# Here's how the Iranian media reported the US unemployment news



## DadofTheFamily (Feb 19, 2015)

PressTV-93 million in US out of labor force

Scary, but the state-run Iranian media sounds more objective that our supposed "free press"


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PressTV isn't trying to hide the truth from the Americans as our mainstream media is.

If Americans understood what was happening, Obama wouldn't have a 50% approval rating.

If Americans understood the numbers thrown at them, they wouldn't be so tolerant of outsiders being allowed inside to compete for jobs.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The lie inside the lie is redefining what the words means and when something is counted and when it isn't due to the bizarre definitions. How else can Bill Clinton create spin room by asking to define the word" is"? Not only is this done with unemployment numbers and measurements on the economy, but legal documents, legislation, and the constitution. Create an educational system that turns brains to mush rather than critical analytically skills and you get today's average bear. When I have to believe the Iranian government over that of the United States, I say we are all in deep kimchi.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Actually that article is pretty consistent with the US business press. Maybe you just need to read different sources.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Actually that article is pretty consistent with the US business press. Maybe you just need to read different sources.


Hey, great idea!

As you are so happy to always demand, could you share those links? All the mainstream articles have indicates things are rosy because the official unemployment release indicates things are getting better.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Do you think 93 million people in this country want to work and can't? I don't. I think many of them do, but many more just want their entitlements and remain off line.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Denton said:


> Hey, great idea!
> 
> As you are so happy to always demand, could you share those links? All the mainstream articles have indicates things are rosy because the official unemployment release indicates things are getting better.


As for "demanding" links, I do like to read where people are getting their opinions from. Sometimes I may react to the story the same way they did, and change my mind, or I may find I draw completely different conclusions from the same story.

One of the things I read daily is the Wall Street Journal. It has the best business coverage available, an excellent editorial page, and a decent selection of stories on what the mainstream outlets are covering. I don't read it exclusively, but for anyone wanting to read about economic or financial matters, which is what this thread started with, I would tend to go there first.

The Wall Street Journal - Breaking News, Business, Financial and Economic News, World News & Video - Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com

I also tend to read a lot of books, not just the immediate news. I typically am in the middle of anywhere from 2 to 6 books at a time with at least one non-fiction and one fiction going at any point in time. If I get tired of one thing I am reading I switch to another and come back to the first when I am ready to tackle it again. I probably finish about 3-4 books a week. If I didn't work I'd probably average a book a day.

The result is that I will tend to be skeptical of initial news reports, not because I think the media is trying to mislead, but because stuff comes out over time and mistakes get made. I try to be ready to change my mind on subjects and often do. Other times I may find my initial reaction holds up but is much clearer as the situation unfolds.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

That was the front page of the WSJ. Not a particular article.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Denton said:


> That was the front page of the WSJ. Not a particular article.


Ah, I misunderstood your question. Here are a couple good sources on the Labor Force Participation rate, which is what that OP article was about.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - FRED - St. Louis Fed


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Ah, I misunderstood your question. Here are a couple good sources on the Labor Force Participation rate, which is what that OP article was about.
> 
> Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
> 
> Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - FRED - St. Louis Fed


No, that doesn't back up your statement, either.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I'm beginning to think you didn't bother reading the OP's article.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Ah, I misunderstood your question. Here are a couple good sources on the Labor Force Participation rate, which is what that OP article was about.
> 
> Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
> 
> Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - FRED - St. Louis Fed


From the OP's link:


> "Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager, if you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 - maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn - you're not officially counted as unemployed," Gallup CEO Jim Clifton wrote last month. "Few Americans know this."


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Why would the Iranian press feel compelled to comment on the American job market?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Seneca said:


> Why would the Iranian press feel compelled to comment on the American job market?


A couple of reasons. One, we are the enemy. Two, the U.S. economy can sink the entire ship.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Without coming off sounding like a "know it all", I've been posting for over a year now about the Labor Force Participation rate. Denton is right, the mainstream media does not want to touch this fact and refuse to print or post facts that are readily seen by the masses. It's much easier to post a story that makes you feel good about their messiah or another story of the Kardishonaisns bearing their skin.

To me, your friendly shadetree economist, The Labor Participation rate illustrates exactly how doomed we are in the short term. If you drill down deeper into the stats, you'll find a shockingly large amount of young males that are not working. 

Further research will reveal that their is a large number of working age people on Social Security Disability...some rightfully and others not so...

You can also research and find that millions of young college educated people from the ages of 22-30 are gainfully employed. Yay for obama you might say? NO, they are gainfully employed in part time jobs. 

I've worked full time 40+ hour weeks since I was 18 years old (34 yrs) even while working my way through college (except for my final year where I buckled down, lived off part time work and savings to complete college). 

Granted some of the college educated young people could find work, and its out there. But its Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs kindof work. And these lazy wussies don't want to do that. They want the corner office and stock options...well that ain't happening.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower (Jan 10, 2015)

One employment statistic that NEVER is talked about are the people who work "under the table".............the "cash is king" people who do odd jobs or buy and sell "stuff" at flea markets or swap meets. etc., etc., etc.

Also the people who BARTER with other people. Goods for goods. Labor for labor. Goods for labor.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Denton said:


> From the OP's link:


With the one comment you clipped, the source is included, Gallup.

Here's another US source on the Labor Participation Rate:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/participation-rate-in-labor-force-matches-35-year-low-2014-01-10

My comment was that I found the article consistent with what I see in the US business press. Do you think it is different from what is in the business press? Typically the main news looks at the unemployment rate and doesn't do much analysis. The business press looks at the unemployment rate, new jobs and layoffs, sectors that are improving or declining, whether the jobs are full or part time, hours worked, labor force participation rate, and probably a bunch of other stuff I am overlooking at the moment. I see it every month because I follow the business news. If all you do is look at the headlines and don't go to the business pages, you won't see these details.

The article in the OP could have been lifted right out of the US business pages.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> With the one comment you clipped, the source is included, Gallup.
> 
> Here's another US source on the Labor Participation Rate:
> 
> ...


Yes, I saw they cited Gallup when writing their article about February's labor stats. I read the article.

I also saw that MW article when it came out back in January. I read MW, daily.

PressTV is not "business press." I'm sure there is a reason the regular press in the states are not making this very clear to their viewers/readers/listeners.

By the way; are you ever curious why you draw the ire of so many? It's because of snarky little comments such as what you made:



> Maybe you just need to read different sources.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Denton said:


> Yes, I saw they cited Gallup when writing their article about February's labor stats. I read the article.
> 
> I also saw that MW article when it came out back in January. I read MW, daily.
> 
> ...


Nope. I never worry about that.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Diver said:


> Nope. I never worry about that.


Yeah, I figured as much.

More people would read your posts if you weren't on ignore by so many.

If only there were some way of that not happening. Maybe if we contemplated the problem for a while, we would be able to come up with a solution. If only...


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

On the world stage they would love to discredit the US Govt.



Seneca said:


> Why would the Iranian press feel compelled to comment on the American job market?


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Since all the data I am seeing is based on adults 16 years and older I wonder if the retirement of the baby boomers is responsible for a lot of the lower participation rate. In the industry I work in they are retiring at a significant rate, and most of the people replacing them were previously employed elsewhere.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Denton said:


> Yeah, I figured as much.
> 
> More people would read your posts if you weren't on ignore by so many.
> 
> If only there were some way of that not happening. Maybe if we contemplated the problem for a while, we would be able to come up with a solution. If only...


Maybe the forum could be moderated?


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower (Jan 10, 2015)

Denton said:


> Yes, I saw they cited Gallup when writing their article about February's labor stats. I read the article.
> 
> I also saw that MW article when it came out back in January. I read MW, daily.
> 
> ...


I have NEVER put anybody on ignore in any forum I have participated in. "Snarky" is OK with me, as is "emotional" and "condescending" and "ignorant" and "out-of-touch" and "unrealistic" and a host of other emotions and/or personalities.

I can be "snarky", and I can be many other things too. It depends on the kind of day I am having, and what is going on in my life, both good and bad.

I like everybody in here. Some forums I have been in over the years are real sewage pits. This forum is a nice alternative.


----------

