In article ,
says...

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)

The problem is if you're not looking, you're not looking.
That makes you "retired" from the work force.
Then what happens is when hiring increases, the "unemployment" rate
often rises due to people who get back in the game and start looking
again.
I agree it's a stupid way of getting to the unemployment rate.
Good for the pols only - they can easiily make the numbers look better
than they are.
But since those books have been cooked for years they aren't fooling
anybody.
A general rule is just double the number.
Maybe food stamp use, about 20% of the population now, is a close match
with the "real" unemployment rate.
Bob cracks me up.
20% of the nation is on food stamps, and he's pulling in about +150k but
whining about it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surge...stamps-united-
states/story?id=14231657

The U.S. is spending about $70 billion a year in food stamps.