Unemployment down?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 12, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    Liberal Ted - you got something to back up your claims that the way the numbers are measured has been changed? Are you seriously trying to sell that if Obama is manipulating the numbers, this is the best he can do, to make it the worst it has been in decades? Really? People tweak the numbers to make themselves look bad? Is he also tweaking the ADP numbers too? And all the states are in on it too.... .like Utah? Its low number is an attempt to make Obama look good.

    Does anyone else not see the craziness here?

    Please Ted, back your comments up with reliable sources on this one. This would blow watergate out of the water as the most sensational story if true. And prove just how stupid Obama is - manipulating the numbers to look worse.

    Unbelievable - really.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    April 10, 2012 7:49 p.m.

    Strange as it sounds, 2-3% unemployment is probably the healthiest numbers for our economy in regards to growth, quality of life etc. versus 0# unemployment. And that 2-3$ is somewhat in shift, people in between jobs rather than perpetually looking for work.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    Obama is not using the same measurement for unemployment. He ordered the system to be "changed" and to count the numbers differently.

    Anyone who has taken a statistics class knows, you can manipulate the data to make it look like whatever you want it to. Very convenient when re-election comes up and the media refuse to question your regime.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    Let me guess "it is Bush's fault".

    I wonder how you can pass the blame and have people believe that it is someone elses fault. Usually in obussive relationships, you'll have one person blaming all of the troubles on everyone else, but, refuse to look at themselves as the source of the problem.

    How can you blame others, when you have absolute control and power? And if it is someone elses fault, what does that say about this president who controlled both house and senate?

    It's time for real change.


  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 9, 2012 9:46 p.m.

    VST..who said 8% unemployment is good news..you must be reading another paper, and certainly no one said being unemplyed is good news. You're the spinner trying to make something out of nothing.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 9, 2012 9:40 p.m.

    Yes - let's suddenly focus on what everyone has always known and proclaim it as "news" and "Obama's fault!"

    How dare Obama use the same measure of calculation that all other administrations have used!

    Why, the nerve!

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 9, 2012 7:05 p.m.

    Red Shirt "To "pragmatistferlife" Unfortnately your ability to track those numbers is proving you wrong".. "Yes, the U6 number is always higher".. proving me wrong huh?? All I was saying was the commonly discussed number is usually at least half of the real number and always has been. So when the published unemployment unmber in the 80's was 10% it actually was somewhere between 15 to 20%.

    Actual jobs and job growth is a whole other subject..and far more complicated than presented here. In short what would I do? I would be concerned with our ability to compete in a global economy (creativity, education, and taxes), I would be concerned with our inability to take a long term view on our deficit (the ability to reduce the deficit while at the same time not destroying the American society. Lastly I would be concerned about our inability to take a long term and creative view of energy production.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 9, 2012 6:19 p.m.

    It's true that the U6 is always higher than the unemployment rate, but you should realize that the average U6 rate under Bush hovers around Obama's current "unemployment rate". There's no comparing the two! Obama's unemployment average has been about double Bush's average, but he has increased the debt at rate double what Bush did ($2 trillion per year compared to Bush's >$1 trillion per year average).

    Remember, in addition to gaining jobs, there are jobs disappearing. How many soldiers are going to be coming home the next few years looking for jobs thanks to Obama. What will we do then?

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    April 9, 2012 11:15 a.m.

    Okay moderate,I agree that under both administrations, the unemployment rate was basically the same. The problem is with the stat of 8.2%. No matter what the government throws out as an official stat, we all know better. It's much worse, probably double that. And many other people are underemployed and many have 2-3 jobs to make the same amount of money their old job used to make. All of this makes the quality of life in country much worse. The problem is I think things will get worse before they get better, if they get better. This might be our new "normal" economy with about 15% unemployed and another 20% underemployed or working multiple low-paying jobs.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2012 10:12 a.m.

    Mike Richards proclaimed "That rate stands at about 14.5%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate."

    If you want to change the way you look at numbers, fine, but you have to do it for everybody. The unemployment rate now is the same now as it was under George W Bush. It doesn't meatter if you use the official 8.2% number, or some other grade that you call 14.5%. The rates under both administrations are the same.

    Rifleman pondered "what it will be when gas hits $5 a gallon this summer?"
    Gasonline prices are lower now than the summer before Bush left office. In other words, people have seen these gas prices before. If you saw a dip in gas prices and thought "gas prices will are back down and will stay low forever -- I'm buying a new SUV!!, then you were foolish. Almost as foolish as believing a gas pipeline from Canada will help American gas prices. That gas is going to China.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2012 9:38 a.m.

    During the Bush administration there was valid criticism that only low paying jobs were created. Under Obama there is no criticism for the same phenomena. Hiring by the government and burger-jobs are the majority of recent increases, yet the press trumpets "job creation." It's very distorted.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 9, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    The question isn't what the US unemployment rate is today. The question is what it will be when gas hits $5 a gallon this summer and people stop buying cars so they can afford groceries.

    Of course if Israel goes after Iran's nuclear facilities late this spring or early this summer we could face an oil shortage that will hike gas prices even higher. Mitt Romney would then probably remind the voters of the Canadian oil pipeline project ..... which Obama vetoed.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 9, 2012 9:14 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" Unfortnately your ability to track those numbers is proving you wrong. If you look at the number of people currently with jobs, and the number of people with jobs in January 2009, we are nearly even. We currently have the same unemployment rate as February 2009, but more workers available in the US. Unless we have a 0, or negative population growth, the unemployment numbers do not reflect the true unemployment rate.

    Yes, the U6 number is always higher, but the total number of people employed is not a number that can be messed with easily. We are not gainin jobs fast enough to adequatly meet population growth. How do you propose to meet population growth?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 9, 2012 8:36 a.m.

    And I'm still correct..it's always been so. Secondly it's always been so that the second half of the unemployed is a very diverse group of folks. Some desperately looking for work, some with no intentions of working, some who would like to, but have lost hope and have moved on to other means of support,some who would like to work but don't have current skills. To pretend that 14% of Americans are all desperetly looking for work and can't find it is just not true.

    My whole point is that it was this way under Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. This is not an Obama phenomena.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    April 9, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    Mike Richards is absolutely correct. The left wing propaganda spewers would have us believe that unemployment is down. This is a lie.

    The truth is that the left wing government has brought the economy to the brink of irreversible collapse. As a result, millions are unemployed, and millions are just one charitable handout away from near starvation.

    The slumbering masses must awaken in time to recognize the truth before it is too late. If they do not, they may well find themselves living in European-style poorhouses hoping they don't starve to death before they get their next cup of gruel.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 9, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    To the 12 million who don't have jobs, the President's unemployment figures are pure nonsense. To the 250,000 who had their homes foreclosed in 2011, the President's unemployment figures are pure nonsense.

    To those riding the gravy train who are employed by the government, President Obama is their hero. They don't care that he increased the deficit by 33% in three years. They don't care that over $5 TRILLION has been added to THEIR debt. They have a job that is being paid for by deficit spending - because there are over 12 million people out of work who don't pay income taxes.

    President Obama is lying. He is not "misrepresenting"; he is LYING. Unemployment is over 14%. He knows it and every one of those who are unemployed knows it. Every one of those who get the "red" letters from the utility companies knows it. Every one of those who have stopped answering their telephones because the only callers are bill collectors knows it. Every one of those who have no hope of getting a job in time to save their homes knows that HE IS LYING.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 9, 2012 7:38 a.m.

    Pure nonesense Mr. Richards. There has always been a U6 number or something like it. The true unemploymet rate is always..yes always..1970, 1981, and 2012 nearly double the published. Still when Regan got the rate down to 5 from 10 he was a genius and no one was lamenting the fact that it was actually 10%. I've tracked these numbers professionaly since the late 60's. This is pure partisan fox news hackary.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 9, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    From Fox News:

    "Forget the official 8.2% unemployment rate. Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

    That rate stands at about 14.5%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate.

    As economists digest the disappointing job numbers released Friday -- just 120,000 jobs added in March, well below expectations -- some say the U6 figure is the data point people should be focused on."


    There are 5.3 million long-term unemployed in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It would take 41 months at the current rate of employment increases to put those people back to work - assuming that NO ONE lost a job during that period.

    There over 12 million individuals unemployed in the United States, also according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That would take 120 months, or 10 years, for them to be employed.

    How many people can hang on for 3-1/2 years? How many can hang on for 10 years?

    Mr. Obama's "employment" plan is a disaster for working people.