Quote:

---

Underemployment (or disguised unemployment) is the under-use of a worker due to a job that does not use the worker's skills, or is part time, or leaves the worker idle. Examples include holding a part-time job despite desiring full-time work, and overqualification, where the employee has education, experience, or skills beyond the requirements of the job

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The Fake figures Obama boasted in 2016 were fake. But now Trump has returned real numbers back to the reports, in line with 2008.

Review the figures and identify what you feel are fake numbers for Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.

Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.

Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.

Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

---

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you are mistaken.

They do count you, even if your unemployment insurance benefits have stopped because you have been out-of-work too many weeks. There is a long and complicated explanation of how the number of long term unemployed are counted. No, they don’t call 333,000,000 Americans www.census.gov/popclock/ to ask them if they are working. Instead, they ask only 1,000,000 people, each and every month. And then they use statistics to figure out what the other 332,000,000 Americans are working. www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

What do the unemployment Insurance (Ul) figures measure?

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. . . .

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Are the Long-term Unemployed counted among the Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, or counted among the Labor Force, or not counted among either?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
None of those graphs consider underemployment or people who are still unemployed but have stopped making weekly claims once their benefits ran out.

You won't find any official graphs that show any of this information and paint a real picture of the whole situation.

Therefore, anyone making these stats, citing these stats or touting these stats is lying either wittingly or unwittingly.

---

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says you are mistaken.

They do count you, even if your unemployment insurance benefits have stopped because you have been out-of-work too many weeks. There is a long and complicated explanation of how the number of long term unemployed are counted. No, they don’t call 333,000,000 Americans www.census.gov/popclock/ to ask them if they are working. Instead, they ask only 1,000,000 people, each and every month. And then they use statistics to figure out what the other 332,000,000 Americans are working. www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

What do the unemployment Insurance (Ul) figures measure?

While the UI claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. . . .

Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Are the Long-term Unemployed counted among the Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, or counted among the Labor Force, or not counted among either?

---

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks, tell them the truth: Do you got a job? Or are you in jail, in the army, in a mental institution (those last 3 don't count as being employed), whatever. "Each month, highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees contact the 60,000 eligible sample households and ask about the labor force activities (jobholding and job seeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households. These are live interviews conducted either in person or over the phone." - www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

That's how unemployment is calculated -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks Americans questions. The process cannot produce an incorrect unemployment rate if Americans tell the truth about working or not.

This is an interesting figure:

www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/persons-not-in-the-labor-force
-who-want-a-job.htm
Again, the figure cannot be wrong if Americans tell the truth about wanting a job.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

lol. Um.... nope.

And 60-70 million Americans aren't even old enough to work so they obviously don't even count.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

That's making a hell of a lot of assumptions.

First off, only somewhere around 1-5% of Americans even answer any robo-calls and stick around long enough to talk to anybody on the other side once they figure out who it is.

The people being polled can lie, the bureau can lie, politicians can lie. There is no way of verifying any of this is true at all, so they can make up whatever numbers they want. There is ZERO math involved in what you are proposing is the way that unemployment is calculated. All you are doing is bolstering my argument that the unemployment numbers are total bullshit.

Remember, these were the very same tactics that were used when polling for who was going to be voted in for President. Look how accurate those polls were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

lol. Um.... nope.

And 60-70 million Americans aren't even old enough to work so they obviously don't even count.

---

6ix, you never did click the link and read, did you? If you had: "The survey is designed so that each person age 16 and over (there is no upper age limit) is counted and classified in only one group. The sum of the employed and the unemployed constitutes the civilian labor force." If an American is between 16 and 116, they are counted as employed if they say they are employed when the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks them: "Are you employed or not?" Below 16 does not count. If you tell the Bureau you do not want to work then you do not count. The Bureau takes your word as truth of whether you are employed, not employed, or the third group: out-of-the-work-force-by-your-own-choice-because-work-sucks-and-you-refuse-to-be-a-wage-slave-and-cannot-live-chained-to-a-job.
www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

That's making a hell of a lot of assumptions.

First off, only somewhere around 1-5% of Americans even answer any robo-calls and stick around long enough to talk to anybody on the other side once they figure out who it is.

The people being polled can lie, the bureau can lie, politicians can lie. There is no way of verifying any of this is true at all, so they can make up whatever numbers they want. There is ZERO math involved in what you are proposing is the way that unemployment is calculated. All you are doing is bolstering my argument that the unemployment numbers are total bullshit.

Remember, these were the very same tactics that were used when polling for who was going to be voted in for President. Look how accurate those polls were.

---

The Bureau of Labor Statistics polls 110,000 people. A political survey might be hundreds. And if you lie about being employed when you are not, well, you are employed. What is the Bureau to do about assholes that lie about everything? Give 'em job? Let the liars stay unemployed.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If you'd like to look into it a bit yourself, I suggest looking at Underemployment as a starter. It's probably the biggest factor in why the current unemployment rate statistics are a lie.

Quote:

---

Underemployment (or disguised unemployment) is the under-use of a worker due to a job that does not use the worker's skills, or is part time, or leaves the worker idle. Examples include holding a part-time job despite desiring full-time work, and overqualification, where the employee has education, experience, or skills beyond the requirements of the job

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underemployment

Probably the second largest reason the unemployment numbers are a lie is because they only count people who are actively handing in reports every week about their unemployment status to draw an unemployment check.

My last unemployment stint was just under 2 1/2 years long. Only 6 months of that time I was considered unemployed. Now that I have a part-time job that number didn't change at all, simply because I already was considered not part of unemployment for that reason. However, had I gotten that part time job immediately after being laid off from my great full time job I would not be considered unemployed (and they don't ever factor underemployment in the statistics that are presented to the public).

This second part is something that Trump used to talk about when he said the unemployment numbers were bullshit before he was president. Funny how he doesn't talk about that anymore though, innit?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

In recent years, funding constraints and technological developments have brought major changes to the Statement. In February 2012, SSA resumed mailing printed Statements to workers aged 60 or older, following a suspension that began in March 2011 to conserve agency funds. Then, in May 2012, SSA introduced an online version of the Statement. The agency also made a one-time mailing of the Statement in July to workers aged 25 in 2012. In October 2012, SSA again suspended Statement mailings for budgetary reasons, and relied on the online version to provide workers with immediate access to their earnings records, estimated benefits, and other information. In September 2014, the agency resumes mailing a revised and redesigned version of the printed Statement to workers of selected ages.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do you agree with Second's assessment that they get the data by calling 110,000 households per month?

If you do, I'll ask you a simple question.

Why do you suppose they would do that when they've already proven themselves perfectly capable of figuring how much money everyone was making, whether they were employed or self employed, back in the days when they gave us our social security reports that detailed exactly how much money we made every year, how much we paid into social security, and how much we would get per month depending on which age we decided to retire?

They already have that data, presented it to us on a yearly basis using actual MATH, and have been able to compile it for decades. Why waste what must be millions or even 10's of millions of dollars per year doing something as unscientific as random robo-calls on a very small percentage of citizens if they already had nearly 100% of the data just because of our income taxes and social security payments?




My answer is, because they can just make up anything they want to when there is no actual math being used.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

When Obama fraudulently manipulated the data in 2012 to miraculously and suddenly lower the reported Unemployment Rates before Election Day, he then allowed the data to return to unmolested levels.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
If the Bureau of Labor Statistics depended on W-2 forms that businesses send to the Internal Revenue Service only once per year and quarterly income tax withholding, their numbers wouldn't be any good for a monthly estimation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

When Obama fraudulently manipulated the data in 2012 to miraculously and suddenly lower the reported Unemployment Rates before Election Day, he then allowed the data to return to unmolested levels.

---

I am looking at the XLS file, and I can’t see the Obama conspiracy you see.

If you got something, show me, JewelStaiteFan. Going from 7.8% to 7.7% to 7.9% around the election is not showing me Obama "molesting" the data.

xls file: https://goo.gl/cUv5zQ

2012-06-01 8.2 134026
2012-07-01 8.2 134182
2012-08-01 8.1 134355
2012-09-01 7.8 134549
2012-10-01 7.8 134702
2012-11-01 7.7 134832
2012-12-01 7.9 135075
2013-01-01 8.0 135282
2013-02-01 7.7 135547
2013-03-01 7.5 135703
2013-04-01 7.6 135882
2013-05-01 7.5 136122
2013-06-01 7.5 136280

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

---

Quote:

---

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.

---

Quote:

---

The real unemployment rate (U-6) is a broader definition of unemployment than the official unemployment rate (U-3). In February 2018, it remained at 8.2 percent.

The U-3 is the rate most often reported in the media. In the U-3 rate, the Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are in the labor force. To remain in the labor force, they must have looked for a job in the last four weeks.

The U-6, or real unemployment rate, includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers. For that reason, it is almost double the U-3 report.

---

Quote:

---

The point is to make sure you compare apples to apples. If you say the government is lying during a recession, then you've got to make the same argument when times are good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
BLS currently defines the Want A Job category as not being part of the Labor Force.

So I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

---

Quote:

---

The Civilian Adult Population steadily Increases, suggesting that figure is not manipulated.
The Unemployment Rate after 2008 was able to be artificially less by shifting more unemployed into the Want A Job category, which Obamanomics managed to increase to over 7 Million for the only time in the BLS tables. This Jan figure (Want A Job) didn't return to within 0.1% of 2008 level until 2018, after Trump's first year.
The figure of Unemployed plus Want A Job is indisputably the real Unfake Unemployment figure.

The Labor Force Participation Rate steadily dropped each year until finally reversing in 2017, Trump's first year.

The Want A Job count maxxed out in Aug 2012, just as Obama was proclaiming that Unemployment Rates had dropped, which he needed to get below 8.0% by October, in order to win re-election.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's still not good jobs though.

It might be better than it has been during the Obama Administration, but that's not saying much at all. During most of GWB's Administration it wasn't all that great either. The job market has been taking a shit since around 2002 and hasn't ever had any meaningful recovery.

The problem right now is that even if the economy improved, there still won't be all that many great jobs to be had. Automation and Outsourcing have just taken so many of them. We'll never get the ones that automation took away back, and we won't get the ones we lost to outsourcing until these cheaper countries become so well off that our labor is competitive to theirs. That's not something we should be looking forward to.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Maybe you should repeat this to yourself a few times until you understand: American Corporations don't hire in order to reduce your unemployment. Corporations hire to increase their profits and they don't give a damn about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It doesn't make Corps any money.

Corporations are making excellent profits now. Why would the Corps want to share all that money with the unemployed, unless it would make them even more profits? Since American Corporations are run this way, millions of people will not be getting that good paying job because that does nothing for the owners of the Corporations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Unemployment/Underemployment hasn't been under 8% since at least 2000.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198

Quote:

---

The real unemployment rate (U-6) is a broader definition of unemployment than the official unemployment rate (U-3). In February 2018, it remained at 8.2 percent.

The U-3 is the rate most often reported in the media. In the U-3 rate, the Bureau of Labor Statistics only counts people without jobs who are in the labor force. To remain in the labor force, they must have looked for a job in the last four weeks.

The U-6, or real unemployment rate, includes the underemployed, the marginally attached, and discouraged workers. For that reason, it is almost double the U-3 report.

---

EDIT: My bad... according to this table, it's been over 8% since 2002.

Year---(U3)-----(U6)---(U3/U6)--(Comments)
1994 6.6% 11.8% 56% The first year BLS reported U6
1995 5.6% 10.2% 55%
1996 5.6% 9.8% 57%
1997 5.3% 9.4% 56%
1998 4.6% 8.4% 55%
1999 4.3% 7.7% 56%
2000 4.0% (Record Low) 7.1% 56% Stock market crashed in March
2001 4.2% 7.3% 58%
2002 5.7% 9.5% 60% U3 closest to U6
2003 5.8% 10.0% 58%
2004 5.7% 9.9% 58%
2005 5.3% 9.3% 57%
2006 4.7% 8.4% 56%
2007 4.6% 8.4% 55%
2008 5.0% 9.2% 54%
2009 7.8% 14.2% 55% High of 10.2% in Oct
2010 9.8% 16.7% 59%
2011 9.1% 16.2% 56%
2012 8.3% 15.2% 55%
2013 8.0% 14.5% 55%
2014 6.6% 12.7% 52%
2015 5.7% 11.3% 50%
2016 4.9% 9.9% 49% Both return to pre-recession levels
2017 4.8% 9.4% 51%
2018 4.4% 8.2% 50%

Man... fff.net is terrible at showing tables.

Quote:

---

The point is to make sure you compare apples to apples. If you say the government is lying during a recession, then you've got to make the same argument when times are good.

---

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.

---

Arguing pro or con about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does you no good, but why should it? The BLS serves the Feds and political parties, not you.

Looking at the BLS numbers, the Feds could decide to beat the Corporations into submission so that one of them will hire you at a good wage. Or the Feds can decide to do nothing useful. Depends on who controls Congress and by the word "control" I mean 67% majority, not a measly 51%. In the range between 66% and 50%, things tend to not change for the better because of the rules of Congress, but rather devolve into chaos. At 67%, things can change fast. (See for example: WWII where more than 67% of Congress was willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Ford Corp, as one example, hated that the Feds bullied it to make B-24 bombers and hire more workers. Henry Ford refused on principle to hire women. He was bitter. He was forced to resign because he was standing in the way of what the Feds wanted.)

Whether you believe that fast change in the future is for the better or worse depends on which party you prefer. It does not matter what the BLS unemployment numbers are. Those are just for Congress and the President. If they want to do something about unemployment, then Congress and the President could use force on the Corporations. But a 67% majority in Congress does not care, and they won't in the near future, which leaves Corporations to do as they please -- maximize their profits rather than employment.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why do I have to repeat anything? I'm not arguing with you.

Nothing in my post was arguing your point and actually augments your own argument.

---

Arguing pro or con about the accuracy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does you no good, but why should it? The BLS serves the Feds and political parties, not you.

Looking at the BLS numbers, the Feds could decide to beat the Corporations into submission so that one of them will hire you at a good wage. Or the Feds can decide to do nothing useful. Depends on who controls Congress and by the word "control" I mean 67% majority, not a measly 51%. In the range between 66% and 50%, things tend to not change for the better because of the rules of Congress, but rather devolve into chaos. At 67%, things can change fast. (See for example: WWII where more than 67% of Congress was willing to do whatever it takes to win. The Ford Corp, as one example, hated that the Feds bullied it to make B-24 bombers and hire more workers. Henry Ford refused on principle to hire women. He was bitter. He was forced to resign because he was standing in the way of what the Feds wanted.)

Whether you believe that fast change in the future is for the better or worse depends on which party you prefer. It does not matter what the BLS unemployment numbers are. Those are just for Congress and the President. If they want to do something about unemployment, then Congress and the President could use force on the Corporations. But a 67% majority in Congress does not care, and they won't in the near future, which leaves Corporations to do as they please -- maximize their profits rather than employment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
That U-6 data is hidden pretty well. I added the data to my earlier post. Found it in Table A-15 after 2010.
Your table is littered with Libtard BS.
Stock Market Crash in March 2000? Do you believe that?
And 3.8 is the lowest differential, while the prior 2 years are 3.1% - Libtard Maths at work.
And 9.9% us as low as 8.4% - more Libtard Maths at work. Sheesh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The feverish SpinDoctoring that second insists upon doing for Obamanomics is impressive.
Any reasonable person in 2006 and 2008 knew Democraps and Obama would wreck the Economy, and when the facts threatened to reveal this truth, Obama endeavored to cover-up the facts, redefine the numbers to reflect his preferred lies. This is where 6ix starts his complaint. That Obamanomics worked so hard to ship all of our jobs overseas is glossed over.
So the Libtard solution to their failures being exposed? Give them MORE CONTROL over the Economy, eliminate Free Market, eliminate Free Enterprise, return to Communism. You just don't understand that you didn't give them ENOUGH control when they were Hell-bent on destroying America. Their model is when the Isolationist FDR & Democraps grew the Axis too large, they were able to take Government control of private companies to enforce their Socialist Utopias.

After The Unions forced our jobs overseas, it is difficult to reverse. Trump has done some, but Unions insist upon sending more overseas, and replacing as many as possible with automation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
I'm in the top 1%

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't see how it's Libtard.

They're saying that the numbers were bullshit under Obama as well.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.

---

Quote:

---

2. 2. Explain how "U3 closest to U6" at 3.8 in 2002 is closer than 3.1 in 2001, and closer than 3.1 in 2000.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.

---

Not fake news.

The Dotcom Crash - March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002

The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11.

https://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp

Quote:

---

2. 2. Explain how "U3 closest to U6" at 3.8 in 2002 is closer than 3.1 in 2001, and closer than 3.1 in 2000.

---

I don't understand the question. What is 3.8 and what is 3.1 and 3.1?



I'll get back to you on the rest later. Meanwhile, you're going to have to find a link for your numbers. I'm having a hard time finding a yearly average of numbers since they seem to be broken down by months. Either you or the article I linked might just be taking a number from the month during the year to best suit your particular arguments.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.

---

Not fake news.

The Dotcom Crash - March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002

The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11.

https://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---