Gallup CEO: "America's 5.6% Unemployment Is One Big Lie"

I'd consider myself among the underemployed. Jumped through the college hoops, but never qualified for any jobs in the field due to not having 5+ years of experience. And that was when I graduated in 2006. Kept at the job application game for 3 years, and got to the point where I gave up on trying to use my degree and got an "any-job". Pays just a little over $10/hr, but hours are also part-time. So I don't even break $14,000 a year.

But despite not making enough to really pay much of anything into the system, I'm still counted as being employed.

Would love to make over $30,000 a year like my father did (probably over $50,000 now as that was 1970's when he started), but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I think the only thing that could play a role in bringing back equitable and fair wages is the formation of employee owned collectives as the new ideal model of business. Some variations of that do exist, but those are few and far between right now. Of course even in those you'd have different jobs and different wages, but being modeled akin to a union in some aspects - everybody votes on those things. At such an organization, the guy pushing the mop around could vote down an upper-level management level raise, etc. And instead of dealing with typical hiring or management models, you have things like co-worker tribunals to evaluate new hires (because the new guy will own the same stake in the company you do) and dealing with some HR-type issues before it goes to the legal level. The result is that even though people could vote themselves raises, they balance those issues out as they have a personal stake in the business, so you get a fairly flat payscale compared to a more traditional business organization. But if it turns out the business profits, then everybody does instead of some artificial top-tier.

Part of employment with the young is that there are very few new jobs being created and the economy has reached an equilibrium. The people who are employed aren't leaving fast enough or in enough numbers to employ the young people entering the workforce. And when people do leave a position, the chances of that position being refilled are up in the air; it could be as likely if not more so that the position could just be closed out.

Until conditions change to allow the economy to expand and grow again at all levels, this is going to be a problem for the foreseeable future.

OK pauljs75, I can see where you're coming from with this reply of yours. Nice, that somebody is actually putting something on the table as a possible beginnings of finding a solution to what's going on in the labor market. I'll give you thumbs up for actually making a constructive suggestion with an embryonic framework. Good Reply shavedfish a reply to: pauljs75

Please learn proper capitalization, it makes your writing super confusing.

a reply to: dr1234

Is it merely annoying, or does your brain truly get stuck with it?

I just find that to be fascinating.

Do you have a sense of humor? Do you enjoy the arts? Do you have night blindness by chance?

Curious is all.

originally posted by: CB328
Unemployment isn't measured any differently under Obama than any other President, yet somehow he's lying and hiding things?

Is there no end to the dishonesty people will go to to attack Obama?

I'm attacking the problem. He is still at 23% shadow stats that is the real unemployment rate. He's part of the problem. So was everyone else in your government for quite a long long time. I knew what the deal was for a while. The presidential seat is only a public relations method for the masses. A talking head who does what he's told. Big money talks and BS walks. The BS is your system for letting it get to that point.

23% is great depression levels. Well close, it was 25%. You don't see bread lines because it's on a card now. Everything is hidden in plain sight. I would wake up and learn how to be self sufficient if I were you. Maybe we need to make a ongoing survivalist thread.

They are bringing the whole world to an equal playing field and we'll see the have not's growing. This is only speculation but it sure seems that way to me. I'm not going to wait for someone to save me. Adapt and improvise. I'm preparing to weather out the storm the most cost effective way. I'm not off grid yet but I am working towards that. I'm real close. I can manage if this nation falls tomorrow.

People fail to realize that when you have so many poor, your crime rate is going to go up. You can post statistics that crime is down but the scales are going to tip. You better get something to defend yourself while preparing for the worst. I'm not sure if things will go south fast but I'm preparing none the less. I don't have to justify my actions. I am perfectly sane. I see a sinking ship, it's time to get in a life boat or go down with it. I still have a normal life in the process. I have friends and family.

5.6% my ass. I'll watch the problem and prepare for it while doing so. If things turn around I'm still better off. I can eat good food that I know for a fact where it came from. I get to be more in touch with nature. It's a win win to me. I will never go back to a big city. At least not willingly. Have fun in the insane asylum while those unemployment numbers rise.

The writing was on the wall a while ago. I think right about the time Ross Perot told you about the sucking sound when NAFTA passed.

Oh, I had another problem. They are saying the crime rates have been dropping for a long time now. Why are our prisons maxed out on prisoners? We lock up more people here than any other country. The only country close is Russia and we beat them out. I think we'll lock up more as the unemployment rate gets higher. This whole country is one big lie.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
To quash the debate, why wouldn't the Federal Government, who is loudly and oft proclaiming that "all is well", provide absolute numbers, regardless of standing or obscure metrics, the amount of people who are gainfully employed versus those who are without employment or underemployment?

Is that too much to ask?

The answer is because they can't. I don't know when it started but I do remember first learning of it around 2006. At some point we changed the definition of unemployed to not count people chronically out of work. Then 2008 happened and an economy that already had bad numbers but a high closing on Wall Street (sound familiar?) went to hell. Our economy never had a chance to recover and the statisticians have been lying to us by omission for years. No politician wants to tell the truth about our current employment rate because it would get them thrown out of office.

Shadowstats (which sources official government numbers) is the closest we've got at 23% but to be perfectly honest they're probably underselling it by only using what they can actually document. There have been more than a few articles over the past couple years with a slightly lower standard of proof than shadowstats that have suggested our real unemployment/underemployment rate is approximately 34% which puts us significantly past the Great Depression. The only difference is that today the police will steal your stuff and bulldoze your home if you live in a shanty town. Instead there's food stamp cards and a welfare system that covers your rent if you have a bunch of kids.

What the CEO spoke of in this article is the ways in which the unemployment numbers are altered. They exclude the underemployed, and they exclude people who have been out of work for X time. This isn't something new to Obama, it has been going on for atleast the past two administrations but thats how it is. Unemployment doesn't actually track unemployed, it tracks newly unemployed which means that at best you can track the unemployment rate from quarter to quarter and figure out if you're gaining or losing jobs, but it doesn't tell you how many people aren't working as the name implies it would.

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly! In healthcare there has been a huge paradigm shift. For example my job title called for a minimum of a B.S. and I get paid like # without benefits or days off, but its not unique to me. I work with people that have doctorate degrees who are PRN with no benefits. The job market it completely #ed.

a reply to: avgguy

Yes, and a part of what allows it is that there is so much available labor around. When that happens, conditions favor employers over employees. If you aren't willing to work on their terms, there are plenty who will because they are desperate for anything. Until the economy grows and expands again, that imbalance won't begin to shift toward the employees.

But hey! Let's amnesty several million more from across the border and on H1-B visas.

So the national debt has grown 8 trillion dollars over the past 7 years.

There are more people on welfare.

The government is taking more money in tax revenue. From a minority.

And supposedly the unemployment rate is shrinking ?

Seems to be there would be less people on welfare.

The debt would be decreasing IF more people were working.

The unemployment rate given by the government is one big fat LIE.

a reply to: neo96

Actually, the debt to gdp ratio has been decreasing, however slowly, for a little while now.

We've been in a much worse position in the past, and come back.

People need to keep their chill... perspective...

This isn't telling me anything new.

I've been unemployed since 9/2014. I looked and looked and looked, and got ZERO calls back on all my applications. I gave up, and am currently freelancing to get by.

I honestly don't know what more a guy can do to find a job. I have an excellent work history, great attendance, and I stay at my jobs for a long time. (since I was 18, the shortest job I had was for 2 years, and that was my last job. I usually stay minimum of 5 years) I have management experience, and tech experience (I'm an electronics repair technician) But they want to pay $9-10 an hour today for jobs that I used to get $18 an hour for. I make more than $10 an hour on my own so you begin to think why work for someone else?

It's really rough out there. I want to move because I feel like I've tapped out the local job market, but I guess it would be the same everywhere.

I find it hard to believe the official numbers. I've been out there in the trenches, I know better.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Thing is Jimmy Carter only got one term the first time around.



People only had to make it through 4 years the first time. This time the lesson was much harder to learn, and the way they talk about Hillary and Warren, we may have to try to outlast 12 ... or even 16 years.

Given that ... is it any wonder that people talk about the end of days? If the US falls, there is no place a man (or woman) can go and expect to be free.

a reply to: ketsuko

Okay, so perspective.

First thing first, what is a "recession". That's a gdp loss for two economic seasons in a row. Well, we were towering above all else. What do we see? A shift of influence and economic output from the west to east, and south... and basically everywhere else.

Is that really such a horrible thing?

Here's another way of looking at it. People talk about the "decline of the middle class in America". Funny the US is "America", as if it were somehow not two continents. Anyhoo, depending on which stats you look at, we're either close to #1 position, or still at it.

So where are we, truly? We're no longer the undisputed superpower, and coming to terms with being the mere leading power in the world, which is challenged by other countries on particular bits. We've still got military dominance secured through this quarter of the century, have the highest GDP, highest PPP by FAR, and are not doing oh so terrible as the propaganda would have people believe.

Yes, we're declining, but from a towering position. Why can't we fall gracefully, and try to level the global playing field a little in the process? I don't think there's a quick fix here, but there is some signs of progress in the form of no longer tanking like a super-tanker struck the bottom of a shallow port.

We're the most technologically advanced nation on the planet, and this age is seeing jobs disappear, not because the tech disappears them, but because too many are incapable of adapting to the rapid pace of ever emerging jobs. You can still make damned good monies in this country, but you can't follow tens of millions in a position that is already filled to the rim. If people want to stay essentially obsolete, then complain, well, it is what it is. Until there is a change in the social contract, and the way we view the necessity of jobs in the face of awesome new tech, this trend will continue. You can't even get to that new social contract without a global implementation, due to the assumptions which drive the current system to compete to such a high degree for monetary compensation.

I am a Stay-at-home dad, but my wife and I never really planned it that way.

Truth be told, I (we) would rather I be working, however anything available around here wouldn't/ doesn't cover the cost of a sitter or childcare which would be necessary.

My wife makes above average income, so we are fortunate that we can do this, kind of.
Tonight, we have $7.45 in one account, and the other is negative.

Tomorrow is "payday", but that is pretty much spent already.
We don't even look forward to "payday" anymore.

We don't really have much of a savings account.

There is an Amazon and FedEx opening soon, hoping to get in there, although I realize they don't actually add anything to an economy.

On a side note, I now realize the sacrifices my mom made to her children, yet enjoy every second I get to spend with my well raised, well mannered, happy little son.
It ain't easy.

There is no recovery,
however we enjoy lemonade!

I have to wonder why this is being told to the zombies of America now. Many of us on ATS have seen through these lies for years, and I for one have tried to explain the numbers to my friends. What can the media and professional politicians gain by pushing this to the forefront?

Is it a way to start to condition people so when O'bummer's legacy is written, people are ready to see what fools they are? Is it a way to get ready to blame the current congress for soaring unemployment rates in the 2016 elections?

BTW, great topic!

Hey Oaktree, God Bless you and your well mannered son, as it's frequently said"If life gives you lemons, make lemonade). Peace Shavedfish a reply to: Oaktree

There is no recovery and wages are declining big time.

Since 2008 jobs that used to pay 17 an hour now pay 10 with no upward mobility.

Kind of enlightening today. I was sitting in my usual coffee shop hang out that I do my homework in, and the city council members were in there having an unofficial meeting. The mayor while talking to his people thinking no one was listening (I was the only other person in the shop besides the employees) said the real unemployment rate in our town is 43%. Apparently, of the people with jobs the local Walmart is employing 20% of them which is giving them huge influence into local politics.