Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks
no we haven't, dipshit. please stop typing. you have no idea what you're talking about.
"""In 1994, under the Clinton Administration, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics (BLS) changed the methods in which it calculated the levels of unemployment in the U.S. While the changes appeared to be minor on the surface at the time - the impact today is likely far greater than originally imagined. (for more detail on the changes read here)"""
http://stawealth.com/daily-x-change/...er-method.html
and please save the idiot speak you want to spew about unemployment under bush as a rising unemployment rate is far more accurate than the current lowering rate because the newly unemployed are all being counted. |
If you are unable to debate or discuss a topic without calling people childish names, perhaps you shouldn't debate.
As I stated before, if you all believe we need to change the way we determine unemployment, then by all means let's do it. It's still not going to change a thing. The numbers will still be higher across the entire board. Maybe unemployment realistically hit 20% at the height of the recession, and maybe it's really 11% now - But the numbers are going to confirm the same exact thing... Unemployment is going down.
So you can huff and puff (and call me names) all you want, the end result is going to be the same. It will make the over all unemployment numbers during the recession look worse, but it will make the recovery look better. Yawn.