[PRCo] Unemployment

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Swindler,

If academia is asked for the correct way to count from one to ten they
would produce 1,000 answers with ten-thousand times ten-thousand
different responses wouldn't they.  It seems similar with unemployment
statistics doesn't it.

I have seen published figures between 16% and 22% but I like to know
the method used for these determinations.  I have also seen articles
revealing unemployment today using methods to determine
unemployment in the Great Depression; this provides a distinctly higher
unemployment reading doesn't it.

Many articles on unemployment list the currently used statistics using
the number (i.e. 8%.)Â  The article often goes on to state a much higher figure
counting those unemployed not looking for work; this number is 'hidden'
by using words (i.e. sixteen percent.)Â  It is surprising you have not
seen these articles; quite a few have been published.

The inflation figure was 'adjusted' in the 1980s(?) because the former
figure caused havoc with Social Security payments.  Recipients now
receive less for inflation adjustments don't they.

We the people are not necessarily told the truth are we.  This is not
limited to the government; others with presumably great insight and
knowledge are known to bend facts if not outright lie.  Here is a perfect
example from the Great Depression:

<http://4closurefraud.org/2010/05/14/pompous-prognosticators-chart-of-the-great-depression-2/>

The above was originally published here but the chart doesn't display:

<http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_01/seymour062001.html/>

Here is the current list of Pompous Prognosticators:

<http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1247208300.php>

Here are some references for unemployment.  I have not studied these
in detail but they do present some facts worth more consideration:

<http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts>

The following should open to the Bureau of Labor Statistics section
which gives the various Unemployment statistics officialy tabulated;
it seems only the lowest one is published:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics>

Random articles:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics>

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25098>

<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/unemployment-during-the-great-depression-has-been-overstated-and-current-unemployment-understated-weve-now-got-depression-level-unemployment.html>


Phil






>________________________________
> From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
>To: Pittsburgh Railways <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org> 
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:58 PM
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Ass-orted crazy subjects
> 
>
>   That's what I thought.  It's a lot worse then the government published numbers would have us believe.  Other economy markers might be airlines and cruise ship offerings.  Both seem to indicate a shortage of customers.  I'll have to ask Ed if he has seen any numbers on number of domestic daily flights, 2012 vs. 2008 vs. 2002. Remember John Kneiling??  His articles never made sense when I read them 30 years ago.  Recently went thru some old magazines slated for disposal, and he was forecasting was eerie.  Such as employees that thought their job was due to union, rather than employer and customers.  Well, it seems played out as he forecast in 1960s/70s. CheersJohn    
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Ass-orted crazy subjects
>> From: fwschneider at comcast.net
>> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:54:16 -0400
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
>> 
>> NO.   Unemployment figures do not include people have given up looking for work.   They have withdrawn from the labor force.  The definition of unemployed is out of work and having looked for work in the last month and that means making a substantive effort to find work … not just asking the neighbor if his company is hiring.    The numbers are based on a national household survey.   You are asked first if you are working.   If you answer no, then you are asked what you have done to find work.   You are never asked if you are unemployed … that is for the interviewer to determine based on how you answer the questions.   When I started in that business, the national household survey included one percent of the homes and it provided data that would produce a national unemployment rate that was within 0.1 9 months out of ten.   In other words, if it shows 8.5, the true rate if you counted all 311 million people (actually only the people over
 age 16) would be between 8.4 an!
>d !
>>  8.6 percent 9 times out of 10.   That was in the 1960s when the population was in the180-200 million range.   They have since reduced the same to around 1/2 of one percent of the homes in the nation and gives about the same reliability because the population has increased significantly.    Of course adapting that survey to cities and states produces a lower reliability … you cannot expect to have the same chance of a balanced sample in the Pittsburgh MSA with a little over a million people as you can in the nation with over 300 million.   You get a lot more anomalies in area data but we cannot afford to bang on 10 percent of the doors every month, now can we…...
>> 
>> The 10 percent that would rather strike than have a job probably include some who believe the bosses who tell them we can make it better for you if you just listen us (those same union leaders at US Steel who wanted to have a fancy office after the mills were gone) and some people who figure that as long as they are getting some benefits from the union for not working, that's better than getting out of bed in the morning.
>> 
>> By the way, those who are striking are considered to be in the labor force … not working, not unemployed but involved in a labor management dispute.  
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 20, 2012, at 4:28 PM, John Swindler wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > The next question might be whether the unemployment numbers include those who have given up looking for work???  Suspect unemployment is a lot worse then advertised, but that's just a hunch. Had a chat with auto mechanic today.  He's one of my 'status of economy' markers.  Says people aren't buying cars much anymore, and not even getting their cars fixed.  Just running them until they fail - because of economy. As for Oregon Trail, as a trivia comment, the first automobile to cross the USA (in 1903 - it's in the Smithsonian) passed one of the last wagon trains heading towards Oregon.  And as for people heading west, not just west coast.  In 1830s, a Swindler 'cousin' traveled by wagon for 18 days from Ohio to Livingston County, Illinois.  (I have a copy of the local Ill. newspaper)  Pennsylvanians were moving into western Ohio and Indiana in the 1810s and 1820s.  Virginians and Pennsylvanians were moving into what's now Fayette County in
 the mid-1770s, which is why some !
>of!
>>Â   !
>> > the easiest Fayette deeds are in Cumberland and Westmoreland County.  What's difficult to comprehend is that it wasn't really all that many generations ago. There are some jobs coming back to the USA because of quality control issues.  And then there is the union issue with Boeing trying to open up a plant in South Carolina.  Would not take any jobs away from Washington state workers, but unions filed an unfair labor grievance.  Haven't seen anything recently about this. Several times, Fred, you have lamented the demise of printed newspapers.  Heard yesterday that what's really killing newspapers is "Craig's List".   It's free and don't have to buy a newspaper to see what's forsale. As for produce being imported, just visit the local supermarket - and that includes Wal-Mart.  And its not just central and south America that is the source.  What's also hurt US producers has been the lack of water in mid-west and central California.  
 Meanwhile I saw that PAT union workers !
>ap!
>>Â  p!
>> > roved new contract by 10-1 margin.  What's interesting is that some wo
>> > uld still rather strike than have a job. CheersJohn    
>