking the unemployment rate to get an idea of how many people are out there looking for a job, but don't have one? From a governing standpoint, do we really care how many people are not working and not looking?


Not working/not looking includes those who have made other arrangements at present--those who went back to school for more training, those who decided to simply make a go of it as a single-income household etc.

GDubDub: I'd also like to see the "underemployed" reflected in the rate. If I can only get 20 hours, I should be considered 50% unemployed. I'd likewise think that someone who takes full-time work at 50% accustomed pay 50% unemployed. I've heard estimates that this would put the rate around 26%. No citations, sorry.


U-6 is supposed to count these people. I do like your idea of counting them as fractions, though.
 
2012-03-10 12:22:39 PM

Msol: Thunderpipes: Msol: This is so farking pathetic. This morning on my way to work I was listening to Rush try to explain the Labour Force Participation Rate. He said that it's the amount of jobs available.

Can't the people even THINK remotely about any issue at all? Motherfarkers, all of them.

Liberals listen to Rush? Not a single conservative I know does. Is that like the Howard Stern thing?

I live in Canada and teach at two universities that are very far from each other, so I need something to entertain me during my commutes. Canadian politics are pretty boring here in Vancouver, and my car radio picks up the conservative talk shows from Washington State. Limbaugh, Beck, then Hannity. It's definitely... something.

GORDON: The real unemployment rate isn't an issue? Seems like kind of a big deal if our government is deceiving us.

I'm sorry if I wasn't making myself clear; Rush was talking with his usual sense of authority... but he was completely incorrect. The Labor Force Participation rate is how many people either have jobs or are LOOKING for jobs. That percentage increased this month for the first time in years, basically. People are not as discouraged as they used to be.

Rush made it a big point to explain the Labor Force Participation Rate as the number of jobs available to workers. It made NO sense, and so it ticked me off. It's right there on Wikipedia, for fark's sake!

KimNorth: That's you

I have no idea why you're mad at me.


Oopsy Daisy sorry ) :
 
2012-03-10 01:03:34 PM
If your focus as a politician is the unemployment rate, you damn well better be proposing solutions to the problem. Changing how unemployment is measured does nothing to help those who are unemployed. Raising 'awareness' isn't going to accomplish anything.
 
2012-03-10 01:12:46 PM

Msol: No problem. I teach this stuff, so I know most people don't know what to look for.

Here's a link with all the different measures (new window). It includes both seasonally adjusted figures and unadjusted.

There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers. Here is a table with the participation rate and other useful info. (new window)


U LIBRULS WITH UR FACS R DUM WHY U NO LISSEN TO RUSH

/Seriously, though, smarted and faved
 
2012-03-10 02:25:34 PM
Now that is one amazingly effective legislator. He merely proposes legislation that sternly mandates that the Bureau of Labor Statistics shall publish the U-5 and U-6 unemployment estimates, and you go check the BLS web site and HOLY COW there they are already, in historical series going back decades, and in a variety of user-friendly formats. WOW!! But that's not the most amazing part. It turns out that the BLS have been openly publishing all this data for at least the last dozen years! (I know this because I was accessing these very data sets from the BLS web or ftp sites back in the nineties.)

So what we've got here is a lawmaker - no ordinary man but a veritable law-making god - whose merest suggestion is not only instantly implemented, but implemented retroactively. O glorious Congressgod Hunter, quick, propose a law against bombing Pearl Harbor.
 
2012-03-10 02:42:35 PM

EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.


What color is the sky in your world? And do you have unicorns? I want one.
 
2012-03-10 03:12:13 PM

gaslight: The economy has changed, and demographics aren't the same, so be wary of making multi decade comparisons.

For example, in the 1970s, assembly lines, starting with cars, had their numbers reduced with power assistance and then with automation in the 1980s. The layoffs among blue collar workers were so pronounced that politicians deregulated the real-estate finance industry in order to ensure that blue collar workers had some sort of jobs.
In the 1980s and 1990s, workplaces were computerized, thus all of the clerking jobs went away,
In the 1990s and 00s, networking demolished the middleman businesses and lengthened supply chains.

The result: amazing productivity. The trouble is that when productivity (and therefore GDP) goes up, the level unemployment also goes up. It doesn't matter what you do, those jobs are never, ever coming back.

What to do? What to do?

This will be a critical problem for everyone to solve in order to maintain social cohesion.


Holy shiat! Brilliance on fark!

My guess is, eventually people will stop being employees as much and opt to do more contract work. You are your own boss and can do/say what ever you want, as long as you do the job you agreed to do for the money you agreed to it for. Company wins because it is cheaper to contract you, and you win because you get more money.
 
2012-03-10 03:32:41 PM
Spaced Cowboy:I'm making 5 figures less than I was 2 years ago and being treated like a piece of entry level shiat by a manager that, literally, can't even tie her own shoes (farking velcro farking shoes in a professional place of business, give me a break you fat, lazy piece of shiat.)

Velcro? I thought they only make those kind of shoes for children. I guess that biatch has never heard of loafers.
 
2012-03-10 06:26:51 PM

PsiChick: EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.

What color is the sky in your world? And do you have unicorns? I want one.


Hi PsiChick! Just wanted to say it was not clear from your reply if the central point (uncounted unemployed) or if the Dem BS ED was talking is what you were poking fun at.

Just wanted to say I think the political stupid some on Fark adhere to is well, stupid.

I would rather think of EnviroDude as Ed, and just assume Ed is loyal to a politically stupid stance rather than deal with the facts.
 
2012-03-10 06:36:45 PM

CasperImproved: PsiChick: EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.

What color is the sky in your world? And do you have unicorns? I want one.

Hi PsiChick! Just wanted to say it was not clear from your reply if the central point (uncounted unemployed) or if the Dem BS ED was talking is what you were poking fun at.

Just wanted to say I think the political stupid some on Fark adhere to is well, stupid.

I would rather think of EnviroDude as Ed, and just assume Ed is loyal to a politically stupid stance rather than deal with the facts.


The point that it's being lied about. No one in their right mind is going to lie 'for Obama'.

If there's a problem, it's with the measurements, which could be validly argued, but I highly doubt an unemployed person is going to say, "Hmm, I'm unemployed...should I lie and make Obama look better?".
 
2012-03-10 06:53:18 PM

Sea Monkey: If your focus as a politician is the unemployment rate, you damn well better be proposing solutions to the problem. Changing how unemployment is measured does nothing to help those who are unemployed. Raising 'awareness' isn't going to accomplish anything.


Of course it does. It makes people realize the problems aren't being solved, they're just being covered up differently. Republicans have plenty of solutions to the problem - get Obama out of office and take 25 Senators with him.
 
2012-03-10 07:04:03 PM

Vodka Zombie: Dude! FDR was like... a million years ago. America was a different country then. I think OldDinosaur meant to say, "No 21st Century American president has ever been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact0r'd!!1!"


Well, there have only been two presidential elections in the 21st century (2004, 2008), so....

/2000 was last century
 
2012-03-10 07:06:32 PM

im14u2c: Vodka Zombie: Dude! FDR was like... a million years ago. America was a different country then. I think OldDinosaur meant to say, "No 21st Century American president has ever been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact0r'd!!1!"

Well, there have only been two presidential elections in the 21st century (2004, 2008), so....

/2000 was last century


www.zewp.com
 
2012-03-10 07:11:02 PM

PsiChick: CasperImproved: PsiChick: EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.

What color is the sky in your world? And do you have unicorns? I want one.

Hi PsiChick! Just wanted to say it was not clear from your reply if the central point (uncounted unemployed) or if the Dem BS ED was talking is what you were poking fun at.

Just wanted to say I think the political stupid some on Fark adhere to is well, stupid.

I would rather think of EnviroDude as Ed, and just assume Ed is loyal to a politically stupid stance rather than deal with the facts.

The point that it's being lied about. No one in their right mind is going to lie 'for Obama'.

If there's a problem, it's with the measurements, which could be validly argued, but I highly doubt an unemployed person is going to say, "Hmm, I'm unemployed...should I lie and make Obama look better?".


Sorry for my lack of com skills...

I meant to say I think the numbers are going to reflect whatever the current power holders want you to see (obviously). And they will always be skewed towards a favorable look at their efforts. In this case not. If the numbers were to include the number of people no longer employed and are unaccounted for in the public numbers, there would be a drastic shift towards the negative.

Personally? I don't care if it was a GOP or DEM that points that out in public. But the fact exists.

I also meant to say I agree with your view.

The third thing I meant to communicate is that those on Fark that spout party lines are *all* retarded, and brainwashed.

No current political party has everyone's interests in mind. Therefore none can be trusted to tell the truth.

In this case, a large number of people are unemployed, but because they are not (or no longer) receiving unemployment benefits, they are not accounted for.
 
2012-03-10 07:27:33 PM

CasperImproved: PsiChick: CasperImproved: PsiChick: EnviroDude: how many million people have lost their jobs and not found one since Jan 2009? who cares if they are counted or not as long as it makes Obama look better in the press. It isn't like they aren't going to lie to make him look better anyway.

What color is the sky in your world? And do you have unicorns? I want one.

Hi PsiChick! Just wanted to say it was not clear from your reply if the central point (uncounted unemployed) or if the Dem BS ED was talking is what you were poking fun at.

Just wanted to say I think the political stupid some on Fark adhere to is well, stupid.

I would rather think of EnviroDude as Ed, and just assume Ed is loyal to a politically stupid stance rather than deal with the facts.

The point that it's being lied about. No one in their right mind is going to lie 'for Obama'.

If there's a problem, it's with the measurements, which could be validly argued, but I highly doubt an unemployed person is going to say, "Hmm, I'm unemployed...should I lie and make Obama look better?".

Sorry for my lack of com skills...

I meant to say I think the numbers are going to reflect whatever the current power holders want you to see (obviously). And they will always be skewed towards a favorable look at their efforts. In this case not. If the numbers were to include the number of people no longer employed and are unaccounted for in the public numbers, there would be a drastic shift towards the negative.

Personally? I don't care if it was a GOP or DEM that points that out in public. But the fact exists.

I also meant to say I agree with your view.

The third thing I meant to communicate is that those on Fark that spout party lines are *all* retarded, and brainwashed.

No current political party has everyone's interests in mind. Therefore none can be trusted to tell the truth.

In this case, a large number of people are unemployed, but because they are not (or no longer) receiving unemployment benefits, they are ...


Ah, got it.

No, I was just saying that he wasn't debating evidence, he was claiming people were so in love with Obama they'd lie for him. Which I'm glad we agree on.

I also agree that there's problems with our measurements, especially that benefits are the only way to be counted. I'd like to see a correction in that. I just doubt the problem stems from Obama's approval ratings. :p
 
2012-03-10 07:38:09 PM

im14u2c: Vodka Zombie: Dude! FDR was like... a million years ago. America was a different country then. I think OldDinosaur meant to say, "No 21st Century American president has ever been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2%, fact0r'd!!1!"

Well, there have only been two presidential elections in the 21st century (2004, 2008), so....

/2000 was last century


[that's the joke]
 
2012-03-10 11:21:27 PM

Msol:

KimNorth: That's you

I have no idea why you're mad at me.


It's because you are using actual facts, which as we know have a liberal bias.
 
Displayed 197 of 197 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report