Dade wrote:That's a long, well articulated post and I agree with almost all of it but, nowhere in it do you even try to make the claim that unemployment is not lower today than it was when Barry took office. It was a lot of talk with no actual conclusion. Of course, we're used to that from you.
See.....numbers are numbers. When simply trying to know if the rate has risen or dropped, it does not matter how we calculate the unemployment rate as long as we're consistent in our method. In other words, any method used will show the same arc of progress or decline.
Is it OK to believe it now that shadowstats.com has confirmed it?
Actually, no. Shadow Stats illustrates the absurdity and inconsistency in the government's methods over time. They compare the government's official numbers of today with what the official numbers would be had they kept using the same methodology as in the past. They just use their own numbers against them. That's all it really sets out to accomplish. It never says the government's methodology in the past was correct, it simply peels back the onion and illustrates how ridiculous we are for trusting anything they say...whether it's the numbers from today, or the numbers from yesterday.
I actually did dispute the notion that "unemployment is getting better", because the factors I consider accurate don't agree with that notion. The factor that is concerning me most is the fact that population growth has been outpacing employment growth since 2006, and that the job growth we have seen is unproductive and low-paying work, which compounds the issue at the core. If today you have 500 people and 100 jobs, and tomorrow you have 550 people and 105 jobs, the unemployment situation is worse, not better. You can say, "we added 5 jobs" all you want, but that's nothing but spin doctory. The US population growth rate is about 1% per year, which is more than 3 million per year....so unless we're adding 3 million jobs per year every year, plus adding back the jobs that are previously eliminated, unemployment is still getting worse. (This is crude, and open for hair-splitting attacks, but you see where I'm going....)
So, what I'm getting at, is when you cut out all the silly politicial linguistic analytic games, and redefinitions and hair-splitting of what "unemployment" means, the only objective ratio is total jobs to total population. And total jobs to total population is worse than when Barry took office. And as I said, the earning power of those jobs, and the net worth of the people in the total work force (which is what REALLY counts), has been eroding at an even faster rate.