Skip to comments.Gallup: Unemployment at 9.1%, But 19% Need Jobs
Posted on 03/09/2012 6:01:02 AM PST by xzins
The unemployment rate shot up by half a percentage point in February, according to figures released by the polling organization Gallup on Thursday.
The jump from 8.6 percent in January to 9.1 percent last month is the largest month-by-month increase in more than a year, Gallup said. It is the highest rate since August.
Gallups figures differ from the official government unemployment rate because they do not adjust the figure for seasonal variations or include anyone under 18. ...snip
If the government's unadjusted unemployment rate increases to the degree that Gallup's has from mid-month to mid-month, then the government's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate could show an even larger increase, Jacobe said.
He predicted the government figure for February would stand at either 8.5 or 8.6 percent.
...According to the organization, the underemployment rate which includes part-time workers who want to be in full-time employment, rose from 18.7 percent to 19.1 percent in February, the highest since last May.
Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a substantial deterioration since mid-January, added Jacobe. In this context, the increase in unemployment as measured by Gallup may, at least partly, reflect growth in the workforce, as more Americans who had given up looking for work become slightly more optimistic and start looking for work again.
So while there may be positive signs, the reality Gallup finds is that more Americans are looking for work now than were doing so just six weeks ago. Official Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment figures have shown the rate go down from 9 percent since September.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Everyone else is in "re-elect Barack Obama" mode.
If we were using the same stats as in the Jimmy Carter era, all of our candidates would be talking about the misery index of barack obama.
Joblessness+Manipulation of Fuel Prices+unreported everyman inflation
Did FDR ever get unemployment below 20 % before 12-7-41?
I don’t know.
I read the true number was more like 36%
The numbers are cooked. Any number that drops people just because they don’t have a record of their having looked for a job in one month is ridiculous.
for the state of jobs in the country, we should not have an unemployment number, as that can be easily fudged.
the employment information should be on a per capita basis for every zip code. the data can then be rolled-up
data items per zipcode:
1. total population
2. number of people eligible to work (nWorkers)
3. total number of unique social security numbers working in the region
4. total wages paid in a period
EPC (employment per capita) = #ssno / (nWorkers / 1000)
AW (avg wage) = total wages / #ssno
AWPC (avg wage per capita) == total wages / nWorkers
having this data, we could see the employment level, per capita, along with the average wage per person in the region
total pop: 38,000
total wages: $922m
EPC = 20,500 / (22,000 / 1000) == 932
AW = $922m / 20,500 == $44,975
AWPC = $922m / 22,000 == $41,909
now let’s say the population increases but no more jobs were added... 7,000 more people of which, 4,000 were eligible to work:
total pop: 45,000
total wages: $922m
EPC = 20,500 / (26,000 / 1000) == 788
AW = $922m / 20,500 == $44,975
AWPC = $922m / 26,000 == $35,461
this would give an accurate picture of exactly what’s happening in that region. there would be no concept of ‘falling off the back’ if an employable person doesn’t have work or isn’t taking welfare. it would also be able to show a trend in wages over time for the region.
they need to change how they look for these numbers. I grew up in a family of 9 kids, only one of us has a job. I am on disability because I fractured my spine and cannot stand or sit for very long. I am also scared when I go off of disability having to face these job conditions.
There will be no US recovery until we can trade fairly with China.
The numbers, as they stand now, are a lie, since they play fast and loose with reality.
MSM has decided this is no longer a story.. the only numbers they are now reporting are the new job creations number.. If we lost 300,000 jobs but created 200,000 they only report the 200,000 new jobs created. I listen to a Los Angeles, CBS all news talk radio (KNX)in the mornings, and I’m referring to them.
who’d a thunk they’d be capable of that. :^)
Yes, they lie to cover up the incredible failure of the Kenyan poser.
No idea how the media is allowed to give Obama a pass when he lies about creating 4 million jobs. There has to be a way to make this mis-information or outright lying known to the American people.
This is a start. Do not fear. There is something in this world you can do! Good luck!
California created the most new jobs last year of all the states (263,200).
Of course, in the last five months (from September 2011 - January 2012), California's revenue from the personal income tax has dropped $550 million dollars compared with the same five months last year.
Interesting conundrum: how can you add a quarter of a million jobs, yet lose half a billion in income tax revenue? Are CA state income taxes optional now? ;-)
Of course, if a state was to over-report "jobs created", when Oblabla was safely elected, and Democrats once again controlled Congress, perhaps the bailout money firehose would be turned on once again, in gratitude for "services rendered"...
See my post #14. They CAN’T lie about monthly state income tax revenue numbers. :-)
Yes, but the unemployed get “more family time”.
First a Daimler plant and now Rolls Royce. Cant the President find an American company that is building things in the Obama economy?
Government Motors shut down the Volt line...
This nation used to have a provision for treason.
Yes. According to the U.S. Census, unemployment was 9.66% in 1941. This makes sense being that we were ramping up industrial output in support of Lend-Lease. When you look at the unemployment numbers from the start of FDR’s presidency you clan acually see the flaws in the New Deal that liberals lament for even today.
At first unemployment went down some until the end of 1937, then the economy began to tank again and unemployment took a sharp rise. It is only with the begining of industrialized efforts to support the European war effort that these numbers started to trend back down again.
Unemployment during the 30’s after 1933 varied between 15% and 25% for the most part.
Isn’t there a base number of jobs that need to be created each month just to keep even (population plus those graduating school and entering market)?
I’d thought I heard somewhere that it needs to be 250k per month???
Yep. It had dipped to 14.18 by 37 only to shoot up to 18.91 the next year. You see a trend down in 39, 40, and 41, (17.05, 14.45, and 9.66) but this was more due to production increases as we began exporting to nations preparing for and finally fighting the Nazis. It wasn’t a New Deal program that started this trend. Also, these are U.S. Census statistics that show the U3 number like what gets reported today. This leaves out people who have stopped looking for jobs or have exausted all unemployment benefits. The U6 number which does look at these are much higher.
In the case of FDR, it was at its peak in 1933 when he took office (same year the U3 was over 25) and was around 37%. The trend showing that the New Deal was starting to collapse (1937-1938) has the U6 increasing from about 21% to 28%. Pretty big shift for a single year in peacetime.