Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4471252" data-attributes="member: 63706">I used 3% because I remembered reading that claim. I never stated that the rate was actually at 3%, just that it had been reported as such. I will also say that I was wrong about how they calculate unemployment rates. It&#039;s not based on unemployment insurance claims, it is done by survey monthly. The DOL states, however, that it doesn&#039;t count people who aren&#039;t actively looking for work. That is the reason, as I stated before,&nbsp; why the numbers don&#039;t give an accurate picture on actual unemployment.Beyond that, some media will use the unemployment insurance claims reports as their source for reporting the unemployment rates if and when it suits them. Those rates are unreliable for the reasons I gave before. The reality is more complex than what you might want to believe, but if you want to oversimplify the matter to justify your views, why not?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4471252, member: 63706"] I used 3% because I remembered reading that claim. I never stated that the rate was actually at 3%, just that it had been reported as such. I will also say that I was wrong about how they calculate unemployment rates. It's not based on unemployment insurance claims, it is done by survey monthly. The DOL states, however, that it doesn't count people who aren't actively looking for work. That is the reason, as I stated before, why the numbers don't give an accurate picture on actual unemployment. Beyond that, some media will use the unemployment insurance claims reports as their source for reporting the unemployment rates if and when it suits them. Those rates are unreliable for the reasons I gave before. The reality is more complex than what you might want to believe, but if you want to oversimplify the matter to justify your views, why not? [/QUOTE]

Verification