Unemployment stats in the USA just got worse

America's official national unemployment rate is now 10.2%. But there are more sad numbers in the Bureau of Labor Statistics's October report, out today. Jobless rate in some states is higher. Michigan's the most grim: 15.1 percent. Nevada: 13.0, Rhode Island: 12.9, California: 12.5, South Carolina: 12.1. Over the year, rates are up in all 50 states and in D.C. Among cities, Detroit's tops. 30%. The actual, practical toll of unemployment is worse when you count the underemployed and those on the streets and off the grid.

Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: xeni@boingboing.net.

MORE: Business • econopocalypse

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

VagabondAstronomer

You know, of course, the unemployment numbers have been continuously cooked so that they always appeared better than they really were. The sad thing is, these numbers are still quite a bit lower than they should be. The truth is, even in the best economy of the past 28 years, we were still closer to 10% on average; that’s counting unemployment recipients (the main source for the official numbers), those who were no longer receiving unemployment, the underemployed (making less than full time) and those who simply stopped looking. And this does not take into account the underpaid, who should be earning more than they are for the jobs that they are doing.
This is a wretched mess, make no mistake. We could point our fingers at each other all we want, blame both of the major political parties and all of the presidents since Carter. What we are looking at, in the end, is the ultimate triumph of laissez faire; it has accomplished one thing, and that is help the upper class of this country become obscenely so, at the expense of a thinning middle class. After 30 years in the work force, this is what I’ve seen.
Cowicide

Just like the conservatives told us (over and over)… if you cut taxes for the rich, as Bush did, it’ll create JOBS down the road.

Didn’t that work out just fine?

When are you conservative blowhards going to finally admit your policies are WRONG? Bush was hemorrhaging jobs for American citizens up until he snuck out the back door of the White House with his cronies and cash falling out of thier pockets… and we are still suffering from this damage.

We have all the evidence we need now, you conservative fucking idiots. You are WRONG.

Americans, do the truly patriotic thing and don’t listen to conservative pundits anymore… ignore these proven idiots and let’s work on cleaning up this mess they’ve left behind.

Tax cuts for the rich did NOT work. The first step in treating a problem is admitting you have a problem. Conservatism is cancer for America. Admit it and let’s move on.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=909

… now, gee… I wonder what conservatives think about a single payer system for healthcare? Shall we take their advice? I’m sure that’ll do wonders for health care too…
- Artimus Mangilord
  
  At #8: will you offer constructive points on what policies will work to lower unemployment?
- Anonymous
  
  “Tax cuts for the rich did not work”? That depends on what you thought they were intended to do.
  
  From the viewpoint of certain Texas and New England plutocrats, they worked like a damn charm.
- Ernunnos
  Bush promoted a lot of economically harmful programs.
  - Keeping interest rates way too low for way too long following the 2000-2001 internet bubble bursting, leading businesses and individuals to make bad investments with “cheap” money.
  - The “ownership society” programs to give anyone with a pulse a home loan, which really didn’t promote ownership at all, just gave everyone an equal opportunity to be in debt. Debt many could never hope to pay.
  - Removing traditional limits on leverage, which would have limited the risk to the banking system.
  Most of these had significant buy-in and even full support from Democrats. And now that they’ve all blown up, what’s your big complaint? Bush cut taxes?! That’s it? Small variations in tax policy do not cause the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, folks.
  
  If all we take away from this is “taxes good”, we’ve learned nothing, and are bound to repeat the same mistakes.
  - Cowicide
    
    …. what’s your big complaint? Bush cut taxes?! That’s it? … If all we take away from this is “taxes good”, we’ve learned nothing, and are bound to repeat the same mistakes.
    
    Yes. Me say taxes good. Grunt.
    
    Jesus Christ… just because I don’t mention everything else these idiots did doesn’t mean I discount those things, ok Glenn Beck? Hey, you forgot to mention the 4 trillion dollar Iraq war and the rampant deregulation! Does that mean you don’t care about it? Does that mean you support it? I mean, I’m just askin’ questions. [cow rolls eyes]
    
    Small variations in tax policy do not cause the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, folks.
    
    Small variations?
    
    The Bush-era tax cuts was one of the largest contributors to policy-induced increases to the federal budget deficit at a critical time in Bush’s presidency.
    
    In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.
    
    President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years.
    
    The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 â€¨trillion over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.
    
    President Bush and his allies in Congress never even attempted to replace the revenue lost as a result of their enormous tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt.
    
    tax policy do not cause the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, folks.
    
    Also, I never said that Bush tax policy was the single cause of all our economic woes. That’s almost too ridiculous and laughable to warrant a response. I think you hallucinated that idea. Next thing you know, you’re going to be like other idiots and say I think Bush was “solely responsible”, etc. Nope, I didn’t say that either. It was general conservative policy across the board that led to most of our misfortune. The tax cuts from our fearless, conservative leader to the rich drastically exacerbated the situation.
    
    Once again, where all those jobs it was to have created??? I’m going off the earlier ludicrous claims of the conservative… NOT my own claims. And, finally… the POINT… the point is we cannot trust the advice of these buffoons and swindlers.. PERIOD. They FAILED America.
Anonymous

Anyone know what that would be in pre-Reagan numbers? 15%? 20%?
- T0AD
  
  check shadowstats they have us up at 22 percent. Durring the Carter admin the government started fudging the numbers by excluding previous groups of people. For example people who have stopped looking for work and people who are underemployed with part time work.
- IronEdithKidd
  
  Anon@1: these ARE Reagan era numbers. Unemployment hasn’t been this bad since 1983. Reagan took office in 1981.
Anonymous

ArtistInEurope:

Actually the 1st half of Bush’s 2nd term was a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. The 2nd half was indeed a Democratic majority in both (although the Senate was more like a 49/49/2 split). This still doesn’t excuse the Dems from responsibility of poor budgets … nor the Republicans. I just wanted you to have your facts straight.
Anonymous

Your forgetting that people who are no longer elligable for unemployment aren’t counted. They just fall off the statistic, but are still unemployed.
Anonymous

Do you think if this keeps up the Repub’s will run on the “Change” platform in 2012? You betcha!
delwell

Sigh….
As one who has been chronically underemployed for nearly three years, i don’t need an article to tell me how things are. Now that we’ve bailed out the banks and car companies, folks like me could use a little assistance (provided, of course, it doesn’t cut into any one of the uberclasses 35 million $$ golden parachute) and maybe something radical like…oh, I don’t know, a chance at some healthcare…….

Im just sayin….
- mdh
  
  What a quaint concept, you dirty pinko commie hippie.
kebko

I am shocked to find out that some places are above the average. I never would have guessed.
Anonymous

Tax breaks are only worthwhile if spending decreases at the same rate as the tax reduction (the check book/equation has to remain balanced). Bush was a moron who felt that he could simultaneously increase spending while cutting taxes and somehow come out ahead. Taxes are easy to add or remove. It’s the spending that matters. It’s d*mned difficult for either party to cut spending-no matter the circumstances. Our current rate of spending is dangerous-a country can only tax up to a certain point before revenues from tax increases decrease due to strangled production. Then you have a death spiral-tons of debt with no means of paying it off. Other countries will then refuse to lend to us (unless we pay terribly high rates).
za7ch

Wow, kebko. Way to be an asshole.
Anonymous

” .Hello,

‘Yes’, the Cart can be used for subscriptions.

Majority of our merchants’ buyers are actually international. Sadly, not a lot of local users are accustomed to buying things online.
It does not include a website (although we also offer that service separately). You can get any 3rd party to do the website and we will just integrate with them.
regards
hazz.hazz”
ArtistInEurope

Sigh…always Bush`s fault…
Wonder why we need a Congress if the President can do it all? I always thought it was Congress that allocated, spent the money, made the laws and rules. The President just agrees or doesn`t. (A perfect example of that happening today is the Health Bill moving through Congress with about zero input from the current President.)
Remember, for the last 4 years of the Bush administration the Democrats had the majority in both houses. Do not the Democrats share any responsibility anywhere or any time on anything?

And, yes, tax breaks make jobs.
- Cowicide
  
  hmmm… i can’t seem to post the whole thing… so I’ll try it in parts? Here’s part 1
  
  Sigh…always Bush`s fault…
  
  I guess I should blame everyone else except Bush, huh “ArteestInEurope”?
  
  Oh yeah… I forgot.. conservatives only talk about personal responsibly while practicing it is another thing altogether. The buck doesnâ€™t stop there… huh?
  
  Nevermind that it was the Bush administration that proposed and led the tax cut initiatives with a rubber-stamp congress and senate in place for 6 years… whoops, there I go again trying to blame Bush for every, little thing… Iâ€™m so sorry…
  
  I should realize that the Bush administration had no influence over the congresscritters and senate… proposals or anything…
  
  Wonder why we need a Congress if the President can do it all? I always thought it was Congress that allocated, spent the money, made the laws and rules. The President just agrees or doesn`t.
  
  You obviously have no idea how the overall government really works with the executive branch. Itâ€™s an administration, â€œArteestinEuroâ€… ya know, the Bush administration? Go study up and then we’ll talk.
  
  Here’s some clues to send you on your way (seriously, you need to read this):
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration
- Cowicide
  
  part 2:
  
  A perfect example of that happening today is the Health Bill moving through Congress with about zero input from the current President.
  
  Zero input? If you believe that, Iâ€™ve got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
  
  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
  
  Oh yeah… nevermind.. thatâ€™s right… Obama has no influence over congress and the senate.. none…
  
  my bad… [cow rolls eyes]
  
  Remember, for the last 4 years of the Bush administration the Democrats had the majority in both houses. Do not the Democrats share any responsibility anywhere or any time on anything?
  
  Uh, dude… this is getting sad and you are just proving my point that conservatives really donâ€™t know what they are talking about.
  
  The last 4 years of the Bush admin??? The democrats BARELY captured the majority in the house and senate in 2006 and ran into obstructionist republicans and veto threats from Bush at almost every step of the way afterwards. Ever heard of filibusters, my friend? By the way, the Bush admin ended in 2008 (he left office in Jan, 09) and hereâ€™s some basic math… 2008-2006 = 2
  
  So.. I wonder exactly who was in control of 3 branches of govt. those other 6 years…. hmmm…?
  
  And, yes, tax breaks make jobs.
  
  Well, yes… of course they do… as we have clearly seen from the results… Er, what? o_0
  
  Hahaha… damn… you conservatives are simply delusional. Facts and conservatives… like oil and water.
  
  Jobs didnâ€™t go up… but this certainly did…. check out the top 1% share of Bush tax cuts by year. Notice a sharp trend in this chart?
  
  http://www.ctj.org/images/gwb0602a.gif
  
  Meanwhile, joblessness CLIMBED afterwards.
  
  Now show me your charts… preferably based on….facts… hahaha… yeah, right…
- AirPillo
  
  Certain tax breaks can create jobs, but “tax breaks make jobs” on the weight of that statement itself is a very, very false statement.
  
  Tax cuts which recirculate funds through the economy, I.E. for the middle and lower classes, driving consumption, can help create jobs in the right conditions according to what I have been taught. Tax breaks for the elite 1% of the population, people who hoard their money away, and don’t at all need or barely notice the savings, do not necessarily encourage further discretionary spending. If anything, it takes money out of circulation as they hoard that money away.
  
  The trickle-down effect of tax cuts seems heavily reliant on that money coming back to the top, starting at the very bottom with ordinary citizens spending it. Assuming giving rich people more money to invest will create jobs seems quite specious to me, though I’m not an economist.
  
  Doing that, IMO, does not create jobs any more than amputating a leg increases bloodflow to a foot.
  
  The idea behind tax breaks for the wealthy was deceiving people by oversimplifying what they learned in high school economics as an excuse to redistribute capital upward for the sole benefit of the wealthy… people who, not coincidentally, have a lot of clout in politics and make great allies for later or parallel business endeavors.
- Anonymous
  
  “And, yes, tax breaks make jobs”
  
  Please explain how.
  
  In the many years that I worked in the manufacturing sector, I learned that jobs were only created when orders went up. Orders only went up when sales were made. Sales were only made when people had money or credit to buy stuff.
  
  If we further stuff some rich old white guy’s pockets with my money, why does he run out and hire people?
  
  If the govenrnment really wanted to stimulate the economy when they bailed out the banks, instead of just giving money to the banks, they could have issued vouchers to people in deep debt. Those vouchers could only be used to pay of bank/credit card debt. So the banks still get the money, but the average person would also get bailed out with some debt relief and those folks would have started spending/borrowing again.
  
  The predatory credit card practices of the last twenty years has pretty much enslaved a generation into deep debt, sure it’s their own fault as well, but the banks knew what they were doing and now we are all dealing with the consequences.
- Cowicide
  
  Sigh…always Bush`s fault…
  
  I guess I should blame everyone else except Bush, huh “ArteestInEurope”?
  
  Oh yeah… I forgot.. conservatives only talk about personal responsibly while practicing it is another thing altogether. The buck doesnâ€™t stop there… huh?
  
  Nevermind that it was the Bush administration that proposed and led the tax cut initiatives with a rubber-stamp congress and senate in place for 6 years… whoops, there I go again trying to blame Bush for every, little thing… Iâ€™m so sorry…
  
  I should realize that the Bush administration had no influence over the congresscritters and senate… proposals or anything…
  
  Wonder why we need a Congress if the President can do it all? I always thought it was Congress that allocated, spent the money, made the laws and rules. The President just agrees or doesn`t.
  
  You obviously have no idea how the overall government really works with the executive branch. Itâ€™s an administration, â€œArteestinEuroâ€… ya know, the Bush administration? Go study up and then we’ll talk.
  
  Here’s some clues to send you on your way (seriously, you need to read this):
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration
  
  A perfect example of that happening today is the Health Bill moving through Congress with about zero input from the current President.
  
  Zero input? If you believe that, Iâ€™ve got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
  
  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
  
  Oh yeah… nevermind.. thatâ€™s right… Obama has no influence over congress and the senate.. none…
  
  my bad… [cow rolls eyes]
  
  Remember, for the last 4 years of the Bush administration the Democrats had the majority in both houses. Do not the Democrats share any responsibility anywhere or any time on anything?
  
  Uh, dude… this is getting sad and you are just proving my point that conservatives really donâ€™t know what the fuck they are talking about.
  
  The last 4 years of the Bush admin??? The democrats BARELY captured the majority in the house and senate in 2006 and ran into obstructionist republicans and veto threats from Bush at almost every step of the way afterwards. Ever heard of filibusters, my friend? By the way, the Bush admin ended in 2008 (he left office in Jan, 09) and hereâ€™s some basic math… 2008-2006 = 2
  
  So.. I wonder exactly who was in control of 3 branches of govt. those other 6 years…. hmmm…?
  
  And, yes, tax breaks make jobs.
  
  Well, yes… of course they do… as we have clearly seen from the results… Er, what? o_0
  
  Hahaha… damn… you conservatives are simply delusional. Facts and conservatives… like oil and water.
  
  Jobs didnâ€™t go up… but this certainly did…. check out the top 1% share of Bush tax cuts by year. Notice a sharp trend in this chart?
  
  http://www.ctj.org/images/gwb0602a.gif
  
  Meanwhile, joblessness CLIMBED afterwards.
  
  Now show me your charts… preferably based on….facts… hahaha… yeah, right…
  - Antinous / Moderator
    
    Cow,
    
    Three links and the system pulls the comment. I have to fish them out with my bare hands.
    - Cowicide
      
      I’m sorry! I didn’t know! I accidentally posted it in two parts now! Sorry!
      - Antinous / Moderator
        
        It’s a stupid filter. It never, NEVER, NEVER catches any real spam. But it will hold comments with three links to Wikipedia.
cymk

Maybe its from growing up in the midwest, but I always thought It would be cool to see Michigan in the headlines. Where I could say, “why yes I’m from michigan,” but in reality its depressing as shit. The only headlines I see now seem to define the different parts of the same toilet bowl, and a dirty one at that. To be honest, I really surprised the suicide rate hasn’t spiked yet, but maybe thats all the anti-depressants big pharma keeps shoving down our throats.
Anonymous

It would be interesting to know the employment rate (instead of the unemployment rate).
Anonymous

I thought the US was aiming for everybody to be ‘above average’. Or was that just education?
- MrsBug
  
  Actually, that’s only in Lake Woebegone