Half of 240 million is 120 million, and the "not employed" is 140 million.
Considering how teenagers get real jobs around age 14 and that people can work until their 80s and 90s.... I can totally see how they get their unemployment numbers around 9%.

Statistics can always be played anyways in how they are interpretated, either with all factors involved or cherry picking 'facts'.

One thing the insignificant nobody me can look at, with a cup of water as 'half full' instead of 'half empty' is that the population had increased, with more babies, but at the same time, with new working capable and ready entrants in the labour market getting jobs.

It is thus an increased, a fact and reality.

Let's give credit where credit is due - the hardwork and sacrifice of both American employers and employees.

May this be an encouragement for more action to bring the unemployment rate down further through better automation, productivity and fairer wages, and hope that it is not a seasonal thing, though unlikely, as stocks and labour requirement would long had been made prior to seasonal holidays, which in US, stretches to annual basis - thanksgiving, christmas, new year, independence day, etc, etc.

This is another sleight of hand by our 'honorable officials.' This figure applies to those eligible for unemployment alone. This does not cover those whom have gotten it already and depleted their funds. In actuality, you're likely looking at a sum of around 40%+ unemployment. 47 million new welfare applicants would be the number you want to add to the total listed by the government.

The population increased by 1.7 million give or take

139323000/238704000=58.36% employed

140580000/240441000=58.46% employed

my maths are not what they used to be for sure but that looks like an increase in employed people to me

i hate maths
and statistics

Also, do they take into account those who were on EI and have since run out of EI....I guess they are employed then right? because they're not on EI anymore?

Or is it because they
a) Are no longer eligible.
b) still unemployed.

As said, stats can be interpreted a number of ways to get the outcome you wanted, but when looking at more than numbers you get the "big picture"

They do seem to shake and bake the unemployment numbers in order to make things look better don't they.

I don't know how it works in the US but in Canada we don't include those on welfare in our unemployment statistics.

The city I'm in we have an unemployment rate of around 9% but we also have a high number of welfare recipients and an unusually high amount of housing projects.

If the people in welfare were included where I live the unemployment rate would be around 30%. I know more people who are on welfare than those that are simply just unemployed. Welfare as a career in this city is a big problem. The only jobs that are really available here are min wage, service and retail sector. I imagine most places are headed in this direction.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
I don't know how it works in the US but in Canada we don't include those on welfare in our unemployment statistics.

The city I'm in we have an unemployment rate of around 9% but we also have a high number of welfare recipients and an unusually high amount of housing projects.

If the people in welfare were included where I live the unemployment rate would be around 30%. I know more people who are on welfare than those that are simply just unemployed. Welfare as a career in this city is a big problem. The only jobs that are really available here are min wage, service and retail sector. I imagine most places are headed in this direction.

Does that mean the government determined that those on welfare do not exist, or are they counted as employed?

Dissecting the unemployment numbers:

120,000 jobs gained lowers the unemployment rate by .4% to 8.6.
Take 120,000 divided by 4 an you get 30,000. 30,000 jobs per .1%.
x10 300,000 jobs per 1%
x100 and 100% employment = 30,000,000 workers.

That's right.. with the way unemployment is being calculated, I can estimate there are only 30,000,000 workers in the country.. that's roughly 9.5% of the entire US population (310,000,000)

That would make total US unemployment ..... roughly 90%.

Didnt the goverment said that the Unemployment rate is holding at 9%? alot of people arent buying this.

the unemployment rate changed or dropped, only because allot of people ran outta unemployment benefits..

I can assure you for every job opening around where I live, their are at least 10 people rushing to fill out a application, within the first hour it is listed..

the unemployment number is MUCH, MUCH, higher.. Hell the unemployment rate is very, very, I mean very unrealistic, why the hell the markets look at this percentage like its a real barometer of employment is beyound my comprehension. Its just a propaganda tool. PURE BULLCRAP.

Originally posted by Raskadawg
The population increased by 1.7 million give or take

139323000/238704000=58.36% employed

140580000/240441000=58.46% employed

my maths are not what they used to be for sure but that looks like an increase in employed people to me

i hate maths
and statistics

I believe your math is correct. Math is a way to communicate a perspective.

122,850 jobs are needed monthly just to tread water, and only 120,000 jobs were created. To recover to the average employment/population ratio over the next 24 months, 466,725 jobs are needed monthly.

The average CNI population ratio over the last three decades is 61.6%, during the Bush years is 62.9%, and max is 64.4%. The CNI population increased an average of 210,000 every month over the last 10 years, 122,850 jobs are needed to tread water at 58.5%.

140,580,000 are employed this month according to BLS.

With a CNI population of 240,441,000, this is how many we should have employed:

148,112,000 for an average year - (need 8,253,000)
151,237,000 for life during the Bush years - (need 10,657,000)
154,844,000 for a Max year - (need 14,264,000)

And people like me who never have been on unemployment - I bet there are TONS of us too who are not counted for. :/ (This month marks 14 months without work and actively looking all over.)

those who can't get on, those who have been on and are now off, etc., we all count in the end but aren't due to default.

They are not counting people who are unemployed and have run out of benefits or were never entitled to benefits. I work seasonally and do not get unemployment benefits, but I'm always looking for better work and sending out resumes.

Here in Michigan, anyone who is unemployed and seeking benefits must register with Michigan Works and start an account in the job search data base. Right now there are 79,112 jobs available statewide and 822,864 resumes available in the data base. That means 822,864 unemployed people that were, or are still on, benefits trying to get hired for 79,112 mostly unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. So we are looking at a state average of 10.4 unemployed workers for each job available.

Let's not forget there are the people that gave up, fell threw the cracks or are getting by with an under the table job.