It all depends on who is in office: when George W. Bush oversaw an economic recovery as president, liberals pointed to alternative unemployment numbers to cast doubt on his economic policies. Now that a liberal president sits in the White House conservative news sites, bloggers and think tanks point to the broader U-6 unemployment rate (which stands at 14.9 percent) and the discouraging numbers released yesterday to show that President Obama's economic policies aren't working.
Although I agree with almost all conservative critiques of President Obama's policies, there's also a good case that the widely reported 8.2 percent unemployment rate (the U-3 as its keepers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics call it), is a pretty accurate yardstick for the state of working America.
To begin with, measuring "unemployment" is hard. Currently, only about 60 percent of all people over 18 hold jobs. By this measure -- the broadest one possible -- the "real" unemployment rate is 40 percent. But it's ridiculous to think that. Most people who don't work are in school, staying home to raise children, or retired. Thus, government statisticians have the difficult task of trying to measure people who want to work but can't find anything.
And this requires some judgment calls. In fact, only a little more than half of those counted as "unemployed" actually lost a job anytime in the recent past and now want another one. This is measured by the U-2 unemployment rate that currently stands at 4.6 percent. (Down .5 of one percent in the past year). The other 45 percent of the 8.2 percent of the "unemployed" workforce consists of people who, for one reason, or another didn't have a job in the recent past but want one now. While it's certainly desirable for all of these people to find work, not all of them meet conventional images of unemployment. For example, the widely reported unemployment rate includes full-time students seeking part-time work and people who have never held a job of any sort and are looking for one.
Many other categories of "unemployment" tracked by the government and included in the broadest measures of unemployment stretch the definition of "unemployed" even further. For example, while part time workers who want a current employer will give them more hours but aren't making an effort to find another job face a difficult situation, they aren't really "unemployed" even if they get counted in the U-6. And much-discussed "discouraged workers" who have stopped looking for work comprise only half of one percent of the total labor force. (And, since becoming "discouraged" typically results in the loss of unemployment benefits, many people who fall into this category actually have other sources of income and may not have had a major economic need to work in the first place.)
On the other hand, some individuals left out of even the broadest current definitions of "unemployment" would still prefer to work. For example, 65 year olds who lose their jobs may decide to "retire" even though they would have happily considered working in the same job for years. Some people receiving government support payments for disabilities, likewise, would probably return to work if given the proper opportunities and incentives.
In the end, a great deal of the unemployment picture depends on exactly how one counts. The current measures of unemployment, while far from perfect, are a good enough way to determine the state of the labor market. They aren't kind to the White House's current occupant. But the "real" unemployment rate is, indeed, 8.2 percent.
Follow Eli Lehrer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/elilehrerdc
This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with reality.
the fact is, white people just don't want to work. Thats why it was so easy to pull off NAFTA WTO etc
The unemployed are not the ones to blame........those Mythical Creatures, the "Job Creators".......are the ones not creating jobs, because in a recession, you learn how to extract more from a smaller workforce...so no need to hire more workers.....
Since you were to lazy to provide anything but a statement with nothing to back it up, here are the stats and link for Jan 2011 (when those 17 governors you mention took office) through May 2012 (last month posted on the site). I provided the data for states with Democratic governors to disprove your statement that they were all zero change or an increase. Either your source is wrong or you are lying. I know how conservatives prefer repeating falsehoods rather than researching facts.
Jan 2011 - May 2012 (Democratic Governors)
Arkansas 7.8 - 7.3
California 12.4 - 10.8
Colorado 9.1 - 8.1
Conn 9.0 - 7.8
Delaware 8.5 - 6.8
Hawaii 6.3 - 6.3
Illiinois 9.0 - 8.6
Kentucky 10.4 - 8.2
Maryland 7.2 - 6.8
Mass. 8.3 - 6.0
Minnesota 6.7 - 5.6
Missouri 9.6 - 7.3
Montanna 7.5 - 6.3
NH 5.6 - 5.0
NY 8.3 - 8.6
NC 9.9 - 9.4
Oregon 10.4 - 8.4
Vermont 5.7 - 4.6
Washington 9.1 - 8.3
West Va 9.6 - 6.9
As for Republican governors
NJ went up from 9.1 to 9.2, the rest saw a decrease.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/2012-state-unemployment-rates.aspx
The politicans just want people to accept low wage jobs because they along with the corporationd and banks caused economic collapse.
People will beg in the streets before they go into debt to help the elite. I see more and more of this everyday.
I take the few dollars I would spend on a discount item at a store and give it to a begger. Could care less what he does with the money.
If you combine the unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate, you include "everyone" without including students, prisoners, people in the military, etc., who shouldn't be included. Then you see that it's been a flat line for the past 30 months. If you look at it long term, you see it's not been like this before. Before, things got bad and then recovered quickly, but not this time.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/502/elfshort.gif
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/233/elflong.gif
http://redwriteblue.blog.com/2012/07/05/a-tale-of-two-companies/
Another thing to remember is that now that the baby boom generation starts to retire, we will see a reduction in the workforce since they are the larges generational group. Of course that largely depends on how long they decide to stay in the workforce as full retirement ages for pensions and SS have been increased.
Really, well, I'll tell you what. When we actually try some of Obama's economic policies, you let me know. The Teapublicans seem obsessed with stalling everything unless it relates to regulating girly parts, or screwing the poor. Or, is that your actual problem with Obama's economic policies. We haven't screwed over the poor enough for you to benefit the 1%? The economy is stalled, because the people who actually to all of the real purchasing are either unemployed or recovering from the financial disaster caused by the 1%'s greed.