U-3 And The U-6: Unemployment 7.8% To 22% - Is There A Better Method?

Written by Lance Roberts on Monday, October 8, 2012

Recently I wrote "Why The Real Unemployment Rate Is 16.9%" which sparked quite a few e-mails revolving around the issue of the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures unemployment. In that article we discussed the differences between the U-3 and the U-6 rates and showed what unemployment would look like if you included those that had been out of work longer than 52 weeks. In reality the problem is far worse - as I stated previously:

Read More>

----------------------------------------

Reason For Today's Unemployment Rate Plunge: Part-Time Jobs For Economic Reasons Surge Most Since QE1 Announcement

US Foodstamp Usage Rises To New Record High

But SEE, the libs on here don't want facts. If the U3 rate is declining, that means the country is moving in the right direction. Don't confuse them with the U6 rate, which shows we are worse off than ever. It will make them feel bad, but support Obama anyway, because he "needs more time".

But SEE, the libs on here don't want facts. If the U3 rate is declining, that means the country is moving in the right direction. Don't confuse them with the U6 rate, which shows we are worse off than ever. It will make them feel bad, but support Obama anyway, because he "needs more time". Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

bullshit

put Reagans numbers to the U6 test and get back with us

Uh, Reagan's not President. i thought you knew. It was in all the papers.

You need to get out more. Find out what the real world is like.

Uh, Reagan's not President. i thought you knew. It was in all the papers.

You need to get out more. Find out what the real world is like. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Reagan was president when you opened your mouth with " worse off than EVER"


ever is a big ole word for a washed up lawyer ...

Denny Crane

Well, compare the U6 rate under Reagan, and let us know what it is. That would sure show us! Of course, we can't expect Obama to be better than Reagan, can we? If Reagan was bad, then Obama has the right to be bad, right?

You lack basic logic skills, CBJ7. But verified Obamazombies typically lack those.

Here is the U6 rate from 1994 to the present.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...94&toYear=2012

Now, where is it highest in those years? I'll see if I can find one from 1980 to the present. Gee, it was even lower during the GW Bush presidency!

Well, compare the U6 rate under Reagan, and let us know what it is. That would sure show us! Of course, we can't expect Obama to be better than Reagan, can we? If Reagan was bad, then Obama has the right to be bad, right?

You lack basic logic skills, CBJ7. But verified Obamazombies typically lack those. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

you compare it sport, I ask first .. nonetheless

20 months into his first term Ronnie posted 10%+ numbers for 10 consecutive months ... for his 8 years in office he AVERAGED 7.5% unemployment ...

ergo; Obie was, and is better than Ronnie, no expectation to it.

Wrong-o. Here are the facts. Obama has averaged over 8% for his first term. That is your first lie. Here are some more facts for you. Notice in October of his first term, the U3 rate is significantly lower than Obama's. You are an Obamatic liar, CBJ7. Admit it, you love Obama.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...ilson%20Reagan

bullshit ..

you bitch about the U3 rate then quote it? you fucking pathetic hypocrite you ...

since you opened that door, I suppose you wont be immune to the emperical data collected by the BLS will you?