Originally Posted by Steve_NO
Will, do you have a cite for this, because you're the first person I've heard make that claim, and if it had any substance I would think it would be shouted from the mountaintops by the MSM....who have had a hard time ignoring years of unprecedented low unemployment......so how about a real world cite for this statement, compadre?



Sure why not. It isn't like it is a big secret or anything.

The change was made in 1994. The change has been adhered to since that time. Shadowstats.com has made a living out of following the original calculations versus the changes made since that time. While the numbers they put out are not without some level of controversy, they are generally believed by most economists to be in the ball park.

Even by BLS's broadest number of unemployed we are at around 9%. And this is after the change in 94 to the number of discouraged workers.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/54

QUOTE: Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.
END QUOTE

CPI, inflation, was also changed under the Clinton administration. A change was made as of January to the seasonal adjustment made to CPI. Kind of fits don't it?

I mean you didn't actually believe that Q1 2008 had the lowest core inflation of any Q1 in the last 5 years? Did you?

The fact that these changes have been made to the calculation procedure is not debatable. Neither is the fact these changes paint a far rosier picture than is warranted. You may argue, as some economists do, that the shadowstats numbers slightly exaggerate them. But not by a lot. Like I said, they are generally believed to be 'in the ballpark'.

Will

EDIT: I should add that a previous change in the unemployment calculation was made in 1983 at the behest of the Reagan administration. One of the changes was to count military personnel as 'employed' rather than leaving them out completely. This helped to juice the numbers as well.

Smellin' a lot of 'if' coming off this plan.