16 Responses for "Real U.S. Unemployment rate: About 10%"

1. rolls_the_eyes January 7th, 2007 at 9:40 am 1

   This is why we have economists, and don’t go to programmers for economic advice.

2. Xtian January 22nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm 2

   This is why “rolls-the-eyes”. along with other uneducated, brainwashed United Statesians are clueless lemmings.

   Duane, you are quite correct in your numbers. Numerous news agencies and organizations (including ABC news and UK’s The Guardian) have reported as much over the years. If only more of us would pay attention. Any wonder most of the world despises us and our arrogance?

3. Xtian January 22nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm 3

   This is why “rolls-the-eyes”, along with other uneducated, brainwashed United Statesians are clueless lemmings.

   Duane, you are quite correct in your numbers. Numerous news agencies and organizations (including ABC news and UK’s The Guardian) have reported as much over the years. If only more of us would pay attention. Any wonder most of the world despises us and our arrogance?

4. Jeff Moss January 24th, 2007 at 4:38 pm 4

   Many of these statistics are calculated differently, for example you’ll find that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States, even though our health care system is better at dealing with child-birth complications.

   The important thing here is that our figures stack up against other countries figures, measured equally. I don’t see the point in this calculation, except to try and lump all of our nation’s problems into one ugly number.

5. Xtian Gunther February 5th, 2007 at 11:45 am 5

   JM. the point is, if I may say so, that US stats are BS. We have high unemployment like our fellow industrialized nations. HOWEVER, those nations provide health care and other social services much more effectively and more comprehensively -while our rich get richer faster, our poor get poorer and our middle incomers are disappearing. Ugly? Yup? Should we lie about that as we do now? JM, you seem to think so.

   Forget comparing Cuba, take a look at Canada, Sweden and France for mortality rates. We still pale -across the board UNLESS YOU HAVE ENOUGH CAST TO BUY ACCESS TO SUPERIOR SERVICES.

   Fact is, we’re lied to daily with inconclusive stats that, on their own are meaningless at best and untruthful at worst. Duane and Aaron should be commended for illuminating this.

6. Xtian Gunther February 5th, 2007 at 11:46 am 6

   JM. the point is, if I may say so, that US stats are BS. We have high unemployment like our fellow industrialized nations. HOWEVER, those nations provide health care and other social services much more effectively and more comprehensively -while our rich get richer faster, our poor get poorer and our middle incomers are disappearing. Ugly? Yup? Should we lie about that as we do now? JM, you seem to think so.

   Forget comparing Cuba, take a look at Canada, Sweden and France for mortality rates. We still pale -across the board UNLESS YOU HAVE ENOUGH CASH TO BUY ACCESS TO SUPERIOR SERVICES.

   Fact is, we’re lied to daily with inconclusive stats that, on their own are meaningless at best and untruthful at worst. Duane and Aaron should be commended for illuminating this.

7. Jeff Moss February 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pm 7

   Xtian, all those other countries measure the infant mortality differently. The difference is apparent if you look at the number of kids who die on their birth day. In some countries, it is zero, or in other words, they don’t consider the kid ever having lived if it dies on the birth day. The United States LEADS in this category. You will too quickly assume the United States health care system sucks. That is in error.

   I assure you, if you go into an American hospital to have a baby, you are getting world class health care. Duh? You don’t have to buy it either. You can just not pay and you won’t go to jail or anything.

   I watched a show the other night about this girl who had a large tumor growing on her face, in Haiti or something. Her family was waiting for it to kill her, and a US based charity stepped in, (IKF, http://www.internationalkidsfund.org/) and saved her life. The show was called “A New Face for Marlie” if you care to watch it. The world depends on the United States for things like that.

   Like I said, this math whiz is just playing with numbers, it doesn’t mean anything at all. I guess it’s no surprise though that the United States is held to higher standards than other countries. 4.5% means that anybody can have a job in this country. Now a more appropriate argument would be “Look, unemployment is too low, it’s time to raise minimum wage!”.

   Does the fact that you’re uninformed make YOU a liar? I don’t think so

8. Terrygn February 22nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm 8

   JM, I’m afraid you are living in a bubble!
   If a German, French, Italian employee loses his job … and learns he has a serious illness, he doesn’t have to sell his house, clean out his accounts and impoverish himself totally to qualify for Medicaid. More bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical bills than any other single reason.

   In other western countries you get one year of unemployment and job retraining … here you get 26 weeks .. and then ‘presto’ even if you have obtained work .. the pencil pushers say you are non longer unemployed.
   We do not live in a democracy … we live in a Corporate-ocracy

9. Xtian February 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 am 9

   Sorry, Jim. You indeed DO live in a bubble. No doubt about it. Like many ethnocentric United Statesians, you buy the brainwashing. You picked the wrong guy to call “uninformed”. In spite of my desire to avoid a pissing match, I must say I’d go tête à tête with you any day.

   The US unemployment rate is hardly 4.5% and it’s been documented widely that our numbers are BS. In school? The Feds say, you don’t need a job! Even if unemployment really WAS 4.5%, McJobs don’t pay anywhere near what manufacturing and high-end service jobs did in the 20th Century. Are you now going to dispute that the rich are getting richer and the poor in this country are getting poorer? are you going to dispute the worst savings rates in our history, other than the Great Depression? Let me guess, Global Warming is made up.

   I get it. The industrialized outside the USA sucks. Amerikka, F yah! Do you guys hear and see just what’s happening. Guess not, you’d rather allude to the idea that anyone could check into a hospital and be serviced in the USA, ability to pay or no. Never mind the effects such actions have on the lives of those whose credit is non-existent in the most cut-throat capitalistic society in the World.

   Sorry, Jeff, no disrespect intended, but you must be joking. Would you like ketchup with those biggie fries? Maybe a career jump up to OFFICE DEPOT cashier. Sorry, health care not included.

10. kevin o'barr March 1st, 2007 at 5:59 pm 10

    This is the worst i’ve seen it in years.Our military is weak.Unemployment is the worst I have seen it ever.Gas prices are still high.I wonder who’s fault that might be.

11. kevin o'barr March 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pm 11

    I also must mention that we probably do have the best health care…..”But who can afford it.$25.00 for one aspirin.Most of our industrial company’s are moving over sea’s.I guess in china the people will make enough money to buy car tire’s for their moped’s or a new spalding football to play with on the weekend.Immagration is another factor-….The crime rate will be even higher.And we are fighting an enemy over sea’s right now,”But we don’t know who he is.

12. JB June 30th, 2007 at 8:44 am 12

    Xtian, you are uniformed.

    The US follows the same International Labour Organization standards that more than 200 nations use to calculate the same statistics. Average unemployment is 5.2% for the 6 years of the Bush Administration, as it was for the 8 years of the Clinton administration. Are you saying that if the Bush Administration says that we are at 5.2% unemployment, they must be lying, but when the Clinton administration said it was 5.2%, then they were being truthful? How does that work, since both Administrations use(d) the same methods of measurement to calculate it, and those methods are consistent with the International Labour Organization’s guidelines for measuring unemployment?

    But where you really demonstrated just how uninformed you are with your statement: “HOWEVER, those nations provide health care and other social services much more effectively and more comprehensively”.

    Let’s look at our neighbor to the north, the one the Clintons like to use as a model of ideal health care–Canada. 1/3 of Canadians go to the US for health care, and that number would be closer to 3/3 if travel costs weren’t prohibitive and health restrictions on travel weren’t a factor.

    Canada does not permit private health insurance, although many Canadians are lobbying, and even suing for that ability. Canada has a shortage of doctors in the thousands, and that shortage is increasing. In Canada, your “choice” of doctors is limited to what geographic area you live in. If your doctor sucks (likely since so many good ones move to America), the way to get a new one is to move somewhere else and hope it was a good move.

    Because it is so difficult to get into the system for treatment, many people are left to suffer for extended periods, or die while waiting to receive treatment. Wait times are so bad that the Canadian government has begun to implement new rules and massive spending increases to try to improve upon this. For the average medical problem, it can take as long as 6-9 months from the date diagnosed until treatment is administered. For emergencies, that wait time can be from 7 to 60 days before treatment is received. It is only “universal health care” if one can wait out a disease long enough before it permanently maims them or kills them, and if you aren’t too old to be treated (more on that later). The long waiting periods also drive up costs because most conditions worsen over time and require more involved and expensive treatments over time.

    Any major American city has more hospital bed space, more equipment (MRIs, CTs, x-rays, operating rooms, etc.) than all of Canada. Cincinatti and Oklahoma City are two examples. Some treatments are’t available in parts of Canada, even in its largest province of Ontario. You cannot get a PET scan to differentially diagnose colon cancer where a person could easily get a false positive reading for it using a standard CT scan.

    There’s nothing comprehensive about Canadian health care either. Minimalist is a more accurate description (something I have first hand knowledge of)…because you get the bare minimum of treatment at the cheapest price. Quantity and quality are sacrificed. And guess what? Health care is the single largest expenses in most socialized countries. In the US, it is about the fifth or sixth largest expense.

    And you still pay a great deal for health care and social services in Canada. The average Canadian pays over 50% of their income in taxes, while the average American pays only 38%. This figure is even worse in countries like Denmark, Norway, Italy, etc. Those great unemployment benefits come at a HEFTY price, in the form of ridiculously high income tax rates, guaranteeing very little possibility of upward economic mobility in these same countries.

    Canada’s two largest provinces pay a tax that is labeled as a type of improvement tax, but 100% of that tax’s revenues go to fund their sub par health care system. And of course, there is the concept of rationing, whereby certain medical treatments are withheld because of the age of a patient. If your 59 year-old mother were having chest pains, and you took her to the hospital and found out they would not do a heart catheterization for her because she was not medically “worth the risk” due to her age, how would you feel if she dropped dead of a heart attack two days later? (Age 55 is a common cutoff point in many socialized medicine systems.)

    When has a government bureaucracy ever been effective or efficient…oh yeah, never! With socialized medicine, you give up your freedom and power of decision and turn it over to the government. Do you really want them making your health decisions for you? Do you want them to have the power to determine whether or not your mother will have the chance to live, or die several decades before she has to because “cost-prohibitive” treatments for someone in her age group were withheld?

    Health care is not a right or an entitlement. It is a service business, just like automotive repair shops, home construction services, tax preparation services, etc.

    The only RIGHTS we are guaranteed are life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness (not happiness, but only the right to PURSUE it). Socialized medicine by its very definition takes away from your liberties, and can very easily take away the lives of loved ones (re-read the part about rationing).

    If you think this capitalistic society is the most cut-throat in the world, try living under a communist government where the term “cut-throat” is quite literal, and individual liberties and freedoms are non-existent. And as for being serviced in a hospital regardless of ability to pay or not, and racking up debts and ruining credit, well…I’ll take that any day instead of being told I cannot have a life-saving procedure because it is too cost-prohibitive. You don’t like it that a person can find it difficult to enter the health care system if they are poor, but it’s okay that a person absolutely cannot access the system because they are determined to be too old? Either way, it comes down to money, but at least in a capitalist society, that poor person’s life may be saved and he/she will have the opportunity to earn a better living and afford such a service in the future.
    As for the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer…46% of all poor households still own their own home. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) The average of all US homes is nearly 1,875 square feet; in all of Europe, the average home size is 976 square feet.
    Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
    America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only 2 percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.
    Home ownership in the US is at 68%. In Switzerland, it is 31%. In Germany it is 42%.In Denmark it is 51%. In France it is 55%.

13. JB June 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am 13

    If you genuinely believe that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US, then you’ve never visited Cuba before. Move there, use their health care system, and then comment on how great it is (of course, you won’t be saying that when all is said and done).

    Those $25.00 aspirins that one poster alluded to is how hospitals pay for those who use the emergency room for their medical care since it is illegal for hospitals to turn away patients from the ER. If that amnesty bill had gone through, that number would probably escalate to $100/aspirin, because illegal aliens are the worst offenders of using the ER as a regular doctor’s office.

    The rest of the world doesn’t hate the US, and a person could never tell if they did since so many of them try to move here. Even if they did hate us, so what? With success, there is often jealousy.

    This is the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world. Us ethnocentric idiots who’ve been brainwashed still recongnize how many of those US-hating countries depend on us for help in times of need. France has the reputation of being anti-US, but who bailed France out of WWI and WWII and even Vietnam? Oh yeah, the USA! When France’s economy was on the verge of economic collapse in the 50s-60s, what country bailed them out? Oh yeah, the ethnocentric, arrogant US.

    Was global warming made up? ABSOLUTELY NOT. The globe is currently in a warming period. The problem is, there just isn’t a whole lot we can do about solar radiation, and man’s contribution to greenhouse gases is neglible…the most generous estimates come to less than 4%. Global satellite data (the most reliable climate measurement) shows no such evidence beyond normal heating or cooling periods of the last 15,000 years. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.

    The center of the mass of the solar system is not constant and varies from one cycle to the next. That causes variations in the rotational speed of the Sun. In turn, that causes disturbances in the internal circulation of the Sun. Those disturbances manifest themselves in the form of sunspots and solar flares. It is primarily the intensity of solar flares and eruptions, not so much the 11-year sunspot cycle, that is of concern. Depending on whether the nucleus of the Sun is closer or farther removed from the center of mass of the solar system, and depending on the Sun’s position in its oscillation around that center of mass, solar activity ranges from being virtually absent to being very pronounced. During periods of high solar activity, the energy radiated by the Sun increases, and therefore the Earth receives more radiation from the Sun and heats up. Moreover, solar activities also interfere with the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches the atmosphere of the Earth. Then there will be a corresponding reduction in cloud formation and therefore less precipitation. When the Sun has a long interval of relatively large energy output, the Earth experiences global warming. When the energy output by the Sun is low for an extended interval, the Earth cools off. If such a quiet interval lasts for a very long time, the Earth experiences an ice age.

    Speaking of the ice age, one of the leading (man-made) global warming activists, Stephen Schneider, used to preach in the 70s that another ice age was imminent, but now says exactly the opposite, that we are melting the polar ice caps and water levels are rising catastrophically.

    How amusing that in one year, global warming alarmists will tell us it is warmer this year than normal because of our carbon emissions. They tell us it will get hotter every year. Then when their predictions are wrong, like this current year of 2007, we had cooler average temperatures, more snow and currently above normal rain and flooding–but that’s also global warming. If it’s too hot and dry, it’s because of man-made global warming. If it is too cold and wet, it’s man-made global warming. So, whatever fluctuations there are in the climate, obviously it has to be man-made global warming and cannot possibly be the natural fluctuations of the past several million years.

    Global satellite data actually show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear.

    A report in the journal ‘Science’ showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile effort. What’s more, both water vapor and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, but they are mysteriously ignored.

    96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, and humans are responsible for 3.5% of those emissions. 18,000 scientists worldwide generated a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that “there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate.” I’ll trust the opinion of the scientists over those of the politicians.

14. RS August 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm 14

    JB… i’m not sure who’s pocket your hand is in mate, but your exquisite use of statistics is quite effective in manipulating the topics you address. Trust me, I know. Twisting stats is what i do for a living.

    “Lies, Damn Lies, and statistics”

    In many respects, the US is a great country, but like all countries it has its deficiencies. Merely defending her blinding is both counter-productive and ignorant… and JB, climate change is very real and has very real consequences… please get some perspective. The Jury is not still out on this one… man-made pollution is gradually tipping the balance, even if it only constitutes about 3-4% of emmisions as some argue.

    And to all those who blindly attack the USA’s initiatives, please do not descredit rational debate by ignoring the pragmatic nature in which a society has to operate… however, it would be nice to see the US adapting their economy through governance as well as free-market adaption, as this is too passive a measure to deal with the real global problems which we face. Looking at how scandanavian and some other European countries have adapted their economies would be a start. These countries are forecast to have strong economic positions far into the future (relative to their size of course) because their governments have been proactive in helping to mould their economies to deal with the new issues we face in the 21st Century. Countries like the US and Australia (where I live) have dragged their feet, have merely seen threat where opportunities exist. Our respective countries are currently falling behind in developing technologies that will help power these new economies that are developing around the world (major economic opportunities missed) because we spent much of our R&D expenditure on propping up largely redundant forms of technology.

    Furthermore… it appears that many Americans (although this phenomenon is of course not isolated to your region) constantly return to the Capitolism/Communism debate when discussing matters such as these - passionately arguing either one or the other. The idea that either Capitolism or Communism could provide all that their repective ideologies offer is just fantasy, and a combiation of free-market development and socially aware governance is required in all functional societies. It’s essentially the nature/nurture debate all over again…

    Duane, my apologies for not entering the discussion as first posted… as i know little about the US employment market except that caucasians earn a lot more than other races. About $22K more per household (US census 2005). I will not comment further as to why this is, as there are so many variables that we could be here all day…

15. IB January 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm 15

    Interesting read from everyone’s perspective. Yes, RS stats can be manipulated, and both sides do it. I actually have a degree in Economics, so, like you, I’ve have witnessed first hand that they can be. There are many reasons how why they can be manipulated, but my point here is, yes BOTH sides do it.

    The big difference I’ve seen in both parties are as follows when having a political debate on the economy (and I do apologize here for those that read and say, wow, tell us something we don’t know…yes, I am oversimplifying, and stating the obvious):

    - The left leaning (varying in degree) tend to have a belief that goverment is the answer, and capitalism is horrible.

    -Right leaning (also varying in degree) believe that capitalism is great, and government is horrible.

    -Left (at least in the last 8 years since I have been talking politics) see the US as horrible, arrogant, everyone hates us, generally in a negative light

    -Right see the US as strong, independent, and overall better, generally in a positive light

    I think the thing that both sides tend to forget at times, Left more so than Right is that PEOPLE run both, companies and government. Neither government or private companies are intrinsically good or bad, it’s the people that run these companies or government that is either good or bad, the entities are just the vehicle in which things are carried out. Both sides like to say the other is living in a bubble, well, hate to break it to everyone, we ALL live in a bubble, it’s called the Earth (fancy that, it’s a big bubble, floating out in space….). The biggest issues we seem to face these days is lack of TRUE communication, and just closing our minds to truly listening to each other. The other issue seems to be accountability, it’s always someone else’s fault, never our own.

    Just some things to think about…..and pose this question to all that read after my post…..

    am I Right or Left leaning? I’d be curious to hear what people think.

16. Outside the Matrix January 25th, 2008 at 1:45 am 16

    Personally I don’t dare go near Allopathic doctors or Hospitals. The number of deaths and injuries from Iatrogenic and drug-related side effects is horrendous.

    The very basis of symptom-based rather than cure-based medicine is questionable. Those who can’t afford Allopathic intervention and are forced to seek so-called alternative therapies are more likely to achieve better outcomes.

    I have read a number of comments on various sites such as…

    ‘97% of the operations performed by U.S. doctors are unnecessary, according to the admission of doctors, themselves, who met to decide what operations would really be needed in case of socialized medicine when there would be no profit in it for them. They decided that only about three percent (3%) would be necessary.’

    ‘An estimated 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed each year, writes Gary Null, PhD., in Death by Medicine. Rather than reverse the problems they purport to fix, these unwarranted procedures can often lead to greater health problems and even death. A 1995 report by Milliman & Robertson, Inc. concluded that nearly 60 percent of all surgeries performed are medically unnecessary, according to Under The Influence of Modern Medicine by Terry A. Rondberg. Some of the most major and frequently performed unnecessary surgeries include hysterectomies, Cesarean sections and coronary artery bypass surgeries.’

    The therapeutic value of all these expensive machines is unproven. In fact many tests which bombard the organism with radiation or ultrasound are positively harmful.

    Based on the research I have done, the whole of the AIDS, Bird Flu, Cholesterol, Cancer, Vaccine, ADHD and more industries are nothing less than money-spinning scams. Despite trillions of dollars spent in these areas there isn’t a cure in sight. Why? Because the industry isn’t in the business of cures. Cures would be a disaster. As with so many areas of our lives, corporations need us sucking on the corporate tit from the cradle to the grave. Go into any pharmacy and see how many labels say ‘CURE’. You won’t see any. Just ‘RELIEF’. What does that tell you?

    There are cures for all conditions but the industry doesn’t want you to know about them and doctors aren’t allowed to prescribe them, or face serious consequences.

    All the ‘gatekeeping’ authorities such as the AMA and FDA are there for is to protect big pharma and keep out competition.

    It’s not the EXPENSE of the system that should be called into question but the system itself.

    Good health!