The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Economics => Topic started by: GOP Congress on January 06, 2012, 01:30:36 PM
-
Right now, the media is going to extraordinary lengths to keep the unemployment rate at the lowest number possible. My question is to how the media will report the same economy if the GOP takes over the presidency and the senate next election.
I predict that the media will show the true numbers (at this time, around 9.3%). In addition, they will then include the ones who have exhausted their benefits, but also not working, another 1 to 1.5% (or about 10% more total unemployed). Finally, they will most probably include those who have part time work but really want to work full time as part of the unemployment rate.
So, with the same economy, look for the unemployment rate jump from 8.5% to close to 15 or 16% reported unemployment.
-
Right now, the media is going to extraordinary lengths to keep the unemployment rate at the lowest number possible. My question is to how the media will report the same economy if the GOP takes over the presidency and the senate next election.
I predict that the media will show the true numbers (at this time, around 9.3%). In addition, they will then include the ones who have exhausted their benefits, but also not working, another 1 to 1.5% (or about 10% more total unemployed). Finally, they will most probably include those who have part time work but really want to work full time as part of the unemployment rate.
So, with the same economy, look for the unemployment rate jump from 8.5% to close to 15 or 16% reported unemployment.
IOW, they'll report the current true numbers...
-
IOW, they'll report the current true numbers...
Exactamundo. They will then blame the "unprecedented" jobless spike on the GOP election.
-
did they used to include the # of people:
who gave up looking for work?
ran out of unemployment?
"retired" early because of the job market?
"under"employed?
if they never included these figures before was it because they weren't as significant as now?
in the past has there been a time where the numbers were stacked up like this? including these numbers makes a big difference now but in the past if it was just 0.01% difference then it was pointless. but if we just wanted to start including them it needs to be explained that these figures are calculated differently than in the past.
IMO, these are important figures and need to be honestly explained so EVERYONE understands them.
-
did they used to include the # of people:
who gave up looking for work?
ran out of unemployment?
"retired" early because of the job market?
"under"employed?
if they never included these figures before was it because they weren't as significant as now?
in the past has there been a time where the numbers were stacked up like this? including these numbers makes a big difference now but in the past if it was just 0.01% difference then it was pointless. but if we just wanted to start including them it needs to be explained that these figures are calculated differently than in the past.
IMO, these are important figures and need to be honestly explained so EVERYONE understands them.
I'm not sure the answers to your questions, but have read that if unemployment was figured under the formula used during the Reagan years, the current number would be around 20%.
-
Honesty is not valued or understood among lib/dems.
-
I'm not sure the answers to your questions, but have read that if unemployment was figured under the formula used during the Reagan years, the current number would be around 20%.
As I keep saying: If Romney or Santorum become president, then expect THOSE numbers to become the mainstream media press mantra. They will say that "Obama kept it at 8, but look: it's not at 20!!" JUST by reporting the actual economy. The media is artificially keeping the economy focus off Obama, in short he gets all the good stories, and the GOP Congress gets all the bad stories.
This is the how the press will spin the exact same economy, depending on who is president or in full power in congress.