Economic "Smoke and Mirrors"

UE rate down? Yay! Inflation steady? Hooray! Or, is it really? According to an analysis of the real figures, unemployment and inflation are out of control, and much greater than reported. Here's part of the article:

The presstitute media attributed the drop in the headline unemployment rate (U3) to 7.7 percent from 7.9 percent to the happy jobs report. But Rex Nutting at Market Watch says that the unemployment rate fell because 130,000 unemployed people who have been unable to find a job and became discouraged were dropped out of the U3 measure of unemployment. The official U6 measure, which counts some discouraged workers, shows an unemployment rate of 14.3 percent. Statistician John Williams’ measure, which counts all discouraged workers (people who have ceased looking for a job), is 23 percent.

In other words, the real rate of unemployment is 2 to 3 times the reported rate.

Nutting believes that the U3 unemployment rate has become too politicized to have any meaning. He suggests using instead the workforce participation rate. This rate is falling substantially, reflecting the discouragement that occurs from inability to find jobs.

Williams (shadowstats.com) says that distortions in seasonal factor adjustments overstate monthly payroll employment by about 100,000 jobs. The jobs data that is not seasonally adjusted shows about 1.5 million fewer jobs in the economy.

In a recent communication, statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) reports that the rigged official annual rate of consumer inflation (CPI) of 1.6 percent is in fact, as measured by the official U.S. government methodology of 1990, 9.2 percent. In other words, the rate of inflation is 5.75 times greater than the reported rate. If Williams is correct, the interest rate on bonds is extremely negative.

Over the years, the official measure of inflation has been altered in two ways. One is the introduction of substitution for what formerly was a constant weighted basket of goods. In the former measure, if a price of an item in the basket (index) rose, the CPI rose by the weight of that item in the basket.

In the substitution-based measure, if a price of an item in the basket goes up, the item is removed from the basket, and a cheaper item is put in its place. For example, if the price of New York strip steak rises, the new CPI will substitute the price of a cheaper cut.

In this new measure, inflation is held down by measuring not a fixed standard of living but a declining standard of living.

Everyone knows the economy is bad, and getting worse. But the way the government manipulates the numbers makes things look better than what they really are. You all know prices are rising. You are being lied to by our government, and this isn't just Obama, his predecessors did the same thing. But Obama promised to be different. He isn't.

OBAMA DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU!

For the rest of this enlightening article, click here: http://personalliberty.com/2013/03/1...official-lies/

I posted a recent chart from the government showing the U6 category being about 15%. For the math challenged that is the addition of U1 through U6. 15%.....

Hey, at least corporate profits are way up and the companies are sitting on more cash than ever!

Yeah, they aren't spending it on salaries.

Yeah, they aren't spending it on salaries. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

they are if youre a CEO

So what? A successful CEO should make whatever the market will bear and whatever the contract states if the company hits the goals laid out. Most cases the BOD is the one writing up those contracts. And one CEO's salary compared to 100's or 1000's employee salaries is pretty minuscule in the overall payroll of a company. Or do you think that the CEO should be paid just like everyone else?

My bigger point is that with the economic crash the last few years, these companies have figured out that they can get the job done with fewer people and achieve the same or better results. (Mine certainly has) Why would they want to hire more people when the cash they would spend on payroll can be taken to the bottom line for shareholders (Wall St is up, right?) or spent in other areas; product development, engineering, infrastructure improvements, advertising, expansion, etc, etc.

thanks for explaining something I already knew.

Then state your point about CEO salaries

Then state your point about CEO salaries Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

you mean my opinion? the point is pretty clear.

point ... its a known fact certain scetors lay off employees and give CEO's millions a yearly bonus after they get a seven figure salary .. and even worse, some of those sectors recieve government subsidies. The market can bare a $400 million dollar retirement package for a CEO ... at the expense of the job market.

opinion .. basically the same as a laid off worker collecting unemployment reading about the CEO of his/her former company getting a $25 million dollar bonus.

So what? A successful CEO should make whatever the market will bear and whatever the contract states if the company hits the goals laid out. Most cases the BOD is the one writing up those contracts. And one CEO's salary compared to 100's or 1000's employee salaries is pretty minuscule in the overall payroll of a company. Or do you think that the CEO should be paid just like everyone else?

My bigger point is that with the economic crash the last few years, these companies have figured out that they can get the job done with fewer people and achieve the same or better results. (Mine certainly has) Why would they want to hire more people when the cash they would spend on payroll can be taken to the bottom line for shareholders (Wall St is up, right?) or spent in other areas; product development, engineering, infrastructure improvements, advertising, expansion, etc, etc. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I can't wait until the shareholders figure out that the CEO can be outsourced for a third of the cost.

Where workers fuck up is taking benifits instead of pay and the company goes bankrupt, the CEO has already taken his pay. When will the workers ever learn?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8SgfJy2xVI


In the sixties, CEO pay vs average worker 30/1

Now it can be 400/1


What has change CC?

So what? A successful CEO should make whatever the market will bear and whatever the contract states if the company hits the goals laid out. Most cases the BOD is the one writing up those contracts. And one CEO's salary compared to 100's or 1000's employee salaries is pretty minuscule in the overall payroll of a company. Or do you think that the CEO should be paid just like everyone else?

My bigger point is that with the economic crash the last few years, these companies have figured out that they can get the job done with fewer people and achieve the same or better results. (Mine certainly has) Why would they want to hire more people when the cash they would spend on payroll can be taken to the bottom line for shareholders (Wall St is up, right?) or spent in other areas; product development, engineering, infrastructure improvements, advertising, expansion, etc, etc. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

+1, CC. CEO's are paid to do one thing...generate profits for the shareholders. The fact that they are now figuring out how to make enormous profits by doing more with less does not bode well for the job market for quite a while to come. With the economy the way it is, there isn't any need to hire workers because their productivity isn't required. Are they expected to hire more people to just stand around with nothing to do just so a bunch of libtards will feel better because that mean ole CEO is making less money??

Until O'Blunder and his minions take their boot off the neck of the producers in this country, none of the above will change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8SgfJy2xVI


In the sixties, CEO pay vs average worker 30/1

Now it can be 400/1


What has change CC? Originally Posted by WTF

Current and previous laws are written to protect the wealthy. Robert vs Obama I

+1, CC. CEO's are paid to do one thing...generate profits for the shareholders. The fact that they are now figuring out how to make enormous profits by doing more with less does not bode well for the job market for quite a while to come. With the economy the way it is, there isn't any need to hire workers because their productivity isn't required. Are they expected to hire more people to just stand around with nothing to do just so a bunch of libtards will feel better because that mean ole CEO is making less money??

Until O'Blunder and his minions take their boot off the neck of the producers in this country, none of the above will change. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Previous laws tax were written to protect the wealthy during the recession. The QE was used for the market and protect pension. Now the Country need revenue to continue the recovery, some are treating to leave the US ex. Paulson.