In response to:

Believe it – Employment Numbers Were Ginned

Phil424 Wrote: Oct 15, 2012 10:25 PM
"Unemployment" As explained by Bud Abbott & Lou Costello COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America. ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%. COSTELLO: That many people are out of work? ABBOTT: No, that's 16%. COSTELLO: You just said 9%. ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed. COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work. ABBOTT: No, that's 16%. COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed. ABBOTT: No, that's 9%... COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%? ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work. COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed. ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed. (con't)

A couple weeks ago, this column analyzed the inflation rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and concluded that you should rely on your common sense when the government reports questionable statistics. If they don’t make sense based on what you see, experience, and hear from your friends, then they’re probably wrong. Last week’s unemployment number – which decreased to a still-dismal 7.8% – should not only make no sense to you, but should have never made sense to the BLS and therefore should never have been issued.

So am I just popping off or is there...