Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
snippet:
"Figures collected for Reuters by John Williams, from the electronic newsletter Shadowstats.com, suggest that, while we are not there yet, the comparison is not as outlandish as it might initially seem.
By his count, if unemployment were still tallied the way it was in the 1930s, today's jobless rate would be closer to 16.5 percent -- more than double the stated rate."
Yes the article gives shadowstats some credibility which is precisely the problem, in much the same way they gave used house sales men credibility. Both don't deserve it.
Regarding the government figures, what is there not to believe? They tell you precisely how they collect the data. There is no deception, unless of course you think the government doesn't collect data in the way they suggest they do.
On the other hand is shadowstats forth coming with their methodology? No, because its idiotic. They use the government data and simply pad it percentage wise to come up with the "alternative". You'll notice now ironically the "alternative data" follows the official data, modulo a certain percentage.
But, hey good conspiracies apparently sell subscriptions.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,159,764 times
Reputation: 8105
Thanks for the article, HappyTexan. I agree that it's important to show that the govt has been dicking around with the figures, and to bring out the fact that Great Depression stats were calculated differently so that we might be closer to those numbers than many believe.
The way I understand it, the "official" stats are called U3. The way stats were calculated before Clinton is pretty much the same as U6, which is an official number that isn't often quoted by the media.
I suppose the way they calculated it during the GD was still another way, and I don't know what exactly the SGS Alternate is.
It looks like U6 (which includes the discouraged etc but I think not the disabled) is between 13 and 14 at this time.
Oh, here's what they say, I think I screwed up:
Quote:
The SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated "discouraged workers" defined away during the Clinton Administration added to the existing BLS estimates of level U-6 unemployment.
Last edited by Waterlily; 01-11-2009 at 01:30 AM..
Reason: cut out link
How the government tweeked the figures is called "Pollyanna creep". Here's a good article that describes how the government changed their calculations starting back in the 70's.
snippet:
"Since the 1960s, Washington has been forced to gull its citizens and creditors by debasing official statistics…. The effect…has been to create a false sense of economic achievement and rectitude, allowing us to maintain artificially low interest rates, massive government borrowing, and a dangerous reliance on mortgage and financial debt even as real economic growth has been slower than claimed."
"i expect that unemployment in the current downturn, which will be particularly deep and protracted, eventually will rival, if not top, the 25 percent seen in the great depression," williams said.
My job was eliminated in 2005 and I was on unemployment as I looked for a new job so I guess I was counted. In 2006 I did some contract work and considered myself employed but don't know how I was counted. In 2007 all contract work dried up and with no prospects I wound up calling myself retired. Now that the market has crashed I need employment more than ever but am in a position where I am a poor candidate for any employment.
I don't even know how to count my own unemployment, or the under-employed and sometimes employed people I know.
Yes, the government changed their calculations. That is clearly stated, its not some big conspiracy.
shadowstats is completely useless on the other hand.
The govt stats would be honest IF they compared today's rate (7.2) with the rate calculated in the SAME MANNER from the past.
i.e. When they compare unemployment rates during the Depression as 25%, then say we're nowhere near that at 7.2%.
That's apples to oranges. Hence, misleading.
Not a conspiracy. Just dishonest, whether intentional or not.
Last edited by bbkaren; 01-10-2009 at 11:39 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
