‘Real’ Unemployment Rate Remains at 14.5 Percent

The “real” unemployment rate – a broader, more inclusive measure of the country’s jobless picture than the one usually used – remained unchanged at 14.5 percent in April, as the economy created a paltry 115,000 jobs.

Known formally as the U-6 unemployment rate, this measure includes those formally counted as unemployed, those known to be marginally attached to the workforce, and those who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the U-6 unemployment rate remained flat in April at 14.5 percent – meaning some 22.8 million people are either unemployed, have stopped looking for work, or need full-time work but can only find part-time employment.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • 80 plus million Americans know the economy is not getting better and they all have freinds and family that knows it as well … alot of Romney votes to be had in that crowd … alot …

  • BMartin1776

    Uhhh actually CNS has it wrong 14.5 is off… its actually 22-23%! ShadowStats.com uses old formulas to calc rates!

    This regime will work to get it under 8% right before the election… of course i will be a lie but thats al they are good at and they will do it by writing off more Americans like myself who can’t get a job! The 88 million already written off will be close if not over 90 million to get there false rate.

  • 911Infidel

    The Obamanites keep looking at their unemployment numbers going down because they don’t count all the people out of work. Who are they fooling anyway? The unemployed know the real deal. Their families and friends know the real deal too.

    I’m beginning to think that Morris is right. He thinks that the Obaminites have already decided that they’re going to lose in November and are scrambling to screw this nation into the ground as fast as they can.

  • jm0912be

    I’m confused. Did the U6 rate just recently become the “real” unemployment rate or was it always what we should have been using? If it is the latter, then consider the fact that the real unemplyment rate was 15.1 percent in President Obama’s first month in office and 23.5 million people were unemployed. Nine months later the U6 rate was 17.2 percent and almost 27 million people were unemployed. Since then over 4 million people have found jobs and the U6 rate has come down to 14.5 percent.

  • aZjimbo

    Real unemployment at best is 15% but closer to 20%. I have been saying this for 2 years now.

    • jm0912be

      What was the real unemployment rate when President Bush left office in January 2009?

      • aZjimbo

        The stated rate was about 7.6% but probably a little higher but not much higher yet. JS

        • jm0912be

          So, for President Bush, you believe that the “stated” rate of 7.6% was the real unemployment rate in his last month in office? I’d be interested to know what your data source is for this rate. The the official unemployment rate (the U3), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the US Department of Labor, was 7.8 % in January 2009 and rose to 8.2% the next month.

          More importantly, I’m surprised that, for President Obama’s Administration, you apparently believe that we should use something even higher (15-20%) than the 14.5% U6 rate. If we use the U6 rate for one President wouldn’t it be only fair to use it for all Presidents so we can get an apples-to-apples comparison? By the way, as I’m sure you know, the U6 (real?) rate in President Bush’s last month was 14.2%, it rose to 15.1% the very next month.

          • aZjimbo

            I said 7.6% as a close guess. So 7.8% is good enough for me. The reason the rate was not inflated is because the crap did not hit the fan yet and then 2009 became a horrible year andf things continued to get worse. I am not blaming all on the muslim prez but with 3 years of his policies things are getting and are much worse than reported by his regime.

            • jm0912be

              I don’t follow what you are saying. During the last year that President Bush was in office the U6 “real” unemployment rate rose from 9.0% to 14.2% as the “crap” hit the fan. During this period, 4.6 million private sector jobs were lost. The first year President Obama was in office, an additional 4.2 million private sector jobs were lost bringing the total 2008-2009 job loss to 8.8 million. Since the start of 2010, 4.2 million jobs have been recovered and we are on pace to recover a total of 6million jobs by the end of Pres. Obama’s term.

              • aZjimbo

                If you really believe that since 2010 there have been 4.2 million jobs recovered and are on pace to recover all the lost jobs then you are flat out delusional. And at what price are these so called jobs created cost?

                • jm0912be

                  In the 27 months from March 2010 to the present, 4,247,000 private sector jobs were added according to data published the first Friday of every month by the US Department of Labor. For those conspiracy theory folks who might claim that the Labor Department is somehow “cooking the books” for the Obama Administration, please note that the process used is the same as that employed during all Administrations for over 60 years.

                  With regard to recovering all the lost jobs, what I said was that we are on pace to add a total of 6 million private sector jobs by the end of President Obama’s current term. This would represent recovery of about 68% of the 8.8 million jobs lost in 2008/2009. I based this on adding jobs at the same monthly rate as was the average in 2011.

                  If you consider any, or all, of this to be delusional then we should probably just agree to disagree.

                • aZjimbo

                  Agreed on disagree. I talk to customers every day. There is no recovery no matter how you spin barrys fairy tale recovery. JS

              • K-Bob

                You realize that’s arithmetically challenged, right?

                Besides, zero job growth isn’t exactly a “pace.”

                • jm0912be

                  Actually, I do not understand why what I said was arithmetically challanged. Can you explain please?

                  The pace that I was alluding to was the average of 189,000 private sector jobs per month that were recovered in 2011. If we continue at that pace, which we exceeded in the first four months of 2012, we will add over 6 million private sector jobs by the end of President Obama’s term.

                • K-Bob

                  If the two “real” unemployment numbers are so close, clearly it’s impossible for real job growth to have occurred. That’s what’s mathematically challenged with your assertion.

                  As to “recovered,” I just don’t see anywhere there were any real jobs recovered. I do see article after article in business magazines in 2011 pointing out the “jobless recovery.” (Which of course makes a mockery of the word “recovery,” even though jobs are well-known to lag–they shouldn’t lag by 18 months.)


                  The point is that those aren’t actually “recovery” levels of job growth. In terms of job recovery, there needs to be twice as many jobs per month just to begin the process. And it has to accelerate, big time, or there’s no recovery.

                  Meanwhile housing starts have already slipped, and a lot more people are worried about Great Recession II, thanks to Greece’s plummeting off the Euro table.

                  The fact is, we’re in a depression, and 1.2% growth coupled with massive government interference in all aspects of our lives and our businesses is not a formula to end it.

                • jm0912be

                  When looking at how fast or slow a jobs recovery has been, it has always been agreed to begin at the point when job loss stops and recovered jobs begin. In this case, job recovery began in March 2010. At that point in time, the U6 rate was 16.9% and the U3 offical unemployment rate was 9.8%. Since that time, the U6 has dropped to 14.5% and the U3 to 8.1%. The fact that the U6 was 14.2% in January 2009, when job loss was only half what it would eventually be, and that the U6 is now 14.5% is irrelevant.

                  With regard to your claim that “In terms of job recovery, there needs to be twice as many jobs per month just to begin the process.” consider the following. Since January 2011, private sector jobs have been growing at an average monthly rate of 189,000. This is faster than the growth rate in 12 of the last 13 years. With regard to your claim that it should be twice this rate, consider the fact that an average growth rate of 388,000 private sector jobs per month has never been achieved in any year since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping records in 1939. And yes, I know that Governor Romney has said that we should be adding jobs at a rate of 500,000 per month.

                • K-Bob

                  If you want to know what real growth looks like, during Reagan’s administration, over 800,000 jobs were created in each of his two best months. Worse for Obama, when you net out population growth, the jobs situation is a down-trend over his entire tenure (see second graph… data for that graph came from here).

                  (BTW, the “twice” I was referring to was referring to the lower amounts you had noted, not the new one you just supplied.)

                  President “Downgrade” is not going to have a miracle of job growth sweeping him back into office. If he wants to win, he has to go down and dirty, and Romney has to pull a McCain. So far, that appears to be what’s happening.

                • jm0912be

                  There was only one outlier month, not two, during the Reagan Administration when over 800,000 jobs were produced and in the month prior to that over 300,000 jobs were lost.

                  BTW, even if you use twice the lower number (i.e. the monthly average number of private sector jobs produced since the recovery began in 2010) your assertion that this is what is required to count as a recovery makes no sense. You are in effect claiming that no recovery even begins if anything less than an annual run rate of 314,000 jobs per month is achieved.

                  Guess what? An annual run rate of 314,000 jobs per month (or higher) was only achieved twice in the 73 years records have been kept. The first was in 1946 during the Truman Administration; the second was in 1978 during the Carter Administration. This job recovery rate has never been achieved during any of the six Republican Administrations since 1939. So I guess there has never been a jobs recovery during a Republican Administration?

                • K-Bob

                  Nope. *Two* months. One was over 800,000 and the other was over 900,000.

                  You need to look at past recoveries to see why the larger number of jobs growth is critical. Also that graph showing the net losses when you factor in population growth helps explain why, and shows clearly how awful the SCOAMF’s economic policies have been. This is basic econ. You can’t spin away the largest period of postwar (WWII) economic growth by looking at “annual run rates”. Data doesn’t work in annual run rates. It works like the stock market. Ups and downs.

                  You are pulling a “hockey stick” game with the stats here. (Exactly how the AGW crowd faked the bogus rate of increase in temperatures.)

                • jm0912be

                  Would you please provide the month and year during the Reagan Administration when each of the large job increases occurred? Thanks.

                • K-Bob

                  I found those numbers in a 2011 article by John Lott. I couldn’t find his source, so I looked at the BLS info. It appears that the two largest month-to-month jumps were found in the non-seasonally-adjusted table. When you go to the Seasonally-adjusted table, you get only one month that huge. The number I got for Sep ’83 is 1,114,000 in the Seasonally-adjusted table. Who knows why one number was barely dented by adjustment, and the other was more than halved. (April, 1987 went from 1,002,000 to 338,000 with adjustment) Also, Lott probably got his numbers from an older version of these data, with differing adjustments, and possible re-adjustment due to criticism of the adjustment process (that is pure speculation by me, but stat followers do this all the time, maintaining their own data tables. See “Warming, Man-made”).

                  You can play with the numbers here.

                • jm0912be

                  It’s always inappropriate the use non-seasonally adjusted data to assess trends. The seasonal adjustments made do not change the annual job totals materially but they do smooth the data using statistical algorithms. Case in point, non-seasonally adjusted data during the Reagan Administration includes 18 months where levels exceeded 800,000 jobs a month and 16 times when an average of 1.3 million jobs/month were lost. These wild swings are what necessitate seasonal adjustment.

                  In any case we are hopefully now at the point where you agree that a one time occurrence of 1,114,000 monthly jobs is an outlier and thus statistically insignificant.

                  Since I have no thought that I’m going to win you over with my arguments let me close with the following. Having lost 4.2 million private sector jobs in its first year, the Obama Administration is on pace to recover 6 million jobs by the end of its Term. This net of 1.8 million private sector jobs over 4 years is more that twice the number of private sector jobs created in all of the 12 years the Presidents Bush were in office.
                  Nor is this an unusual occurrence since Democratic Administrations have created almost 70% of all private sector jobs since 1939 (over 70% of all non farm jobs). Before you reject the last sentence as “spin”, or “arithmetically challenged”, or “hockey-sticking”, I recommend you copy the 1939-2012 BLS Table B1 sort into Excel and check for yourself.

                • K-Bob

                  No, I saw that “70%” article too. It’s definitely table-setting for the conclusion, since it involves selecting a helpful starting point.

                  It’s the same data problem as those silly inclusions in a stock’s performance over the last ten years that you always see expressed in reports as “price today vs. ten years ago.” It’s doubly meaningless when people consider how incredibly far to the left the Dems have shifted in recent years compared to the Kennedy years. You may as well include Kennedy on the Republican side in making such a comparison about jobs, since his policies were far closer to the conservative position than the current insanity.

                  Of course, the current insanity makes ALL other Presidents seem conservative by comparison, but that was the beauty of that article. Obama is an outlier himself, so they reach back in time to help make his situation seem reasonable, since he’s still at least a Democrat.

                  I’m not too fussed over the issue, frankly. At this point, the economy couldn’t recover enough to make much difference by November. As I wrote before, it’s going to come down to the hard, dirty campaign by the Obama folks, vs. the pointless, McCain-style exercise of the Romney folks. If the Obamoids oversell, like they have done with the War-on-women, AND if Romney can capitalize, he has a chance. If the Obamoids play it exactly as they should and Romnoids fail to point out the Greece-like problems we are facing, then Obama gets back in.

                • jm0912be

                  If 1977, the approximate mid-point of the 1939-2012 period, is selected as the starting point, 67% of private sector jobs were gained during Democratic Administrations. Does that mean Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were also really Republicans?

                  BTW, there was no “70%” article; I did the computation myself using my arithmetically challenged math (and Excel’s). Please forward your source so I can cross check our numbers.

                • K-Bob

                  I stumbled on an article that was making the same claim: more jobs created by Dem Presidents than Republican, since roughly the same time you were discussing. I assumed you were looking at that one, too since it was somewhat current. (I didn’t bookmark it, I just saw it go by while looking into the source for John Lott’s numbers.) Sorry. I guess others are trying to mine this vein for interesting points, too.

                  As to Carter and Clinton, Clinton was successful precisely because he didn’t screw up the economic success of Reagan by imposing new, major programs and jacking taxes up like crazy.

                  The smart Presidents know not to mess up a good thing. Bush I and II weren’t that smart, because they damaged the Reagan economic plan. Nixon was worse, thanks to his stupid “Freeze.” Let’s move him over to the Dem side (heh).

                  Carter is interesting. The Reagan revolution was jumpstarted by Carter in two significant ways:
                  1) Carter began “deregulation.” Specifically, the airlines.
                  2) Carter appointed Volcker, the monetarist Fed chief who held a very firm lid on inflation, resulting in those nasty, high interest rates. Much smarter than Greenspan’s last few years and all of Geithner’s, IMO. It was painful, but made all of Reagan’s and Clinton’s economies look good.

                  Carter’s problem is that he didn’t lower taxes. If he’d even lowered a couple of key taxes early in his admin, I’m guessing Reagan never would have happened.