15,000,000 unemployed

21 replies [Last post]
Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010

150,000 got back to work last week.
Yet the 9.7% unemployment number didn't change!

Many seem to not understand that. 150,000 to work out of 15,000,000 is .0001 parts of the whole!
It doesn't change a one decimal number, or even a three decimal number.

Anyway the unemployment number, 15 million, is calculated differently than the percentage number, 9.7%.
Neither one is always correct due to the methods used.

One is by a sample phone survey and the other by who draws unemployment at the time.

You know how bad phone surveys can be!
There are many people not working who do not draw unemployment. One big one right now is people who quit looking after a year or two.
Also part-time workers and people working for much less now, maybe at two jobs are considered working at full compensation!

7,000,000 out of work is considered satisfactory except for the 7,000,000 out of work!

So, we need jobs for 8,000,000 people. How many years will that take? How many more are yet to lose their job?

Where is President Obama supposed to find 8,000,000 jobs in one year?

He has cut the losses from 700,000 per week to a 150,000 gain. Not bad. Or is that because of Bush?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Explain the 460,000 NEW unemployed this week

I guess Bush caused that too..

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
lindsey

Better check that number again (460,000 new unemployed). Didn't happen this week or last!

The unemployed per week added has dropped from about 750,000 per week in January to about 150,000 new ones now.
Blame who you will, I don't care.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Bonkers you are too easy to dismiss and here is why..

"Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 18,000 to a seasonally adjusted 460,000, the Labor Department said. Analysts polled by Reuters expected claims to edge down to 435,000 from a previously reported 439,000 the prior week."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/04/08/2010-04-08_bumpy_recovery_jo...

"WASHINGTON (AFP) – New claims for unemployment insurance benefits in the United States unexpectedly rose last week, government data showed Thursday in a mixed report on the troubled labor market.
Initial jobless claims increased by 18,000 to a seasonally adjusted 460,000 in the week ending April 3, the Labor Department said, revising slightly upward the prior week's reading to 442,000.
The rise surprised most analysts who had expected new claims to fall to 435,000 and snap two weeks of declines."

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
lindsey

You were wrong and you know it!

There were not 460,000 NEW claims last week!

Anyway you talk federal sometimes and then switch to state!

Bluffing (dismissing) won't help you with me!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
You're a dufus you know that Bonkers?

I gave you the link from the report on the New Board of Labor numbers.

"The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers.

The Labor Department said first-time claims increased by 18,000 to a seasonally adjusted 460,000. That's worse than economists' estimates of a drop to 435,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

The report covers the week that includes the Easter holiday, and a Labor Department analyst said seasonal adjustment for that week can be difficult since the Easter holiday occurs in different weeks each year."

That's from the Associated Press..

Read it.. Stop flapping your fingers and do a little research before you post.. Geeze man stop proving how ignorant you are.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
lindsey 460,000

See your subject title of 4/8! 460,000 NEW unemployed last week!

You simply can't make that anything else! You said it, I said it was wrong, and it is. Maybe you didn't mean what you said---but in that case who is the dufus---whatever that is?

There are still over 15,000,000 unemployed now, which would have been 20,000,000 had not the changes made last year ans this one brought weekly job losses from up to 800,000 per week to now very small number losses.

Don't forget that hundreds of thousands turn 18 every year looking for a job!
Those that die in the year aren't even counted as unemployed to start with!

Please reason out a few things instead of reading numbers out of the paper that are put there the way they want them listed.

You have your mind made up----forget it.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Like I said dufus..

Spin baby Spin.. Back track.. I voted for who.. can't remember..

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Lindsey: Recidivists

The 449 Tea party branches united today as one conglomeration of federations!

That gives them about the population of Sandy Springs now and just about as intelligent.

Did you hear Sarah talk to one of those groups again in New Orleans today?
She schooled President Obama, The State Department, National Security Adviser, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the mistakes they all just made in Prague. She couldn't even have read the paper by now--it isn't printed yet.

I really didn't know she was a nuclear and arms expert nor had any on her staff---does she have one now?

Newton Gingrich also spoke today about our "most radical President ever," and the "machine he has" to pass laws that some people don't want.
I thought congress passed laws and the President signed them!

Almost as stupid as the "Contract With America," and two wives ago, and the "No Child Left Behind" fiasco, not to mention "Mission Accomplished."

Was anybody allowed to go to the plane carrying the young Lieutenant from Tyrone who was killed in that "Mission Accomplished" The Lieutenant certainly accomplished his mission better than we could have asked for.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
lindsey

I asked you to recheck your numbers you quoted in your subject line above and instead you flowered over some weird explanation.

What I'm finding happening here ever since President Obama won the election is that such statements are put out as truth when people know better.

Those who don't bother to look it up or care, will believe what is in print!

The facts are: 7-800,000 were losing jobs per week when Obama took office, and now 1-200,000 are losing jobs per week. That will still add a couple of million more unemployed this year if further changes aren't made to hire people out of work!

Did you expect this administration to get 15,000,000 hired the first year and have Zero unemployed?

Be thankful for the improvement and let's start work to reduce it further and solve immigration and bring back admiration of our country.

It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. Election time is for that.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
460,000 new UC filings

anyway you try yo spin dufus.. you're still WRONG..

You have no creditability.. You lost that when you lied.. then tried to cover it up..so sorry charlie..

Webmaster
Webmaster's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2009
Ninja-Edited

Removed some weird trailing punctuation that showed up at the end of this post. Bonkers, do you remember putting that stuff there yourself?

Also, 150,000 / 15,000,000 = 0.01 (just sayin').

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Ninja-Edited Webmaster

Yes, 9.7% +.01 = 9.70%; using two decimal places.

9.70
(.01)
_____
9.69% or 9.7%

I knew why % unemployed didn't change, but did misplace the decimal when percentages are used.

As to the "weird punctuation" I don't remember any such thing. If it was derogatory, I didn't do it there.

Now, can the Ninja Webmaster also disagree with whether the 600,000 + NEW unemployed referred to in the subject of one other commentator here was correct?

Webmaster
Webmaster's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2009
Wasn't Derogatory

It was just some random periods and a > lying around. Since you don't remember it and I can't think of any reason why that might have been added to your post, we'll just assume your cat walked on your keyboard when you weren't looking.

I still think you might be calculating this stuff wrong, because 0.01 = 1%. All things comparable, 9.7% - 0.01 = 8.7% But I believe the 9.7% is unemployment out of total working age population (or something weird like that), so you can't just add those two numbers together anyway. It was a 1% reduction in the number of unemployed, but I can't say with any certainty about how that relates to the 9.7% you're referring to without knowing it's explicit calculation.

As to the data and what not, I don't take sides here. I just do math. Not that it matters anyway, since most statistics are just made up.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Webmaster

Have no cat! I haven't seen such a comment anyway!

Yes 1% means .01 when it is used as a multiplier.

But what you said about 9.7% minus .01 being 8.7% is incorrect.

I explained the way it works before. That is correct.
There simply wasn't enough people who went back to work to change a one decimal point result.

9.7% is the total percent out of work of the considered workforce.

1% improvement in the total out of work is certainly not reducing the total out of work by one point!
There is much difference in a percentage of something and one point of difference in something.

A 10% pay raise of what your raise was last time ($50) is $5.
A 10% pay raise on your total salary ($40,000) is $4,000.

OK, so you don't take sides but can you agree that approximately 15,000,000 people are unemployed according to government numbers?

If so, then does it make sense that another nearly half-million lost their jobs in the week he stated? (That is 25,000,000 per year!).

There must be one science expert there among all you liberal arts people!

Webmaster
Webmaster's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2009
No
Bonkers wrote:

Yes, 9.7% +.01 = 9.70%; using two decimal places.

9.70
(.01)
_____
9.69% or 9.7%

You cannot add or subtract 0.01 from 9.7% without first converting the units to match. Your math assumes that the 0.01 term is already a percent. A percent is converted to decimal by the factor 1 / 100, and a decimal is converted to percent by the inverse (100). So the problem really becomes:

9.7% - 0.01 * 100 = 9.7% - 1% = 8.7%

If you're still confused, here's a grade school math website to explain more in depth and back up what I'm saying.

I am not a liberal arts major. I am not a designer. I am a computer scientist. I am the science expert.

And again, I don't care about the subject matter at hand; I just dislike faulty math.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Webmaster and Lindsey (last on this)

OK, but the unemployment rate is still 9.7% (actually more).

I was more or less making fun of the released figures by the government as follows:

April 10
162,000 jobs added in March
484,000 initial jobless
457,750 moving average claims
4,639,000 filing continuing claims
4,638,500 moving average continuing claims

codicil
continuous claims data exclude people whose benefits expired or those who have moved to extensions?
It reflects those filing each week after their initial claim until the end of their standard benefit!!!!

Now if you want to know at this moment how many:
Out of work today: 15-20,000,000 approximately
How many have had to take a lower paying job and are not counted as unemployed: zillions.
How many moved in with relatives and aren't counted as unemployed: millions.
How many were added to hamburger joints, pizza places, nail salons, exercise clubs, bank clerks figuring out the next move: hundreds of thousands.

How many more are now in jail and mental institutions than were in in 2007? They are not considered unemployed.

How many more are now paid by tax money (officially they are employed but we have to pay for them: 20% more.

How do you like this faulty math?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
484,000 new Jobless out this week 24,000 higher than last week

Want to argue this Bonkers?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
lindsey (you are really confused)

Do you realize that the number you are using for NEW jobless is nearly a half a million per week going out of work?

That is over 20,000,000 NEW out of work per year! We only have 15,000,000 total out of work now!

YOU are using the word NEW (for additional) when it the number still filing or something like that. Where did you see such a number of NEW unemployed? printed?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Bonkers...****sigh****

"UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending April 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 484,000, an increase of 24,000 from the previous week's unrevised figure of 460,000. The 4-week moving average was 457,750, an increase of 7,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 450,250.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

Argue with the Department of Labor Bonkers. These are NEW initial claims for UC. That is what I am reporting. I believe you keep saying it is incorrect.. they are not separate numbers bonkers but a rolling number from week to week.. I guess it depends on what your definition of New is.. AP uses First Time.. CBS uses NEW as does CNN...I guess I miss your point..

Either way the NUMBERS are going the WRONG way.. and THAT my dear Bonkers is a FACT.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey - Gov't money

So much for our money going to "create" jobs. I guess the laws of economics haven't changed after all.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Senator Hatch.....

Today said that he figured there were truly about 18% instead of 9.8% out of work.

That is a rare truthful estimate for him. Guess he figures President Obama will get charged with those!

Fact is if we don't count people who are paid by taxes at federal, state and local level and pensions early, about 45% of the workers support the other 55%.

The people with babies on welfare also are not counted as unemployed!
It goes on and on. Also college students over 18. On and on.

You know all this info should be available from the late census, except for the 5-10% they missed. But it is doctored by bureaucrats.