Hi Jim,

My take is that it is not so much an attempt to deceive as it is an attempt to establish a measurement wherein the value is not so much the absolute number but instead, the change from one period to another.

Absolute numbers of unemployed would be pretty hard to get because of all the permutations of definitions. Is a college student unemployed? Perhaps only when school is not in session? What if they do volunteer work on vacation? Did they have a parttime job and lose it? Perhaps they never entered the work force at all... etc etc

Ken

>>The term "unemployed" in this context is a legal - as opposed to a factual determination. To be unemployed, you have to actually be looking for work and you must be within 15 weeks of having lost your job I believe. And yes, you need to be collecting some benefit. After that, you fall off the roles.
>>
>>So...when more people fall off than go on the unemployment roles, regardless of whether jobs are created or not - the unemployment number goes down.
>
>So, yet another deliberately misleading contrivance of words by our (done same way here too) bureaucrats aimed at soothing the populace.
>I guess we'd revolt if we actually knew the truth!
>
>Jim