The "Real" Unemployment Rate soars to 17.5%

[Karmadillo]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-unemployment-rate-is-175-2009-11

Joe Weisenthal|Nov. 6, 2009, 8:39 AM | 966 |13

The doomiest among you are obsessed with U-6, also known as The Real Unemployment Rate, because it measures discouraged workers who aren't actually looking for work.

Anyway, that number soared to 17.5% from 17% last month. That's a huge month-over-month jump.

[HughBeaumont]

1. I think it's correct that we should be bringing this up . . .

. . . yet I have no idea WHY it was never mentioned for the past eight years anywhere else but DU.

[jpljr77]

4. That's not true at all.

Rex Nutting at MarketWatch has been reporting it for at least a year. Other outlets, like AP, also mention it.

It's in the MarketWatch story today on the numbers: http://www.marketwatch.com/story//unemployment-rate-hits-102-in-october-2009-11-06-83100. As with most things in the media today (and in media that "watches" the media), though, I guess if it's not in the lead, it doesn't count.

[HughBeaumont]

8. Uh, I said the past EIGHT years.

As in "when Bewsh held America hostage". As in "when job creation numbers were medioce to downright sorry". They always ignored the bad jobs numbers on his watch and instead promoted his low and vastly incorrect U3 unemployment rate.

Let's not promote the myth that the job numbers have been bad just this past year - they've been generally lousy for a decade. What we're seeing now is 30 years of putrid Republican economics coming home to roost.

[jpljr77]

10. You point is valid, but the numbers were vastly different.

The probable reason that the U-6 wasn't discussed is that it wasn't the story it is today. Hell, the unemployment rate itself wasn't even a huge issue during the Bush presidency (until the end, of course). Not including the end (since we want to look at all eight years), the peak U-6 reading for Bush was 10.4% in Sept. 2003. (In January 2009, it was 13.9%, fwiw)

Despite that, I distinctly remember his job creation record (or loss, in his case) being a huge media headline in the 2004 race. Hoover, etc.

And don't get me wrong, I agree with everything you wrote in your post and on the page you linked. But when you're dealing with stats, you have to be very sober.

Most interesting smoking gun on George W. Bush and his jobs "legacy": The lowest unemployment rate of his presidency was the day he took office (Feb 2001 - 4.2%). The highest rate was the day he left (Jan 2009 - 7.6%). Speaks volumes.

[HillbillyBob]

11. It was really worse than that. The started counting

McJobs like flipping burgers as manufacturing jobs.

As someone who has worked endless McShit jobs that don't pay the bills I would like to pop (*) in the mouth.

[Birthmark]

2. The U-6 measures the semi-employed, too.

"Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons"

It fails to measure some who have quit looking for work if they meet certain criteria. I wouldn't take it as the "real unemployment rate." However, I do take it as an indicator of how bad things are in the job market.

[peace frog]

3. :::Groan:::

Unless the hemorrhaging of jobs can be staunched, we're gonna take a thumpin' in 2010.

[arcadian]

5. What is the reported unemployment rate?

The "official" one.

[zazen]

6. is the U6 broken down by state? n/t

[jpljr77]

7. No. And U-6, or a similar measure, isn't enumerated in the state report

BLS issues its state employment report toward the end of the month: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

[tnlurker]

9. Anybody know what the real inflation rate is?

To go along with this number?

[Karmadillo]

12. Thank you for the unrecs.

nt