The Unemployment rate fell? The BIG Lie

The Unemployment Rate Fell?
The BIG Lie!

July 2nd, 2010 - GREAT NEWS! The unemployment rate FELL from 9.7% to 9.5% - but we all knew this would happen, didn't we? - - - I just wrote the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) again:

How can the unemployment rate DROP when census workers were laid off, and after there were 475,000 new initial job claims? How can it drop .2 percentage points when there were not enough new jobs created to cancel out the layoffs? It seems impossible...the unemployment rate should have went UP!

Does the natural population growth automatically increase the size of the workforce, thereby making the 15 million unemployed people a smaller percentage of the overall INCREASED workforce? AND THUS, decreasing the unemployment rate? Millions of people are wondering, "HOW CAN THIS BE?"

FOX NEWS just reported that the BLS says it's the "discouraged workers" who stopped looking for jobs - saying they dropped out of the workforce and are NO LONGER BEING COUNTED!

If this were true, and we have as much, if not more unemployed (i.e. the census workers), wouldn't we have a DECREASED workforce with a higher percentage of jobless people? Or do these so-called "discourage workers" cancel out the natural population growth? But then again, if this other scenario were true, wouldn't the unemployment rate STILL be higher considering 475,000 new jobs were not created to cancel out the laid-off census workers?

No matter how the BLS twists the numbers, they don't add up.
2 + 2 = 4 - - - - - not a 9.5% unemployment rate

In reality, we still have the same amount of people who are actually still unemployed (probably more), but in the BLS's "smaller workforce", they can reduce their unemployment percentage. It' all just CREATIVE NUMBER CRUNCHING by the government - so the general public will believe the economy is getting better, there are more jobs being created, and that unemployment benefits aren't needed.

The BLS has been systematically eliminating the jobless from the official statistics, creating a false impression that hurts the unemployed more than they have already suffered.

WE WANT TO BE COUNTED! WE ARE LOOKING FOR JOBS! 5 MILLION PEOPLE DID NOT "DROP OUT" OF THE WORKFORCE - WE WERE PUSHED OUT!

Please send me a copy of the Question and Answer survey (CPS) regarding discouraged workers...people who supposedly gave up looking for work. Especially for those who lost unemployment benefits and have no choice but to actively look for any job, paying any wage. It just doesn't make sense.

And hypothetically speaking, for the sake of argument, let's assume that all 15 million people "dropped out of the workforce" and "gave up looking for a job" as you claim - why not still count them if in fact there are not 15 million jobs to be had?

Let's also assume that 50% of these people (the long-term unemployed) applied at every conceivable place possible, three times over, but without one call-back for a single interview - - - yes, maybe they would be "discouraged" - - - Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

But even so, it doesn't negate that reality: There are NOT 15 million jobs for 15 million unemployed people; and the BLS has a responsibility to make that absolutely clear in their monthly jobs reports. Otherwise, the BLS propagates the misperception that 15 million people are not looking for a job, and do not deserve unemployment benefits. Members of Congress are using your terms and definitions in their talking points, and are skewing the facts, and shining an unfavorable light on the jobless - making THEM the guilty parties, rather than the victims of this economy.

Please reply ASAP,
Thank you.
Bud Meyers

(The BLS usually takes 2 to 3 days to respond...I'll let you know their reply.)

Write them and ask, "Why is this?"

cpsinfo@BLS.GOV
Gibbons.Scott@dol.gov
cohany.sharon@bls.gov
Sznoluch.Anatoli@dol.gov

As an aside: I believe that the BLS's definition of "marginally attached" should only refer to the town drunk...not to people who were laid off from their jobs and discriminated against by employers because they felt the applicants were "over-qualified" (Code for "too old".)

Other Articles I wrote about the Congressional Denial of Unemployment Benefits to the Unemployed

E-Mail Me

</b>