http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/unemploymentratemint2.jpg

Jan. Dec. Jan. Jan. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.
2008 2008 2009 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent
of the civilian labor force....................... 1.7 2.8 3.1 1.6 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.0

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary
jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force.... 3.0 4.5 5.6 2.5 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.5

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian
labor force (official unemployment rate).......... 5.4 7.1 8.5 4.9 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2 7.6

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus
discouraged workers............................... 5.7 7.5 8.9 5.2 6.5 6.9 7.1 7.6 8.0

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus
all other marginally attached workers, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all
marginally attached workers....................... 6.4 8.3 9.7 6.0 7.2 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.8



U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached
workers, plus total employed part time for
economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian
labor force plus all marginally attached workers.. 9.9 13.5 15.4 9.0 11.2 12.0 12.6 13.5 13.9

NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and
are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those
who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For more information, see "BLS intro-
duces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population con-
trols are introduced annually with the release of January data.


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

Interesting, heard a NPR person today say that according to 'some measures'(or something like that) the real rate is around 14%.

Mebbe they're trying to get ahead of the tidal wave of shit, a vain effort to maintain their 'credibility'.

here's your tidal wave!

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7066/joblosses827de4.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UofdWQG346k)

BM Offers To Move Laid Off Workers To India

Big Blue wants to help redundant U.S. employees relocate to developing markets, according to an internal document.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
February 2, 2009 12:36 PM

The climate is warm, there's no shortage of exotic food, and the cost of living is rock bottom. That's IBM (NYSE: IBM)'s pitch to the laid-off American workers it's offering to place in India. The catch: Wages in the country are pennies-on-the-dollar compared to U.S. salaries.

Under a program called Project Match, IBM will help workers laid off from domestic sites obtain travel and visa assistance for countries in which Big Blue has openings. Mostly that's developing markets like India, China, and Brazil.

More CIO Insights
White Papers

* 17 Ways to Reduce IT Cost
* Managing Risk - An Integrated Approach

Videos

She considers business acumen just as important as technical knowledge for a CIO. Here's why. His challenge? Creating open environment for Internet users without compromising information security and privacy. Bailar discusses the role of IT in business growth, his must-read business book, agile development and he offers up some advice to the software vendor community.
She considers business acumen just as important as technical knowledge for a CIO. Here's why.
"IBM has established Project Match to help you locate potential job opportunities in growth markets where your skills are in demand," IBM says in an internal notice on the initiative. "Should you accept a position in one of these countries, IBM offers financial assistance to offset moving costs, provides immigration support, such as visa assistance, and other support to help ease the transition of an international move."

The document states that the program is limited to "satisfactory performers who have been notified of separation from IBM U.S. or Canada and are willing to work on local terms and conditions." The latter indicates that workers will be paid according to prevailing norms in the countries to which they relocate. In many cases, that could be substantially less than what they earned in North America.

IBM has laid off more than 4,000 workers in the United States since the beginning of January, according to an employee group. The company has confirmed layoffs but won't comment on specific numbers.

A spokesman for Alliance@IBM, a workers' group that's affiliated with the Communications Workers of America but which does not have official union status at IBM, slammed the program. "IBM is not only offshoring IBM U.S. jobs but they want employees to offshore themselves through Project Match," said the spokesman.

An IBM spokesman said the program shouldn't be seen in that light. "It's more of a vehicle for people who want to expand their life experience by working somewhere else," said the spokesman. "A lot of people want to work in India."

In addition to India, China, and Brazil, IBM is offering to relocate redundant U.S. workers to a number of other developing markets, including Mexico, the Czech Republic, Russia, South Africa, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates, according to the notice, which was obtained Monday by InformationWeek.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=213000389

Hey eats, been meaning to ask -- thats a mitochondria in your sig, right? What does it mean?

Well, if Merrill Lynch says it, it must be true...

Actual unemployment rate 13.9%: Merrill Lynch
Counting the ranks of “underemployed” as a result of cutbacks on hours, the unofficial rate hit the highest level in at least 15 years, according to economist David Rosenberg

By Ronald Fink
February 6, 2009 12:48 PM ET
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090206/REG/902069980/-1/FWDailyAlert01


A Merrill Lynch analysis of the non-farm payroll numbers released on Friday makes for disquieting reading, to say the least.

The analysis by North American economist David Rosenberg indicates that the actual unemployment rate, while normally higher than the official one by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hit a level not seen since at least 1994. The good news: Inflation is not much of a threat as a result.

As Mr. Rosenberg explained, what the official unemployment rate misses is the vast degree of ‘underemployment’ as companies cut back on the hours that people who are still employed are working. Those hours have declined 1.2% in the past twelve months.

The BLS still counts people as employed if they are working part-time, but the number who have been forced into that status because of slack economic conditions has ballooned nearly 70% in the past year, according to the study. Mr. Rosenberg said was that was a record growth rate for the 15-year period he has studied.

When that amount of slack in employment is taken into account, Mr. Rosenberg found that the ‘real’ unemployment rate has actually climbed to 13.9%, an all-time high for the period he studied, and up from 13.5% in December and 11.2% a year ago.

As a result, the economist said worries that the federal deficit will lead to inflation anytime soon are misplaced.

“With this amount of excess capacity in the jobs market, and keeping in mind that the inflation process is dominated by the direction of labor costs, it is tough to believe that inflation at this point is anything but a far-in-the-distance prospect,” Mr. Rosenberg wrote. “A present-day reality it is not.”

Well, if Merrill Lynch says it, it must be true...

Actual unemployment rate 13.9%: Merrill Lynch
Counting the ranks of “underemployed” as a result of cutbacks on hours, the unofficial rate hit the highest level in at least 15 years, according to economist David Rosenberg

By Ronald Fink
February 6, 2009 12:48 PM ET
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090206/REG/902069980/-1/FWDailyAlert01


A Merrill Lynch analysis of the non-farm payroll numbers released on Friday makes for disquieting reading, to say the least.

The analysis by North American economist David Rosenberg indicates that the actual unemployment rate, while normally higher than the official one by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hit a level not seen since at least 1994. The good news: Inflation is not much of a threat as a result.

As Mr. Rosenberg explained, what the official unemployment rate misses is the vast degree of ‘underemployment’ as companies cut back on the hours that people who are still employed are working. Those hours have declined 1.2% in the past twelve months.

The BLS still counts people as employed if they are working part-time, but the number who have been forced into that status because of slack economic conditions has ballooned nearly 70% in the past year, according to the study. Mr. Rosenberg said was that was a record growth rate for the 15-year period he has studied.

When that amount of slack in employment is taken into account, Mr. Rosenberg found that the ‘real’ unemployment rate has actually climbed to 13.9%, an all-time high for the period he studied, and up from 13.5% in December and 11.2% a year ago.

As a result, the economist said worries that the federal deficit will lead to inflation anytime soon are misplaced.

“With this amount of excess capacity in the jobs market, and keeping in mind that the inflation process is dominated by the direction of labor costs, it is tough to believe that inflation at this point is anything but a far-in-the-distance prospect,” Mr. Rosenberg wrote. “A present-day reality it is not.”




Gotta love the candidness of the bastards, unemployment is preferred to inflation....what could be more plain?

Nov. 6, 2009, 8:41 a.m. EST · Recommend (5) · Post:
Unemployment rate hits 10.2% in October
Payrolls fall by 190,000, 22nd straight decline


By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. unemployment rate climbed to 10.2% in October, topping the 10% mark for the first time in 26 years, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls dropped by a seasonally adjusted 190,000 in October, bringing to total number of jobs lost in the recession to 7.3 million. It was the 22nd straight decline in payrolls. Large losses were seen in manufacturing, construction and retail. Health care and temporary-help agencies added jobs. Read the full government report.

The report was worse than expected. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch were forecasting a rise in the unemployment rate to 10%, with 150,000 lost payroll jobs. See Economic Calendar.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 10.2% was the highest since April 1983.

Unemployment rose by 558,000 to 15.7 million, the government said. Of those, 5.6 million had been out of work longer than six months, representing a record 35.6% of the unemployed.

The employment-population ratio fell to 58.5% from 58.8%. The employment-participation rate fell to 65.1% from 65.2%.

An alternative gauge of unemployment, which includes discouraged workers and those forced to work part-time, rose to 17.5%, the highest on record dating to 1995.

Total hours worked in the economy fell 0.2%. The average workweek was steady at a record-low 33 hours. Average hourly earnings rose 5 cents or 0.3%, to $18.72. Average hourly earnings are up 2.4% in the past year.

In September, payrolls fell by a revised 219,000, compared with the previous estimate of a 263,000 loss. The unemployment rate was 9.8% in September.

Payrolls in August and September were revised higher by a total of 91,000.

In its survey of 400,000 business establishments, the government found that private-sector employment fell by 190,000 to 130.8 million in October. Government employment was unchanged.

Employment in the goods-producing sector fell by 129,000, including 62,000 in construction and 61,000 in manufacturing. The average workweek in manufacturing rose to 40 hours from 39.9, the highest in 11 months.

Service-producing jobs fell by 61,000, including 40,000 in retail.

The only major sectors adding jobs were health care and education (up 45,000) and professional and business services (up 18,000). Temp-help agencies - a key leading indicator - added 34,000 jobs, the first significant increase since the recession began 22 months ago.

Of 271 industries, 33.8% were hiring in October, down from 37.5% in September.

In its survey of 60,000 households, the government found that employment fell by 589,000. The jobless rate for men rose to 10.7%, and it rose to 8.1% for adult women. The jobless rate for blacks rose to 15.7%, compared with 9.5% for whites and 13.1% for Hispanics.

The jobless rate for those with a college degree fell to 4.7% from 4.9%. For those without a high school diploma, the jobless rate rose to 15.5% from 15%. For those with a high school degree, but no college, the rate rose to 11.2%.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/unemployment-rate-hits-102-in-october-2009-11-06-83100

That's how it works. The modified unemployment rate (unreal) is a pleasant picture, one that will not trouble us as we go to bed at night or wake in the a.m. to begin our day of work. Why, it's just 6% oh wait 8%, well it's 10% but I'm in the 90% so it's all good.

There can't be a plan to destroy the U.S. economy so we'll just chock it up to total stupidity.

This reminds me that in 1940, unemployment was 15%. Compare that to the real level today, and we're totally screwed.

Here's somethng from Shadow Government Statistics. They're a good source of real world data presented with differing assumptions. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

http://shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=1

So, life sucks if you want a job. Is the the best we can do? But then how about a gratitude meeting. 50% of the world exists on $2.00 a day!

Well, if Merrill Lynch says it, it must be true...

Actual unemployment rate 13.9%: Merrill Lynch
Counting the ranks of “underemployed” as a result of cutbacks on hours, the unofficial rate hit the highest level in at least 15 years, according to economist David Rosenberg

By Ronald Fink
February 6, 2009 12:48 PM ET
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090206/REG/902069980/-1/FWDailyAlert01


A Merrill Lynch analysis of the non-farm payroll numbers released on Friday makes for disquieting reading, to say the least.

The analysis by North American economist David Rosenberg indicates that the actual unemployment rate, while normally higher than the official one by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hit a level not seen since at least 1994. The good news: Inflation is not much of a threat as a result.

As Mr. Rosenberg explained, what the official unemployment rate misses is the vast degree of ‘underemployment’ as companies cut back on the hours that people who are still employed are working. Those hours have declined 1.2% in the past twelve months.

The BLS still counts people as employed if they are working part-time, but the number who have been forced into that status because of slack economic conditions has ballooned nearly 70% in the past year, according to the study. Mr. Rosenberg said was that was a record growth rate for the 15-year period he has studied.

When that amount of slack in employment is taken into account, Mr. Rosenberg found that the ‘real’ unemployment rate has actually climbed to 13.9%, an all-time high for the period he studied, and up from 13.5% in December and 11.2% a year ago.

As a result, the economist said worries that the federal deficit will lead to inflation anytime soon are misplaced.

“With this amount of excess capacity in the jobs market, and keeping in mind that the inflation process is dominated by the direction of labor costs, it is tough to believe that inflation at this point is anything but a far-in-the-distance prospect,” Mr. Rosenberg wrote. “A present-day reality it is not.”




Gotta love the candidness of the bastards, unemployment is preferred to inflation....what could be more plain?


And don't look now, but as unemployment spirals higher, they're about to take steps to curb it. And by "it" I mean..inflation. Brilliant!

They certainly are consistent. Just like health care, imperial war, the banking crisis, they will put out the fire with gasoline.