http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...ll.418f33f.html

The economy is actually not as bad as some like to paint it out to be.

The unemployment figures are still lower right now than they were for most of 1992-2000...

The current executive branch has severely redefined the way unemployment is calculated. The rate calculated using the method in use in 92 is over 10%.

ETA: bad wording

That is not true. There's been no change to the definition of "unemployment" or the process that the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to measure it. It's all actually very straightforward, and you can view all the statistics on the BLS website. What I'd be curious to know, where did you hear that nonsense? I always wonder that when armchair pundits put out these bizarre facts.

Hlburi is correct -- just up to about 11 years ago, it was a truism in economics that an unemployment rate below 6% was unsustainable. People didn't get accustomed to thinking otherwise until the Internet/Telecom bubble of 1998-2000 brought unemployment below 5 and then 4%. That was artificial and completely unsustainable -- a lot of companies that never should have been funded into existence were employing a lot of people -- but somehow everyone quickly decided that was normal.

So the people who change who is counted in unemployment aren't trumpeting it on their website? Shocker.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/54

It's easy to hide behind convoluted methods and statistics. Slight changes can make a large difference in the result, and they do.

I'm not a statistician, and I'm too lazy to dig up the actual results from the BLS site, partially because I don't know that I could derive anything valid, either confirming or denying my assertion, or even if there haven't been edits, as Bush isn't big on accuracy.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

It looks like the reporting changes started happening during the Clinton administration, where the time limits for unemployment counting were tightened, and the sample size was reduced. It is claimed that the sample size reduction was heavily in areas with high unemployment. Bush has continued the tightening of who is included in reported unemployment, such that the reported number does not report a majority of the people who are actually unemployed.

Our real unemployment rate, counting those who do not have a job and wish they did, is probably 10-15%. Counting those who are "under-employed" (work at McDonald's with a college diploma on the wall), you would probably end up over 20%.

But like I said, there is no reason to trust anything coming out of this administration. I do not have the ability to gather independent supporting information. However, your assertions are no more valid than mine.

OK, trying not to get sucked into wasting my time on this silliness. No offense to you, but cranks always point to the "discouraged worker" concept because from that unmeasured fog they can imagine anything they want to imagine, and that makes them feel good.

The BLS survey is simple. They basically ask, do you have a job? Are you looking for one? You're only among the "unemployed" (as opposed to not being in the labor force at all) if you are jobless BUT looking for work.

And that's entirely sensible. Lots of people do not have jobs, and are not currently trying to find one. Babies, retirees, college students, etc. Any completely open-ended concept of "discouraged worker" with no time limits is juts ripe for abuse and useless data.

Slackers and bums who have no intention of ever holding a job exist, but that's pretty much useless information, and so no one counts it. Counting them among the labor force simply gives a false picture of what the labor force is. So it is not a good thing to let them claim they "wish" they had a job when they don't.

The truly "unemployed" part of the labor force is actually important data, for example, for the Fed in discussing interest rates, in determining the constraints on the economic system and inflationary pressures. A bunch of false data is not good, it's bad.

And, not being measured by anyone, you do not have any actual data to back up your mere opinion:
Our real unemployment rate, counting those who do not have a job and wish they did, is probably 10-15%.
This data is not measured now, wasn't 20 years ago, there's no basis for comparison, etc.

By the way, these are processes developed and conducted by career bureaucrats who do not even have a stake in whether unemployment is high or low. Why would they care? Their jobs are secure. George Bush and Karl Rove are not writing these reports. And when the agency does make a change, it's for some legitimate statistical or methodological reason. Changes occur under some presidency, because someone is always president. But it's not the president forcing these changes.

And underlying all this is the simple fact that, if you don't have a job and are not even bothering to look, no one SHOULD give a crap about you. If you want to take a break from the stress of job hunting, fine, but what, a 5 year break? Just never look for a job again because you become "discouraged"? My retarded cousin has a job for Pete's sake. If the BLS calls him, he's able to say he has a job.

Why do people continue to say that the economy sucks when we are not in a recession and will not be for 6 months in the worst case scenario.

America is a country where people are born to spend - all this frugality stuff is just a fad. Once the gas prices go back to $3 (on their way), people will start buying big trucks. In a year or two they will start buying houses again. And all this funk will be a distant memory.

No politics, please. That mall is humongous!!

I've always wanted to see it just for the humanity aspect of such a large space. I've heard there are more than one store for some of the same chains (McDonald's IIRC)

with lots of for lease signs lol