Please tell a liberal why the unemployment numbers are insane

Written by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief on January 10, 2014

Every day we see how much trouble this administration has with ‘truthiness.” Today it’s unemployment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment dropped dramatically in December to 6.7 percent.

But only 74,000 new jobs were created. It is the worst monthly report in three years.

Why did the unemployment number “improve?” Because 535,000 people left the work force. We now have nearly 92 million Americans no longer working. It is the smallest labor force since 1978.

As Senator Jeff Sessions noted, five people left the workforce for every one job created. In fact only 1,700 jobs were created by state - and by the way, half of those jobs were part-time.

Curiously, the liberal media is now actually mentioning the “U-6 computation” which shows the total number of Americans unemployed, underemployed or no longer looking for jobs. That number, by the way, is 13 percent.

So why would the Left want to talk about it? Because all those people need three more months of unemployment benefits. In fact, the way we’re going, they’ll need it forever.

And yet we apparently need to grant amnesty for all those illegal aliens because there are so many jobs to fill.

Am I the only one going insane?

Read a free excerpt of Allen's new book, Guardian of the Republic. Click here.

← Previous Story Can the GOP take advantage of Obama’s failures in the black community?

Next Story → War on Poverty has millions of prisoners

dan

I’d like to see how they do their math. Hear no evil, see no evil is the motto of the common liberal… unless it’s not politically correct statements. Go figure. I feel like this video is pretty accurate when i see MSNBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG7LjVCj50Y
Juliet Bravo

How did these people pass middle school math!? HOW!?
- StephenWV
  
  They used the new Common Core math. The answer doesn’t matter as long as you explain the method.
DLinz

6.7% is nonsense. Here’s the chart from Dept. of Labor/BLS. http://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate
StephenWV

The November unemployment rate of 7% meant there were 10.9 million unemployed

The December 6.7% rate means there were 10.43 million unemployed. So 470,000 were no longer considered unemployed yet only 74,000 jobs were created. What happened to the other 400,000? Maybe they were put in FEMA camps?
- Reddkl
  
  The other 400,000 had their benefits cut a week before Christmas.
  - StephenWV
    
    They are only considered unemployed if they are not seeking employment. If they were not seeking employment while they were being paid not to work, they shouldn’t have been paid in the first place.
  - Reddkl
    
    And you know they weren’t looking for work how? People I know who’ve been unemployed, some for long periods of time, had to submit evidence and they did. The cuts were made on LENGTH of time, not whether or not they were looking.
  - StephenWV
    
    Reddkl you are ridiculous. Yes, Cuts were made on length of time and the 400,000 of them are those cut that “stopped” looking for jobs when they got cut.
    
    On another pro-unemployment web blog there was a great example of a 67 year old electrician, unemployed for 2 or more years who complained that he would be forced into retirement since the $430 per week unemployment benefits stopped. Because that money allowed him to buy gas to look for a job and this time of year is not the best time for hiring electricians. Well what about for the past several years during the times it WAS a good time for hiring electricians? Why did he not get a job then??? BECAUSE HE REALLY WAS HAPPY TO BE PAID $430 A WEEK TO NOT WORK and never really seriously (if at all) looked for work or he would have had a job during the peak hiring seasons for electricians. I have had acquaintances tell me they will go back to work when the government stops paying them not to work. It is obvious that there are hundreds of thousands that are of the same mindset. They love to be on the government dole.
  - Reddkl
    
    Stephen - I guess you’re a genius of unemployment. Of course, you’d bring up a case that proves your point. Good for you!!! But guess what? You’ve proved nothing. The people dropped were NOT just “not looking for work”. Anyone who knows someone on unemployment knows how difficult it is to get a decent job. I’m done with your narrow mindedness and belief that you know everything and everyone.
  - StephenWV
    
    Reddklous, this was a prime example pushed by those that want to extend unemployment benefits. I did not have to cherry pick at all. The 400,000 that fell off the unemployment ranks, because they reached their limit, would be still counted as unemployed IF THEY CONTINUED TO LOOK FOR WORK! DUH! The fact that they are no longer looking for work means they really do not want to work and do not need to work. They have better options.
    
    One of the other prime examples pushed by those who want unemployment benefits extended was a woman who said she will be forced to go on welfare. Apparently unemployment was better than welfare, and welfare is better than looking for work.
    
    Those were the only 2 examples given in an article about why benefits should be continued. No cherry picking needed.
  - Reddkl
    
    Stephen - you are confusing two different sets of statistics. Again, thank you for the name calling.
  - StephenWV
    
    Reddklous, you are the confused one. What 2 sets of statistics are you referring to? The 74,000 jobs created is one statistic and the 400,000 who are no longer considered unemployed is another statistic. resulting in a lowering of the unemployment rate from 7% to 6.7%.
    
    According to the U.S. Government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics there were 149 million workers employed in November and an additional 10.9 million (7%) were unemployed and looking for jobs. Then in December the unemployment rate dropped to 6.7% that equals 10.43 million were now considered unemployed and looking for jobs.
    
    Now you seem to be developmentally challenged in math, so lit me help you out. 10.9 million minus 10.43 million means 0.57 million were no longer considered unemployed and looking for a job. 0.57 million equals 570,000 that used to be unemployed and looking for jobs were no longer unemployed and looking for jobs.
    
    SO… if only 74,000 new jobs were created what happened to the other 496,000 that are no longer considered unemployed? THEY NO LONGER ARE LOOKING FOR A JOB BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT ONE. THEY HAVE BETTER ALTERNATIVES LIKE RETIREMENT OR WELFARE. THEY DO NOT WANT TO WORK. THEY DID NOT WANT TO WORK WHILE COLLECTING EITHER. THEY LOVED BEING PAID NOT TO WORK.
    
    The unemployed do not HAVE to be collecting unemployment compensation to be considered unemployed BUT they DO have to actually WANT a job to be considered unemployed and the government says if they are not looking for a job then they are not considered unemployed because they do not want a job if they are not looking.
    
    I hope that helps your developmentally challenged state.
  - Reddkl
    
    Stephen - thanks for the stats. Irrelevant of your wonderful stats, the people of whom I am speaking are the ones dropped from unemployment BUT WERE STILL LOOKING. Simple enough for you? I’ll not stoop to the level of accusing you of inferior intelligence. I leave that up to the poster.
Death2Unions

For those who remember the Jimmy Carter years will see history repeat itself. BTW, Carter is an ADMITTED Marxist. President Oboner is using the Hugo Chavez manual to destroy America. Of course once the blood of citizens begins to flow in the streets, it will be all over except for the crying.
eddie

if we belived this another lie, lie ,lie after lie we got to be un idiot robot, 6.7% where that come from. maybe tomorw will drop to 5.6% and so on.and iam still lookin for a part time, dont count me on that 6.7%.
Bob

The labor participation rate is low, low, low! The U-6, the true unemployment rate is about 13%, which is much more accurate. The lower unemployment rates looks good—to Nobama’s low information backers. No way is it true! 74,000 jobs, mosdt of them seasonal & part-time. That’s a disgrace!
Precioso

“Unemployment” should mean un-employment (what the word was ‘coined’ from). Therefore, the government is lying when they don’t count all the people who are NOT employed. Unemployed means that and only that. Fire all members of Congress who keep using that redefinition.
It used to be most citizens receiving unemployment benefits were looking for work. They would look for work because there were enough jobs to go around. It was only a matter of accepting a small salary decrease. That assumption does not hold in a bad economy. We need to enforce that Mathematics be used mathematically.
If a word is redefined, beware. There is a cover up somewhere.
jaswim

I don’t believe were hearing the real numbers and I am now one of those part time workers and I can tell you for certain it’s not by choice. I went back to college in my forties after taking a short break from working to raise my sons. I’m beginning to think going back to school was a mistake because thus far it sure has not paid off. I graduated when the Recession was going strong and finally had to take a low paying job, but at least it was full time. Then my marriage ended, my father passed away, and I chose to move in with my elderly mother who needed my help and as it turns out, financially I have needed hers. I realize living in a smaller city is part of the problem, but it’s not like I live in a small rinky-dink town. Nevertheless, when I moved in 2012 and began applying for full time work, my interviews were few and far between. I finally gave up in 2013 and added part time to the job search. Amazingly my phone began ringing off the hook and I soon landed a part time job shortly before the holidays. I’m hoping to work into full time, but until then I will need to get a second part time job because my employer only hires so many full timers now thanks to Obamacare and the companies either not wanting to pay the high cost to help towards our insurance or possibly an inability because it would be setting itself up for financial ruin. I refuse to call this plan the Affordable Care Act because I’ve seen the prices and I could not afford them and have opted to stay on my COBRA plan. Instead, I will continue, regardless of what Pelosi says, to call it Obamacare because to me it has lived up to it’s name. After going to college, graduating with honors, for the first time since the age of 16, I am working a minimum wage part time job again. Due to the fact that I live in a state that did not expand Medicaid, and I can’t blame them, I am now without benefits and must pay for my own insurance or pay a fine. The options the so called ACA provides are anything but affordable, so I’m paying my premiums for my COBRA till I’m sure I receive my cancellation as it moves closer to 2015 and the employer mandate kicks in. I thought I might be eligible for a subsidy under Obamacare, but as it turns out you must make a yearly income of $11,500 in order to be eligible and I am just a few 100 dollars short, at least until I get that second part time job. However, even then I will stay on my COBRA because I know I can count on my insurance to get the job done right, it’s disaster roll out free. This is the kind of care I have received under Obama and therefore the name sticks.
- MotherBatherick
  
  Join the crowd or rather, the rest of the nation in suffering under obama. Hope you share your story and knowledge with as many around you as possible. You will find that you are not alone and…just might educate a few people.
  - jaswim
    
    TY
autotech101

So what is the make up of this 92 million How are they surviving since it was increasing since the year 2000. Do we have 42 million people homeless? or is it 1 out of ever four Americans since 1930 has been homeless and worthless? Why is it after 55 and older it drops to 40% from 81%