Gallup unemployment falls to 8.4%, matching lowest level since Jan 2010

I said 1982.......not 1986

 

So what? It didn't change between 1982 and 1986.

 

the peak of the recession was in 1981 - 1982......thats why!

 

That's why what?

 

that by 1986 the recession was over and a recovery had begun a few years earlier!

 

Which has what to do with your now proven false statement:

 

I am pretty sure in 1982 part timers were not included...regardless of what your propaganda link says

 

Maybe others are impressed with your baseless claim.

 

nope...its my spectacular predictions in gold and silver....and the coming currency crisis that you are obviously ill prepared for

 

Gallup unemployment poll dropped another point today to 8.3% unemployment.

That's the lowest level of unemployment since Gallup began polling unemployment in Jan 2010.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14699

"William’s SGS-Alternate Unemployment Measure rose to a jaw-dropping 20.6%."

You know as well as I do that the Gov doesn't calculate unemployment like it used to.

 

Oh yeah. Shadow Govt Statistics. The same folks who tell us unemployment was 15% when Clinton was president. And people with part time jobs aren't "unemployed".

 

But you can't provide us a link.

More garbage out, garbage in.

 

Using this dubious metric, what was unemployment under Reagan? And Bush?

Typical of conservative "economics", you're comparing apples with stinkbombs.

 

Gallop is probably run by a bunch of democrats LOL

 

gold is rising for a reason ya know......but I don't expect people like you to understand that

 

nope......money in gold out

 

throughout history socialism has never worked yet the left keeps trying to repeat the same mistakes over and over again!

 

The Gallup numbers are ALWAYS going to be lower then the governments numbers. Gallup only counts workers over 18. The government counts those over 16.

And there is no point comparing the two - as Gallup themselves say:

'Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older.'

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx


Also, assuming your company is in a state that has to pay 16-17 year olds the same minimum wage as 18+ year olds...why would you (assuming you hired a lot of young people) take a 16 year old student over an 18+ year old adult?
One of the reasons places like McDonald's hire the former is because many of the latter just won't do those jobs normally.
But with the economy sucking - the latter have little choice.
So if more 18+ year olds are being hired instead of 16-17 year olds - that would skew the Gallup numbers even further.
And it might partially explain why Gallup's unemployment numbers are trending slightly lower.

 

You are flat out wrong. The Gallup numbers are frequently higher thn government numbers, and whenever that happens, we see 2-3 threads by conservatives pointing it out.

Here's one from a year ago, when the government number was 9.6%

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-finds-u-s-unemployment-10-0-mid-october.html

From Mar 2011, government number at 8.8%

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/175054-gallup-unemployment-hitting-10-3-february.html

From Feb 2011 government number at 8.9%

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/173388-gallup-finds-u-s-unemployment-up-10-0-a.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/172200-gallup-unemployment-10-3-thanks-obama.html

There are other examples.

From my OP:

The Gallup employment numbers are not adjusted for repetitive seasonal changes, so you cannot compare it on a month to month basis like you can the unemployment numbers the BLS puts out. But you can compare it year to year. On October 11, 2010, the number was 9.8%. That represents a fair significant 1.4 percentage point drop from last year in unemployment.

And last year during September, (though still not great) unemployment worsened going from 9.3% to 10.1%.

This year it has improved, from 9.1% to 8.7%.​

As of today, the 8.3% unemployment rate is 1.7 percentage points lower than the 10.0% rate Gallup measured a year ago.

 

Jeez...touchy.

Be that as it may, you are right and I am wrong.



Since Gallup uses less people in it's survey (only 18+ year olds) - then I assumed that would mean better numbers during bad times.

But obviously that is not the case.

However, it does (imo) give more credence to my theory that the reason Gallup's numbers are trending down is due to (partially at least) the hiring of 18+ year olds as replacements for many jobs normally done by 16+ year olds.
So, if/when McDonald's hires an 18+ year old to replace a 16/17 year old - to Gallup, that means a job was created..when none in fact was.
But the gov't. does not do this since they count all those employed over 16.


Either way - it matters not.

Arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic any way you wish...

the economy sucks, there is going to probably be a recession and unless Obama starts a war (with Iran?) or gets the Fed to make QE3 a BIGGIE and not too far from Nov. 2012...he will probably be gone in 2012.

Naaaa na na na na...


Personally, I am hoping for a BIGGIE QE3 so my gold/silver can go through the roof.

Though first I want them to drop down a LOT lower so I can buy a LOT more.


Have a calmer day.

 

This response is not coherent mr. flubber.

So what about that number of 20.6%?

 

What about it? See my previous post. Your article cites SGS, using a number that includes part time employed.

 

Awesome, no need for raised taxes, stimulus or a jobs bill.
Thanks for that great news Iremon.

 

Straw man all you want, you know the extra 11% isn't just the partially unemployed, who as far as i'm concerned, might as well be unemployed.