- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,302
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
You can't use a term to define itself. And I don't know what your "etc"s are. You may have some definition of "unemployed" in your head, but the common, most used definition in economics is willing, available, and doing something about work.Anyone with a bit of common sense knows the unemployed are the unemployed. Common sense tells you not to count retirees as they are retired. Common sense tells you not to count full time students as they are full time students. ETC. ETC.
Because what we're trying to measure is actual supply and demand of labor, and how hard it is to get a job. Someone saying they want a job but not doing anything doesn't tell us anything.
Someone who actively looks for a job....Contact employer directly/interview, Contacted public employment agency, Contacted private employment agency, Contacted friends or relatives, Contacted school/university employment center, Sent out resumes/filled out applications, Checked union/professional registers, Placed or answered ads, or other, such as had an audition or bid on a contract..........did something that could have gotten them a job and did not.
If someone did nothing that could have gotten them a job, then they could not have gotten a job, no matter how much they say they want one. As far as getting a job goes, someone who says he wants a job but is not trying to work is no more likely to get a job than anyone else not trying to work.
Those not looking who say they want a job are counted...A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
But look...of the 6 million people not looking for work who say they want a job, 3.2 million have done nothing at all about getting a job in the last year (this includes teenagers who've never had a job and never looked for one). Do you think they're really a good indicator of how easy or difficult it is to actually get a job? Do you even think it likely they'll start to look soon?
And further...of those who did look in the last year but not the last month, 593,000 could not have accepted a job if offered on a plate. What do they tell us about the job market?
That's what it boils down to...the job market. People not participating in it can't tell us anything about its condition.
So, one change in BLS data that did occur under Obama:
Prior to 2011, when respondents were asked how long they had been looking for work, any answer over 2 years was simply recorded as "2 years," basically making it "2 or more years."
But in 2011, that was changed so that the actual number of weeks was recorded, up to 5 years. Now, this had no change on the UE rate or Labor Force or anything like that. It didn't even change "media number of weeks unemployed." But it did change the average number of weeks unemployed, making it a lot worse.
So...we have one change which made things look worse.
Talk to me about all the changes that made things look better?
You don't really lose the true numbers, you get a more complete (and more useful) description of what's actually happening.Seems to me, that when you try to break it down so far to a level where there are categories, sub categories, and so on, that you lose the true numbers.
Why do you think it's meant to lie? It's meant to give an accurate picture of the labor market conditions. The subcategories of Not in the Labor Force give a clearer picture of who is likely to start looking for work.Seems to me, that when you try to break it down so far to a level where there are categories, sub categories, and so on, that you lose the true numbers. I understand that not all unemployed, able bodied people are equal, but the parsing of the numbers is meant to lie to us, that's my opinion.
Greetings, Pinqy. :2wave:
It used to be based on three simple common sense points: You have no job now; you are available for work now; and you have actively looked for work in the past four weeks.
The method for calculating unemployment has changed in several ways. Simply losing your job doesn't mean you're unemployed today, although it sure as H*** feels like it when you don't have a paycheck coming in so you can pay your bills. However, if you stop actively looking for work, you are longer considered unemployed. I don't know what those discouraged people are called today, but they don't have a job, so they are unemployed by most people's definition.
On the other hand, if you are working part-time at a low-paying job because that's all that is available, you are considered employed. You could have been an engineer but now you are working at WalMart sweeping floors, but that's how it's calculated, and it is an unfair double standard!
Then you have what is called the "labor participation rate," which measures the total labor force available versus those actually working doing some kind of job, no matter how menial or part time. So if you have 10 unemployed, but five have just stopped looking for work because there are no jobs available, the unemployment rate will drop because those five are no longer considered unemployed. :screwy: It doesn't change the fact that they still don't have a job, but it makes the unemployment rate look better.
That's the problem with the way it's currently calculated. If the unemployment rate falls due to people giving up looking, rather than job creation, it shows that the labor market is not expanding, but either shrinking or not expanding enough to accommodate new workers joining the labor force.
Obama told us for years that he was focusing on job creation "like a laser," but so far only part time or low-paying jobs are available for the most part, and our standard of living is dropping for an awful lot of people. Companies need to make a profit or they either close or move to more business-friendly countries. When companies like GM build a new plant in Mexico instead of here, that pits Wall Street and the need to satisfy shareholders against the workers on Main Street USA who used to do those jobs- the workers lose every time! I have repeatedly suggested that thousands of new jobs could be created if we just upgraded our grid which is badly needed, as an example, and that would be a double good...people go back to work and we bring our grid into the 21st century where we all live now. Just my opinion..... :shrug:
Why do you think it's meant to lie? It's meant to give an accurate picture of the labor market conditions. The subcategories of Not in the Labor Force give a clearer picture of who is likely to start looking for work.
That's still the definition, although, as always, those on temporary layoff who expect to return to their old job do not have to have looked.Greetings, Pinqy. :2wave:
It used to be based on three simple common sense points: You have no job now; you are available for work now; and you have actively looked for work in the past four weeks.
Where is the change? And regardless of what most people's definition is, it's not a useful definition.The method for calculating unemployment has changed in several ways. Simply losing your job doesn't mean you're unemployed today, although it sure as H*** feels like it when you don't have a paycheck coming in so you can pay your bills. However, if you stop actively looking for work, you are longer considered unemployed. I don't know what those discouraged people are called today, but they don't have a job, so they are unemployed by most people's definition.
So you have two people working the same part time job for the same pay andyou want to call one of them employed and the other unemployed because one has a high school education and the other has a degree. That makes sense to you?On the other hand, if you are working part-time at a low-paying job because that's all that is available, you are considered employed. You could have been an engineer but now you are working at WalMart sweeping floors, but that's how it's calculated, and it is an unfair double standard!
No, that's not what the labor force participation rate is. The Labor Force is employed plus unemployed (everyone doing something about work) and the participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population.Then you have what is called the "labor participation rate," which measures the total labor force available versus those actually working doing some kind of job, no matter how menial or part time.
But we're not trying to measure who doesn't have a job....we're trying to measure who is trying to get a job. And what if the five stopped looking because they were sick, ill, pregnant, had to take care of a family member, or they decided they just wanted to smoke pot in their mom's basement? They still don't have a job, are they still unemployed?So if you have 10 unemployed, but five have just stopped looking for work because there are no jobs available, the unemployment rate will drop because those five are no longer considered unemployed. :screwy: It doesn't change the fact that they still don't have a job, but it makes the unemployment rate look better.
I think it is meant to lie, because if the true numbers were out there people would revolt.
No big thing Pol, I will just go back to ignoring the stats because they are not accurate, they are nothing more than one big lie. I just can't see what is so hard to understand if one is unemployed he is unemployed, period. If one has a job, he is working, period. Until the government starts looking at things that way, we will always have a problem as I suppose it is the governments way of making things look rosier than they really are.
If I were an elected official I would want people to look at the glass as being half filled, not half empty. It helps my political career.
Excellent post! :thumbs: Everyone knows someone who has lost their job through no fault of their own, and few feel things have gotten better - even though they are told by the media that they have! Besides, the original numbers are always revised, so most people don't pay attention to them anyway, since it looks like they don't want people to know the actual facts.
Isn't there anyone in government these days who has actually worked in the business world and knows how that works? Hiring more people to work in the government in DC is a drain on the taxpayers - we pay their salaries for what? Making new rules and regulations which creates departments of people who don't produce anything except headaches for businesses trying to comply with same? No wonder they are leaving for friendlier countries, taking the jobs that used to be done here somewhere else!
Someone somewhere around the world today is doing the job that a worker employed in the business world here used to do, damn it! And they're happy to have that job, too, so they aren't complaining and making problems for their employers, even though they aren't making a fraction of what our workers used to be paid! We just aren't competitive any more, sad to say - small wonder China has taken our number one position in GDP growth!
I don't know what the answer is, because we can't live on a salary of $5.00 a day here. We'd better think of something, though, because if this continues, people won't even be able to afford eating at McDonalds!
Still trying to figure out your definition, so let's try:Anyone with a bit of common sense knows the unemployed are the unemployed.
That's still the definition, although, as always, those on temporary layoff who expect to return to their old job do not have to have looked.
Where is the change? And regardless of what most people's definition is, it's not a useful definition.
So you have two people working the same part time job for the same pay andyou want to call one of them employed and the other unemployed because one has a high school education and the other has a degree. That makes sense to you?
How about someone who has a degree in theater and is working as a waitress while trying to break into Hollywood. Employed or unemployed? Or someone who was an engineer, but retired and now has a part time job as a Wal-Mart greeter to stay active and earn a little money. Employed or Unemployed?
Simplistic doesn't work for a scientific approach trying to measure a lot of people with a sample.
No, that's not what the labor force participation rate is. The Labor Force is employed plus unemployed (everyone doing something about work) and the participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population.
But we're not trying to measure who doesn't have a job....we're trying to measure who is trying to get a job. And what if the five stopped looking because they were sick, ill, pregnant, had to take care of a family member, or they decided they just wanted to smoke pot in their mom's basement? They still don't have a job, are they still unemployed?
I'm tired of dealing with you. You've been given the numbers, you have been given the facts. Every time you get facts you just brush them off because you don't want to hear the truth. I'm done with trying to explain things to someone who clearly has no interest in the truth.
We have. Many times.
But you still quote them anyways when they support the point you want to make. You are the very definition of bias and partisanship.
Yes, that's exactly what he does.
There are groups of people in the world who do not care about facts and are more than willing to lie just so their team can win. They don't care about truth and they have no integrity. When facts show them to be wrong, they just call the facts lies, without any basis to do so. These types of people are simply nuts (or sometimes they manifest themselves as trolls) and they completely ruin any attempt at quality conversation.
You don't really lose the true numbers, you get a more complete (and more useful) description of what's actually happening.
For example, let's say you were in charge of a business that had salesman. Would you be content with just knowing how much money the salesman as a group made you (let's say $100, for an easy number)? Or would you want to know that salesman A made $60, salesman B made $30 and salesman C-E combined only made $10? Furthermore, would you not want to know that salesman A made his $60 by selling 50 units of product A, 30 units of product B and 5 units of products C-E?
Of course you would. Having more detailed information allows for a more exact picture of what is actually happening. If I just said "well, I made $100", then it would hide the fact I had 3 salesmen who were not really doing anything and it would hide the fact I spending money on products C-E which don't sell.
Simple numbers may be easy for those who don't really care but having more detailed information is just more useful and gives a much better picture of what is actually happening.
Estimates? You call that reliable? :doh
Excellent Pol, You have put my feelings into writing which portrays them as they should be. I don't have an answer either. We lost our industrial base due to an over abundance of regulations, mandates and taxes. And yes, those once good paying jobs are overseas making someone else happy. Do we as a country actually make anything anymore?
Because we want to know how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to work is not available for work.Why are we trying to measure who is trying to get a job, versus those who don't? I don't understand that reasoning.
If someone does something that could get them a job and fails, that tells us something. Someone who doesn't do anything to get a job doesn't tell us anything when they don't.Is the thinking that people are basically lazy, and need to be prodded into looking for a job? If that's the case, then someone who visits a company or two during the week and gets a confirmation that they were indeed there, is trying? Or someone who sends their resume to 25 companies is trying?
But why would you exclude them if they want a job? Or if they quit looking? What difference is there as far as likelihood to be hired between someone who cannot work and someone just not trying to?The old rules always excluded the pregnant and the ill, which covered the "available for work" part.
From 1967-1993 the definition of Unemployed was "Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days."Some of the rules changed during the Clinton administration, probably because of NAFTA, so this isn't all new with Obama.
Why do you believe that? Do you really think Obama was defining anything in 1975? Table A-1 of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scrib...=/docs/releases/bls/bls_employnews_197502.pdfI believe the "labor force participation rate" is newly defined by Obama, though.
Except the number of employed and the number of jobs has been going steadily up for a few years now.Job loss has certainly increased since then - no unemployed workers today would dispute that!
So a teenager looking for his/her first job is what? And if someone had a job years ago, but stayed home with the kids for 10 years and is now looking for a job....have they been unemployed the whole time? And why do you make an exception for retirees when they match your description. Or someone who decides they don't want/need a job.Regarding your last paragraph: With the two exceptions I listed above, which were in the old rules, I believe that if you had a job and you no longer have a job, for whatever reason, then yes you are unemployed. There will always be those who will attempt to beat the system, so what else is new? It's human nature for some, I guess. You could show up for an interview for a job you don't want, dressed like a slob and smelling bad, but you've tried, right? Is that good enough to satisfy the new rules?
Stop the lies. Obama and the democrats never give the truth. They always try to make it look not as bad as it really is. Try looking at real unemployment
Laid Off? Join 31 million unemployed Americans - UCubed — Blog — The Real Unemployment Rate
Excellent work, Pol ... but you know it won't bring an end to this, don't you?
Except he didn't as I already proved and you've ignored. The questionnaire was computerized and one minor definition change regarding people waiting to start a job.GreetiWe know that Clinton changed the rules
THAT IS THE CURRENT DEFINITION!!!!! Employment Situation Technical NoteI believe that the simple truth still applies: 1. You have no job now. 2. You are available for work now. 3. You have actively looked for work in the past four weeks.
What???? Where did you get that nonsense?Now, if you're looking for work, you're no longer unemployed?
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:
I really don't know why I bother, except it's my attempt to figure out the current thinking. We know that Clinton changed the rules because it was almost a certainty that unemployment would rise after he signed NAFTA - and it did. It was touted as a job maker for Americans at the time, if you recall, but Ross Perot knew better because he was a businessman, and he made his famous comment about the sucking sound of jobs leaving our shores.
I believe that the simple truth still applies: 1. You have no job now. 2. You are available for work now. 3. You have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. Using the K.I.S.S. principle was easy, but now there's all sorts of "what ifs" throw in which are totally unnecessary because everything was handled by the above. Now, if you're looking for work, you're no longer unemployed? Huh? People have never told a lie I guess. Anyway, using that criteria the unemployment number drops, which was what it was intended to do. Unfortunately it's not accurate, but that's reality today.
Fortunately, there are people who track these things, and when they tell us that the real unemployment numbers are nearly double what is being reported, with the black youth numbers nearly triple what is reported, I believe them! :shrug:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?