http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/07/news/econo...cember_jobs_report/index.htm?hpt=T1

that's actually cool. I thought it was going to be at 9.7% (.1% decline), but it went to 9.4% (.4% decline)

oh good the recession is over!

OBAMA RULEZ DOODZ

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_census_poverty

meh

George Bush's penises are mostly outside in.

it's PENISI, GET IT RIGHT

rich get richer. poor get poorerer.

only wall street is real

U6 = 16.7%

* U1: Percentage of labour force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
* U2: Percentage of labour force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
* U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[2]
* U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
* U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
* U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).



Dec 2010

U1 5.6
U2 5.8
U3 9.4
U4 10.2
U5 10.9
U6 16.7

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

i'm sure that figures also does not include the "unemployable" who are homeless and have mental issues.

Or persons that are dependants. Up to age 25 for college students.

unemployment figures are total stat manipulation. Anyone remember when Clinton just changed the definition of unemployed to make the unemployment rates go lower? I don 't because i was probably 10 at the time, but it happened. ha

also fyi, 4% unemployment is considered total employment.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

How the labor dept. calculates these figures is beyond incomplete. They shouldn't be trusted. And why the fuck can't i find a percent error on these figures? Anyone that trusts these as anything more than a ruff estimate is a fool.

(itt: skewed graphs)

When I took stats in college the first thing we learned and the overall theme of the class is that you can make a graph say whatever you want with the same data. Most stats are highly scientific, especially if they don't list how they got their info, the data collecting process.

And true unemployment rates haven't shown the people who aren't looking or who want more work or a better paying job, at least half of my coworkers are making half of what they did at their old jobs 2 years ago. Hell, I have a dude who used to work at DC comics making 50,000 doing odd jobs working with me for probably 200 a week now.

Though the news of accelerated hiring was considered a sign of a possible return to health for the economy, real wages are still in the gutter for most people. Currently, average wages have been barely growing, increasing by 0.7 percent for all workers in the same period. Wages differ from earnings, as earnings are money received and wages are rates at which people are paid.

shutup fagget

Isn't that cute, someone just took a class.