http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/...ver-been-video/

I've been saying this for years.

Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton doubled-down on his comments earlier in the week on the misleading Obama unemployment rate.

Obama says the unemployment rate is 5.6% which is very misleading.

Clifton went on America’s Newsroom today to explain the misleading government numbers.

“The number of full-time jobs, and that’s what everybody wants, as a percent of the total population, is the lowest it’s ever been… The other thing that is very misleading about that number is the more people that drop out, the better the number gets. In the recession we lost 13 million jobs. Only 3 million have come back. You don’t see that in that number. “

He's misleading on pretty much everything. Not sure how really any American with common sense and a brain could believe his words in an instant fashion.

JMO

Unfortunately, you can insert pretty much any politician's/President's name into the above and it will still hod true.

We have ALWAYS been lied to in this regard.

Very true.........why do we as American tax payers permit this crap in OUR country? Time for a Boston Tea Party experience. We must be collectively very weak and apathetic to stand by and allow this behavior by those employed by us.

the only saving grace on the full-time employment issue is that many part-time jobs are really full-time jobs that are just under the full-time line to avoid having to pay for Obamacare.

No, that is not ideal and stinks for the people who have those jobs, but it helps explain why the full-time % is the lowest ever.

We are comfortable. Even when unhappy, comfortable people don't revolt.

As soon as you establish a statistical system that shows progress, the institution will focus on how to manipulate the statistics to show progress, rather than focusing on progress itself.

Of course we are. You guys are still voting Republican and Democrat lol.

Devo called it "Freedom From Choice".

IMO that's what governs most choices by most people.

Wonder why the same lie has been told over and over by every politician/president and it was never much of a issue and suddenly now all this attention on how it's misleading with the Obama labor dept? I have a pretty good idea why, but someone may be able to deflect that question towards other reasons then what I think.

^ This man speaks the dire truth!

The important word is " Common sense ".

Except for the fact that this administration has changed how they figure up the unemployment numbers. During the Carter administration, they did count those that had stopped looking. Now those people fall off the books. We have roughly 92 million people unemployed or underemployed. That's almost a 1/3 of the population of the country.

Exactly! Why work when you can get everything taken care of by the government? Nanny state indeed. Those of us who work actually look rather foolish except for inner satisfaction and sense of accomplishment it provides.

and the money...

hope nobody thinks taxes are the reason for high unemployment numbers

I don't see how they couldn't. Every company that hires outside people to work has to maintain a profit margin. The profit margin pays the executives of that company, finances development, and is a fallback in times of trouble. When the government raises taxes, either on the products that company makes or on the company itself (like healthcare), they have to find a way to maintain that profit margin. The company will then relieve itself of non-essential workers to keep that margin, cut development, or stop wage increases.

Some companies, like GE for example, sunk money into research on green energy. They really haven't produced much from that research, but the government let them get huge tax breaks. Smaller businesses are unable to compete in that market, and they fail. Less taxes for business means they are better able to control their own capital and invest in workers, expand business, or research. It gives them more money to hire the best people, and compete against other businesses.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-companies-may-not-fleeing-060921132.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When a series of big U.S. companies last year moved to reincorporate abroad in inversion deals, some Republican lawmakers and tax policy critics blamed the high U.S. corporate tax rate. Lowering it, they said, would keep companies from fleeing the country.

But a Reuters analysis of the taxes being paid by the six largest companies known to be doing inversions in late 2014 and early 2015 showed that, even before the deals, all were paying below the statutory U.S. federal corporate rate of 35 percent.

Most were well below it. The average effective tax rate for the six companies was 20.3 percent for 2011-2013, Reuters found, using an estimation method reviewed by tax experts that was based on public data for U.S. profits and U.S. taxes.

The Reuters analysis suggests that the surge in inversion transactions may not have had much to do with the statutory corporate income tax. Moreover, it shows Washington's current debate over business tax reform may be too focused on the statutory rate, neglecting effective rates and the incentives that companies have to shift profits abroad.

The six companies analyzed were Medtronic Inc, Applied Materials Inc, Steris Corp, Mylan Inc, C&J Energy Services Inc and Burger King, which has been renamed Restaurant Brands International Inc.

All six have recently completed or are in the midst of completing inversion-type deals, despite a Treasury Department crackdown in September that slowed inversion deal-making.

Inversions have been around for three decades, but they became more common in recent years. Guided by tax lawyers and accountants, companies have done more than 50 such deals since the 1980s; about half of them just since 2008.

The deals typically involve a U.S. company buying a smaller foreign rival, then taking on its nationality for tax purposes, while many core operations remain in the United States.

The six companies studied have themselves disclosed 2011-2013 effective tax rates averaging 27.8 percent, or 7.5 percentage points higher than the Reuters calculation.

The discrepancy with the Reuters figure is likely because the companies' figures include not just U.S. federal taxes, but all taxes, including state, local and foreign.

In a project for Reuters, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a tax policy think tank in Washington, looked at the six companies' data somewhat differently, stripping out certain accounting adjustments, and found an average effective tax rate of 22.2 percent over the period.

Tax inversion deals are mainly driven by efforts to shift profits out of the U.S. and to access overseas earnings at little or no cost in U.S. tax, tax specialists said.

"The issue is much broader than the U.S. corporate tax rate being high," said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a centrist think tank.

To be sure, some other tax experts and activists say the statutory rate is the key, not only to inversions, but to broad U.S. business competitiveness around the world.

"You fix the rates, you fix it all," said Grover Norquist, a Republican activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform, which advocates for lower taxes and smaller government.

(For related graphic on statutory corporate tax rates around the world, see: http://link.reuters.com/qak93w)



NO DIRECT CONNECTION

A close look at of some of the six deals suggests no direct connection with the 35-percent U.S statutory rate.

For instance, Pittsburgh-based pharmaceuticals company Mylan is buying the non-U.S. generic drug business of Chicago's Abbott Laboratories to create a combined company incorporated in the Netherlands and managed from Pennsylvania.

The Netherlands’ statutory rate is 25 percent. However, Mylan's global effective tax rates, as disclosed in the company's annual reports to investors, were 16.2 percent in 2013, 20.0 percent in 2012 and 17.7 percent in 2011.

ITEP pegged Mylan's U.S.-specific effective tax rate at 20.5 percent on average for those same years, and the Reuters analysis found it to be 19.7 percent.

When Mylan announced the Abbott deal in July 2014, it said it expected it to bring many advantages and "to lower Mylan's tax rate to approximately 20-21 percent in the first full year, and to the high teens thereafter." A spokeswoman for Mylan declined to comment and referred questions to past statements.

In another deal, Steris Corp, based near Cleveland, is buying out the UK's Synergy Health Plc, with the combined company to be managed from Ohio, but incorporated in Britain where the statutory corporate tax rate is 21 percent.

Reuters found a 2011-2013 U.S.-specific average tax rate for Steris of 17.2 percent; ITEP's calculation came to 16.6 percent.

The company has disclosed global effective tax rates averaging 32.1 percent for the same period. A Steris spokesman said the company expects its effective tax rate beginning in 2016 to be about 25 percent. "This transaction is not being driven by tax rates,” he said.

(For more on the other companies in the study see: Factbox http://reut.rs/1CaGuAI)



HIGHEST RATE

The U.S. statutory rate is high. Tack on an average of state and local corporate rates and it's 39.1 percent. No major country has a higher combined rate. The next highest are Japan at 37 percent and France at 34.4 percent.

But the U.S. tax code is uniquely complex. Big companies use elaborate strategies to exploit loopholes to cut their tax costs, which they say shareholders expect them to do.

The gap between the statutory rate and what companies really pay is hard to measure because their tax returns are, of course, confidential. Financial report data can furnish estimates of effective rates, but there is no standard way to do this. Even when measuring marginal effective tax rates, seen by tax experts as the best test of business investment decisions, it's hard to know the true U.S. tax burdens of large corporations.

Most lawmakers agree inversions are a problem because they erode the U.S. corporate tax base. Corporations today only provide about 10 percent of U.S. government revenues, down from 30 percent in the 1950s.

In his 2016 budget last week, Democratic President Barack Obama proposed steps to curb inversions and what his administration sees as the incentives for doing them. The Republican-controlled Congress, however, is unlikely to agree with his proposed reforms, which may be dead-on-arrival.

One of Obama's goals is tightening a rule that makes business interest tax-deductible and helps companies shift profits out of the United States via interest payments on loans from foreign affiliates. This is known as earnings stripping.

Another is ending the "deferral" rule that says companies don't have to pay income tax on active overseas profits, as long as those profits don't enter the United States. Companies have about $2.1 trillion in profits abroad. Some came from foreign ventures; some from earnings stripping, tax experts said.

The third target is abusive "transfer pricing." This involves shifting profits out of the United States to lower-tax countries via cross-border, non-market-based payments among the worldwide affiliates of multinationals.

Cutting the 35-percent statutory rate would not change any of these rules. And no politically realistic U.S. rate cut would be likely to level the playing field with, say, Ireland, which has a 12.5 percent statutory rate and is a popular destination for U.S. companies doing inversions, let alone tax havens such as Bermuda, which charges no corporate income tax at all.

"Until we address earnings stripping and the transfer of intangible rights abroad, we're always going to have this incentive for foreign companies to combine with U.S. companies and strip the U.S. corporate tax base,” said Rosenthal.

_____________

let's get one thing straight Erik:

corporations won't stop until they don't have to pay any taxes.

greed. greed. greed.

also:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/effective-tax-rates

we have some of the lowest effective tax rates in the world. chart is right there for you.

However, one thing that boggles my mind is why we have the highest corporate tax rates in developed countries:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/another-st...tax-rates-world

but then i realized, because of loops holes and such, most corporations don't actually pay that.

funny, ain't it.

I've also noticed a trend:

the last link i posted, had our effective rate at the highest, yet the stats from foreign countries shows we have the lowest effective tax rates.

which means:

either somebody is lying, or...

somebody is lying.

edit:

I'd like to add that during the 50's and 60's, ya know, a time when all these old people say it was the best for american growth, rich people were taxed up to 70 percent.

70...percent. yet we prospered the most. when taxes were high.

color me intrigued.

And yet traditionally they park it in the bank or disperse it via executive bonuses.

Go back as far as you want, the way in which economic/labor statistics are calculated have been questioned under every President. Every President has been accused of manipulating statistics to make himself look better or the other side look worse.

Please put the race card back in the deck.

so can i go far back to every president and find that people called them a kenyan muslim socialist, while also wondering where their birth certificate is at?

link please.

Who would be on the race card? Jesse Jackson, right?

And I'd speculate on the suit, but I'd probably get the card pulled on me.

If it was your company, wouldn't you want to not pay taxes. I don't consider that greed. The one thing you also miss in all that you pasted: Most jobs in this country are provided by small businesses. They are unable to get those tax breaks that the larger companies get and hire lobbyist to get.

We should simplify our tax code. Quite honestly, I'd prefer to see a tax on consumption, not on earnings. To top it off, everyone gets taxed, not just the people that can't afford to get a tax break. That also taxes the illegals, criminals, and those that work under the table. The US tax code is obscene in it's scope, and there are better ways to do it. If we made taxes cheaper here, more business would come here. If we didn't penalize businesses for overseas profits, they'd bring those profits back home. I think we'd all be better off.

More money in the hands of the people means more money to spend, invest, start businesses, etc. More money for the government means more waste.

Asking me if I think Obama has been treated fairly and asking me if being questioned about labor statistics is normal are two completely different things.

And that is where the defense of Obama argument gets bogged down.... because he has had accusations thrown at him that no other president has had, but then when he IS treated just like other Presidents and people play the "because he's black card" that's when they look stupid.

With the increase in media over the last 20 years, the increase in social media, I believe each President has been treated worse than the one before (or maybe it's just as I've aged I've paid more attention)... I guess we will have to see whether that holds true for the next one or not... or, if it is a white man, we will have to see if it resorts back to just normal mud slinging and derogatory comments like, his father paid his way into college or he had a cocaine addiction or he was a military deserter.. you know, the normal stuff.

On a side note, thinking back to the way Bush was treated regarding oil, Obama must be deep in their pockets to have gas prices at or below $2/gallon.... Since Bush was evidently able to manipulate gas prices with a phone call.

so you think its ok to not pay any taxes?

when will it end?

one thing you failed to mention: these corporations are complaining about taxes, laying off people yet giving ridiculous six, sometimes 7-figure bonuses to executives.

and your logic has been proven to..well not be true.

why is it that when taxes are its highest (50's, 60's, 90's) we have seen the biggest GDP growth and such, yet when taxes are the lowest(NOW, 2000's, 80's) we seem to suck the most?

this statement of lowering taxes just doesn't add up.

I'd support a flat tax rate for individuals, and a separate flat tax rate for businesses, regardless of how big and small. no loop holes, THIS is what you pay.

because everything thing else seems to not be working.

I am invested in hundreds of corporations and they danged sure
better be focused on the bottom line, reducing costs and taxes.
They are businesses, not non-profits or charities.

Clinton was referred to as a socialist or Communist all the time.

People don't remember it much as there's not an internet trail, and it seems kind of ridiculous after time.

not really, because it absolutely goes hand and hand.

Dc, i try my HARDEST to not pull a race card, but when we get comments like "kenyan muslim socialist" how can you not?

Look at similar situations with regards to bush and obama.

When Russia invaded Georgia, Bush didn't get involved. nobody batted an eye, and i agree with that decision.

Now look what happened during the early stages of the Ukraine incident.

Obama does the same thing Bush does, ya know, make some speeches and blah blah blah, and the OUTRAGE from the american people and politicians over his decision to not get involved at first was ming boggling.

theres only ONE difference between them in this situation:


kenyan muslim socialist, wheres your birth certificate


^^^ that statement goes hand and hand.

every time something happens, or something regarding the middle east:

kenyan muslim socialist

even though the guy SWORE on the bible and is CHRISTIAN.

the guy is hated. and your statement about every president being worse than the other is false.

Jimmy carter was hated, reagen seemed to be loved, nobody liked Bush Sr., and Clinton was almost god status. Bush ended up being HATED, and Obama is slightly below that.

I would say while that his skin color has a great deal to do with the vitriol he receives, his political party plays far more of a role.

Companies pay the execs what they contracted to pay. Do you think they pull that number out of the air?

When was this proven? Please present your proof.

Here's a little something for you.

The guy is seen as weak and his lack of leadership is astounding. He must have read Jimmy Carter's "How to be President for dummies" book.

would you say more or less depending on which issue we're talking about(ukraine, economy, middle east, cops)

because sometimes i don't know makes him more of a target.

I would say skin color has something to do with it, but only because it's used as a defense. I don't like his policies, and I especially don't like the, "you hate me because I'm black" garbage. Right now, I'd vote for Ben Carson if he runs. Is that because he's black? I would have voted for Herman Cain to, as I liked 999.

here's a nugget for you, as well:


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ack-in-the-day/

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

Theres my proof.

Herman Cain

Barack Obama

Muslim kenyan commie socialist. you can't apply that to Herman Cain.

On most of those issues listed, I would say it pertains to politics. He's presented as socialist or Communist and weak militarily, which is a standard staple of Republican rhetoric. Hell, Clinton got that.

As far as 'cops'? There's a racial component to the issue itself, and I think you can make an argument that his skin color is a factor.

I hate articles like this.
They give you all sorts of speculative analysis as to why they feel something ISN'T the reason these companies moved, but they do absolutely NOTHING in any way to determine why they actually did.

Example:

This is offered as a reasoning as to why taxes couldn't be a reason, but it doesn't for a second look at what taxes are where these companies moved to. How much did they save in taxes by moving?

It's half-assed with half-data passing itself off as detailed analysis all the while failing to actually analyze the issue.

It's a completely worthless argument.

fair enough.

but nobody has yet to answer this from my statement:

why was our GDP growth the highest, unemployment the lowest, and more american made products bought when our taxes were at its highest?

you can dismiss that article, but all the other ones were straight forward.

why is it that none of these corporations and small businesses have an issue in the 90's, or even in the 50's and 60's when taxes were the highest?

they weren't vacating at a dramatic rate like they are now. and taxes were ridiculous back then.

taxes are lower then ever, yet now they decided to take flight?

I'll say it again:

As soon as you establish a statistical system that shows progress, the institution will focus on how to manipulate the statistics to show progress, rather than focusing on progress itself.

Economics is largely based on trends. If brown employees are free, it changes the game. When the internet hit, the game changed.

Economics doesn't go by a common philosophy or ideal. It's fluid. You can only guide water so far. Ask New Orleans.

Well, for starters, I haven't read any of the other ones you posted. I came in, saw that one, and quickly realized how full of bunk it was and posted stating as much.

As for the other stuff, let's give it a try:

PDR addressed the statistics, I'll leave that alone.

The 50's, 60's, ..., 90's... it wasn't the same global economy that you have today. You simply couldn't do the business the way corporations can today. Plus, the entire world is an evolving, moving target. That's just a simple off-the-top-of-my-head answer, but it's pretty straight-forward. For more detail, get me more detail on other nations economies and tax rates and we can examine why companies did or didn't move there.

Again, stop looking at headlines for answers and look for real data. Maybe, I dunno, do what the reporters in that article were incapable of and ask one of those companies why they do it. Maybe ask a business professor what the advantage is. Maybe actually look at the companies that moved and actually get some data and analyze the economics of them moving.

By the way: something seemingly as unimportant as a 1% savings is pretty hefty if the company has revenues of a billion or more ($10 million per 1% on 1 billion). Shareholders like it when a CEO can auto-magically show an extra $10-30 million in profits.

Here's a list of the Top global companies by revenue.
Take a look to see which ones on there might have moved, and take a gander at their annual revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

ok, so whats the solution.

I'll ask again. whats the solution. cause you keep mentioning taxes, and taxes keep getting lowered, yet companies are still leaving.


somethings not working.

The simple answer is jobs.

The complex answer is a need for human capital.

We have one of the highest tax rates in the world. We need to keep lowering them. We are on par with places like Chad and Camaroon.


http://taxfoundation.org/article/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2014

Those are statutory tax rates, not effective.

Our effective corporate tax rate is around 12-15%.

Our tax system is extremely lax and easy to manipulate.

I was just posting the tax rates. I think as the 3rd highest, we better hope to hell they can be manipulated down. If not, we will be like Chad and Camaroon.

If we went by posted tax rates, my personal income tax would be listed at almost half of what I actually pay.

If the chart says X, but in reality I pay Y, then X isn't an accurate figure.

If I offer you a rose, and then slap a wad of horse manure into your palm, I didn't give you a rose.

Right. Deductions.

And people think going back to a 70% tax rate for the "rich" will solve problems. Heck, make it a 90% rate - no one paid that % in the past, did they?

I agree completely.

I mention taxes because you posted a ridiculously absurd article on.... wait for it.... TAXES. I didn't mention it, you did. I simply offered rebuttal to the hack job article you posted.

I gave you the solution.... find out WHY companies are really moving. Don't be befuddled if, however, you find that the reason is actually taxes.


Companies don't move their headquarters willy-nilly for no reason - they do it for one reason and one reason alone - money. So, find out how & why they are profiting from moving overseas, then you have your cause. Once you have a causation, then you can start thinking about ways to keep them here.

Clinton tried to get universal, government supported healthcare through ..... but for the most part, he just stole the Republican agenda, and signed it into law, while beating the on PR, and beating them over the head with their own passed laws. It was an amazing piece of adept political maneuvering.

In the late 40s and early 50s? National pride, end of a world war, followed by ramp up to the Korean War, more advanced manufacturing technology, higher shipping cost and risk... this notion that if Taxes do A, then B will certainly happen is an economic fallacy. There are a dozen other variables that can affect what happens.


Global economics. A lot of those companies that didn't move or relocate production in the 90s became the big companies that did move more recently. Why? Because cheaper labor countries came on line with the technology to make the same stuff we were making here only for a fraction of the cost. Back in the late 40s early 50s, Asian and 3rd world production facilities were crap, products were built to last, there was a sense of national pride. Several things have changed, first is that the products they made that people bought and kept for many years became disposable. We had the same phone on our wall at home for 20 years, how long does somebody keep a cell phone today? 2 years? Second Asian and 3rd world production is now almost indistinguishable from ours with things like electronics, only it's much cheaper. Lastly, there has been a shift to profit over national pride.

Throw in the fact that global shipping has become normalized and safer and cheaper due to larger tankers, greater cargo loads, etc.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that you loved your wife when you were younger, poorer, hungry, and optimistic about the future, etc.. then you became wealthier, more successful, achieved many of your goals that the two of you had dreamed of but now you are divorced. Money must be the reason... No, dozens of other things changed in your relationship over that period, any one of them or some combination is the reason you are now divorced.

The effective tax rate is quite reasonable. What I think people fail to realize, is that in order to lower the stated rate, you would need to close some loopholes and deductions to even things out. A complete overhaul of the income tax system would need to take place.

When the effective rate is around 15% that does not make our tax rate that high on a global scale. Yet people seem to pontificate a rate that is not paid at all.

At least a part of the issue lies in the fact that companies still don't want to pay the 15% and will still move to save money. So those that pose that lower taxes will solve the problem are suggesting that we lower our taxes so much, that we would have a lower rate than almost anyone on the globe to solve this problem.

I believe that's a very unrealistic solution.

Pitt. You are as old a friend as I have on this board. Loopholes, schmoopholes. They are legit tax breaks. The USA was once THE safe haven to do business. Companies weren't worried about a takeover by the government and offered a business friendly environment, as well as the place you wanted to sell goods. We could tax at a higher rate.

That isn't the case today.


Some misguided souls can talk about personal tax rates when the discussion is about coporate tax rates. The fact is our coporate tax rates are high and companies are moving to placs that offer better rates and now provide the safe haven we once pretty much had locked up.


Too bad we don't anymore. So to compete, we can tax more or cut rates. You tell me which is what we better do. Here is a clue....why do you think places like Chad have high tax rates?



I'll tell you why. They are a bunch of dumb.... goofs who have to tax every last dime out of every last idiot to still be doing business there.

Some said jobs is the key.....it is, but to have those you better have coporations set up in your country. That is where the money is. You want the compamies located in your country where they are paying real money to people and not just paying for labor jobs. There is nothing wrong with labor job, just to make that clear, but you want companies hiring lots of engineers, accountants, chemists, managers, etc. Those are your middle class jobs. If you get rid of those, which we have been doing as good job of the last few decades, then you end up with a labor class workforce which can't compete on a world basis because you are kidding no one if you think our labor force can work cheaper than the force in China as an example.



Later.....time for me to bug out again

It's actually easier to shred corporate taxes via deduction than it is personal.

They can literally get to $0 paid with millions and billions of not only income, but profit.

Jobs didn't leave America because taxes got too high. They left because we outsourced entire industries, and many others were replaced by machines.

Excellent point

Here's a question, I heard Pat Buchanan on Hannity (back before the '12 election, I don't listen to any of them anymore).

He made the case that back in the 90's, China cut the value of their currency in half. Making their labor that much cheaper, and subsequently the goods they produce that much cheaper also.

How much would a Hi Def television cost if it were made here? An iPhone?

How on earth do we recover from something like that?

There are days I regret not going to college (at my age, I probably would've made it past the 'college degree but no job era), but then I'm glad I'm a highly skilled tradesman due to the fact that the people that still have money are hiring me.

Actually Peen, what many corporations are doing is buying a fledging company in another country simply to say that is now where they're headquartered to avoid paying taxes here.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/10/us-companies-stash-billions-overseas-tax-free/

They're called inversions. They are actually U.S. companies with the exception that they have officially "moved their headquarters". It's definitely a loophole in the tax code.

So it really doesn't change the jobs they produce, it simply exempts them from paying U.S. taxes.

I don't really know why I ever peruse the "Everything Else" forum but I feel like I see this thread or one just like every year or so regardless of administration.

There's no great conspiracy here people. The BLS put's out pretty little speadsheets and graphs every month that show U1 through U6 (unemployed + marginally/ under employed).

Super secret BLS data... they put on the internet every single month.


U3 is the official unemp rate but people who don't like the current administration will always point to U6 and say "THEY"RE LYING TO US!!!". People who want to get face time on Fox during Obama's administration will do with this line. If Romney were pres right now, it'd be some low level democrat pundit making the same hay on CNBC. Every point this guy makes is always true. People falling off the rolls will improve the numbers. Has been true since the BLS began keeping this data.

Yes, the gap between U3 and U6 is greater since the beginning of the financial collapse in 07... but not dramatically. In fact, it's been a pretty tight corollary for decades.

excellent chart.

i understand the situation now. thanks.