Jobless Americans: The real unemployment rate 16.5% to 22%

[livinglegend7]

Raghavan Mayur, president at TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, follows unemployment data closely. So, when his survey for May revealed that 28% of the 1,000-odd households surveyed reported that at least one member was looking for a full-time job, he was flummoxed.

 

"Our numbers are always very accurate, so I was surprised at the discrepancy with the government's numbers," says Mayur, whose firm owns the TIPP polling unit, a polling partner for Investors' Business Daily and Christian Science Monitor. After all, the headline number shows the U.S. unemployment rate today is 9.5%, with a total of 14.6 million jobless people.

 

However, Mayur's polls continued to find much worse figures. The June poll turned up 27.8% of households with at least one member who's unemployed and looking for a job, while the latest poll conducted in the second week of July showed 28.6% in that situation. That translates to an unemployment rate of over 22%, says Mayur, who has started questioning the accuracy of the Labor Department's jobless numbers.

[Magox]

Welcome, and that is an astonishing figure and from a credible source.

[drnykterstein]

Ok. So according to your math, what was the jobless rate in 1930? How do your numbers compare when applied to other recessions or the depression? Your numbers are meaningless unless they are placed into the same context of history as the government unemployment figures are.

[Magox]

Ok. So according to your math, what was the jobless rate in 1930? How do your numbers compare when applied to other recessions or the depression? Your numbers are meaningless unless they are placed into the same context of history as the government unemployment figures are.

Conner you got to stop, really... It's embarrassing. Raghavan Mayur is a credible pollster, look him up. Next time you open your ignorant mouth, make sure you know what you're talking about.

[....lybob]

Raghavan Mayur, president at TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, follows unemployment data closely. So, when his survey for May revealed that 28% of the 1,000-odd households surveyed reported that at least one member was looking for a full-time job, he was flummoxed.

 

"Our numbers are always very accurate, so I was surprised at the discrepancy with the government's numbers," says Mayur, whose firm owns the TIPP polling unit, a polling partner for Investors' Business Daily and Christian Science Monitor. After all, the headline number shows the U.S. unemployment rate today is 9.5%, with a total of 14.6 million jobless people.

 

However, Mayur's polls continued to find much worse figures. The June poll turned up 27.8% of households with at least one member who's unemployed and looking for a job, while the latest poll conducted in the second week of July showed 28.6% in that situation. That translates to an unemployment rate of over 22%, says Mayur, who has started questioning the accuracy of the Labor Department's jobless numbers.

 

real unemployment always tracks 7-12 points higher than the unemployment rates the government gives- been that way for as long as I remember- discouraged workers aren't counted, neither are the underemployed, or kids out of college who'd like to get a job but decide to stay in college because there is nothing out there .

[/dev/null]

Conner you got to stop, really... It's embarrassing. Raghavan Mayur is a credible pollster, look him up. Next time you open your ignorant mouth, make sure you know what you're talking about.

 

Sorry Magox, but I have to use your own words against you...

You have to excuse him, he's Conner.

[DrFishfinder]

Ok. So according to your math, what was the jobless rate in 1930? How do your numbers compare when applied to other recessions or the depression? Your numbers are meaningless unless they are placed into the same context of history as the government unemployment figures are.

That's right.....meaningless. Tell that to all the people looking for jobs that aren't available and aren't going to BE available anytime soon.

[GG]

Ok. So according to your math, what was the jobless rate in 1930? How do your numbers compare when applied to other recessions or the depression? Your numbers are meaningless unless they are placed into the same context of history as the government unemployment figures are.

 

You can't really compare these numbers to the 30s, because George W Bush wasn't born yet, so you couldn't blame the Depression on him.

[IDBillzFan]

Your numbers are meaningless unless they are placed into the same context of history as the government unemployment figures are.

Kinda like global warming figures, right? They're meaningless unless placed in context next to the temperatures of Earth starting with Day 1.

 

Oh, no, wait. That's not right.

[rockpile]

Raghavan Mayur, president at TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, follows unemployment data closely. So, when his survey for May revealed that 28% of the 1,000-odd households surveyed reported that at least one member was looking for a full-time job, he was flummoxed.

 

"Our numbers are always very accurate, so I was surprised at the discrepancy with the government's numbers," says Mayur, whose firm owns the TIPP polling unit, a polling partner for Investors' Business Daily and Christian Science Monitor. After all, the headline number shows the U.S. unemployment rate today is 9.5%, with a total of 14.6 million jobless people.

 

However, Mayur's polls continued to find much worse figures. The June poll turned up 27.8% of households with at least one member who's unemployed and looking for a job, while the latest poll conducted in the second week of July showed 28.6% in that situation. That translates to an unemployment rate of over 22%, says Mayur, who has started questioning the accuracy of the Labor Department's jobless numbers.

 

As one of the currently unemployed, I am glad to see that someone is taking the initiative to try to more accurately reflect the unemployment rate reported by the government.

 

A phrase used often by Mark Twain, but is hard to identify the originator, fits well: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[IDBillzFan]

As one of the currently unemployed, I am glad to see that someone is taking the initiative to try to more accurately reflect the unemployment rate reported by the government.

 

Thought you might appreciate this article run yesterday by Ben Stein.

 

While Ben has 20 years on me, it doesn't diminish the fact that I completely get what he's saying. This is the first time I've consciously watched personal friends of mine directly affected by the tides of the recession. It used to be something I heard about; a friend of a friend of a friend in some state I've never been to, but in the past year I've watched three friends lose their jobs, homes, companies, etc.

 

For one, it has hit the people closest to me the hardest. Until now, I never had a friend who was truly in financial extremis from a recession. When recessions happened, they happened to people in Ohio or Illinois or Michigan. Now, they have hit hard in California and in the law field where so many of my friends work and in Washington, D.C. (yes, even in D.C.) where I am from. I never had a friend lose his house until this recession and now I am sad to say I have many pals who have either lost their homes or are in process of losing their homes.

[KD in CA]

Thought you might appreciate this article run yesterday by Ben Stein.

 

While Ben has 20 years on me, it doesn't diminish the fact that I completely get what he's saying. This is the first time I've consciously watched personal friends of mine directly affected by the tides of the recession. It used to be something I heard about; a friend of a friend of a friend in some state I've never been to, but in the past year I've watched three friends lose their jobs, homes, companies, etc.

I love the way Ben Stein calls a spade a spade. A couple lines in there worth noting:

 

when employers are looking to lay off, they lay off the least productive or the most negative.

It amazes me how many people fail to understand this very simple premise. We just fired a girl who has walked around here with a nasty pout on her face for the last two years. She was stunned.

 

 

This has been a recession that has hit wishful thinking very hard, and has rewarded prudence lavishly.

Good summary. Somewhere along the line people forgot the concept of saving for a rainy day. Well, it's pouring now.

[DC Tom]

Somewhere along the line people forgot the concept of saving for a rainy day.

 

My three months of unemployment ends tomorrow. Not only was I not hurting for those three months...my savings wasn't impacted all that badly, either.

 

Prudence...amazing concept.

[Magox]

My three months of unemployment ends tomorrow. Not only was I not hurting for those three months...my savings wasn't impacted all that badly, either.

 

Prudence...amazing concept.

Glad to hear that

 

[GG]

My three months of unemployment ends tomorrow. Not only was I not hurting for those three months...my savings wasn't impacted all that badly, either.

 

Prudence...amazing concept.

 

But I'm sure your cats weren't happy that you were eating their food.

[DC Tom]

Glad to hear that

 

 

Though I have to admit...I did consider not paying the mortgage, blowing all my cash on hookers and booze, and letting the government pick up the tab...

[IDBillzFan]

Though I have to admit...I did consider not paying the mortgage, blowing all my cash on hookers and booze, and letting the government pick up the tab...

That'd be pretty damn funny if...y'know...it wasn't mostly true.

[Booster4324]

But I'm sure your cats weren't happy that you were eating their food.

 

[rockpile]

My three months of unemployment ends tomorrow. Not only was I not hurting for those three months...my savings wasn't impacted all that badly, either.

 

Prudence...amazing concept.

 

I worked about 27 years with the same company (with different owners). I started funding my retirement 25 years ago. In the last 5 years or more before layoff, if I got a raise, it ALL went into my 401K. As owners changed, pensions and 401Ks were NOT kept with the company that cut me.

 

I survived in a department of over 80 down to the final 12, but did not make the cut to the last 5 people.

 

I worked 20 months on contract and was cut again. Then I worked another job almost a year part-time, even though I was offered unemployment. I want to freaking work. I have not taken money from savings (except once for property taxes) and have not touched IRAs or 401Ks. I have not had NEW money to add to the retirement accounts since 2007.

 

I am a 57 year old who may end up taking a job at half or less of what I made. I can live with that but I am not finished! I am looking for a new career to occupy at least my next two decades. After that I am not sure what I will do, but it will be an adventure. I would like to travel a lot. There is so much to see.

 

I disagree with Ben Stein on this point; many do not want Boomers, even if they are twice as qualified as a younger person.

 

"Productive workers with real skills and real ability to get along are also sometimes unemployed, but they will be the last fired and the first hired."

 

Be flexible and reject paradigm thinking, all you Gen X, Y, Z'ers, your day will come.

[Chef Jim]

I worked about 27 years with the same company (with different owners). I started funding my retirement 25 years ago. In the last 5 years or more before layoff, if I got a raise, it ALL went into my 401K. As owners changed, pensions and 401Ks were NOT kept with the company that cut me.

 

I survived in a department of over 80 down to the final 12, but did not make the cut to the last 5 people.

 

I worked 20 months on contract and was cut again. Then I worked another job almost a year part-time, even though I was offered unemployment. I want to freaking work. I have not taken money from savings (except once for property taxes) and have not touched IRAs or 401Ks. I have not had NEW money to add to the retirement accounts since 2007.

 

I am a 57 year old who may end up taking a job at half or less of what I made. I can live with that but I am not finished! I am looking for a new career to occupy at least my next two decades. After that I am not sure what I will do, but it will be an adventure. I would like to travel a lot. There is so much to see.

 

I disagree with Ben Stein on this point; many do not want Boomers, even if they are twice as qualified as a younger person.

 

"Productive workers with real skills and real ability to get along are also sometimes unemployed, but they will be the last fired and the first hired."

 

Be flexible and reject paradigm thinking, all you Gen X, Y, Z'ers, your day will come.

 

Good attitude Rock. Good luck. I'm just glad I made a career change nearly 10 years ago that put me in a career that is pretty much recession proof.