Ermm...how would including the underemployed make a "real unemployment rate"? Want a full-time job or not, they are still employed so that'd be doctoring the numbers (so to speak).
It is pretty well know the unemployment rate doesn't include the discouraged. I could see adding that plus the unemployed (actively looking) to create a more realistic rate, especially with how the economy went.
I asked for a specific example of when Socialism had to bail out Capitalism.
They're not "dropped out," they've never been included. And the reason is found in WHY we're measuring unemployment. The purpose is to see how many people who could be working aren't. Someone not trying to work won't find a job regardless of whether they're discouraged, other marginally attached, can't work or don't want to work. Someone not trying to work doesn't tell us anything about how hard it is to find a job.Why would any unemployment rate that drops out the discouraged workers be accurate?
But it's not measuring the same thing. The U-6 doesn't tell us how hard it is to find a job, but what percent of those who want to work and could be participating are not being used to the fullest.Anyone that wants to work full time but cannot due to circumstances beyond their control are part of the U-6 rate and that rate to me is a better indicator of the economy than the "official" Unemployment rate
They're not "dropped out," they've never been included. And the reason is found in WHY we're measuring unemployment. The purpose is to see how many people who could be working aren't. Someone not trying to work won't find a job regardless of whether they're discouraged, other marginally attached, can't work or don't want to work. Someone not trying to work doesn't tell us anything about how hard it is to find a job.
But it's not measuring the same thing. The U-6 doesn't tell us how hard it is to find a job, but what percent of those who want to work and could be participating are not being used to the fullest.
While certainly useful, you can't get those numbers as timely. The most recent data I can find for household income is from 2012.
Since discouraged have only been counted since 1976, and the current definition (narrower in some respects, broader in others) since 1994, your question is irrelevant, especially considering change in population.Please name for me any other President in history that had over a million discouraged workers other than Obama who had the entire year of 2010 with more than one million each month?
When the discussion is whether they should be considered unemployed then it's quite relevant that they've never been considered unemployed. That you think they should be because the level has been high under Obama is curious.The fact that they have never been counted isn't nearly as important as the record number that Obama had and the fact that discouraged workers are indeed unemployed.
Even without adding in the discouraged, Obama's unemployment numbers have been higher than Bush's until recently. And again, population goes up. The U-4 for November 2008 (7.2%), December 2008 (7.7%), and January 2009 (8.3%), were all higher than the current 7.1%. Level is not as important as rate, because of population growth.Bush is accused of having 800 thousand lost each month and yet not once did he have a million discouraged workers and when you add the unemployed and discouraged workers together Obama sets the record and that is a fact that Obama supporters want to ignore.
Since the methodology didn't change, how could it have benefited Obama more? And how was On a ma "getting people counted as discouraged?" It's not like there was a choice.There isn't one month that Obama had that wasn't worse than any month during the Bush term. Getting people counted as discouraged vs. unemployed benefited Obama and fooled a lot of people.
It is when the most recent employment/unemployment stats are for March 2014.The trend is there and there doesn't appear to be any upswing occurring. 2012 is not a long time ago with these sort of stats.
Since discouraged have only been counted since 1976, and the current definition (narrower in some respects, broader in others) since 1994, your question is irrelevant, especially considering change in population.
When the discussion is whether they should be considered unemployed then it's quite relevant that they've never been considered unemployed. That you think they should be because the level has been high under Obama is curious.
Even without adding in the discouraged, Obama's unemployment numbers have been higher than Bush's until recently. And again, population goes up. The U-4 for November 2008 (7.2%), December 2008 (7.7%), and January 2009 (8.3%), were all higher than the current 7.1%. Level is not as important as rate, because of population growth.
Since the methodology didn't change, how could it have benefited Obama more? And how was On a ma "getting people counted as discouraged?" It's not like there was a choice.
But you fail to state WHY you think discouraged should be classified as unemployed, and why not other marginally attached or others who want a job.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2001 to 2014
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068 909
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762 917 861
2014 837 755 698
Nope. You're misunderstanding. Unemployed is defined as did not work during the reference week, wants to work, could have started work during the reference week and actively looked for work something in the four weeks ending with the reference week (the reference week is the week before the survey).It does seem that BLS disagrees with you as discouraged workers are indeed unemployed and looking for work.
were you complaining about this when Bush was President? I was explaining back then how discouraged were not unemployedHow convenient to not have them counted in the official numbers.
So you will ignore the long term trend as well as the increase in food stamps? Are you looking for the truth or going into a defensive mode for BHO?It is when the most recent employment/unemployment stats are for March 2014.
Nope. You're misunderstanding. Unemployed is defined as did not work during the reference week, wants to work, could have started work during the reference week and actively looked for work something in the four weeks ending with the reference week (the reference week is the week before the survey).
Discouraged is defined as did not work during the reference week, wants to work, could have started work during the reference week and actively looked for work sometime in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks and stopped looking because they did not believe they would be successful.
So, no, they stopped looking for work.
were you complaining about this when Bush was President? I was explaining back then how discouraged were not unemployed
And it's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of accuracy. Someone stopped looking for work in June 2013 and hasn't started again. What does that tell you about the job market in March 2014? At most it tells you, assuming the person is honest and not just making excuses, that the person believeshe won't find work. But it does not tell us about the actual labor market.
Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)
Which only goes to show you a few things about corporate America. Just give corporate those tax cuts and you can rely on them to give you jobs and make this country strong. Balderdash! :roll: I don't care who is in the White House either; it's still corporate America that is responsible for creating jobs in the private sector, and so far they stink at it--especially in a market that shows unprecedented profits.Wages dropped, indicating these are primarily low wage and part time jobs. It's like the economy is settling into 6.7% unemployment.
Which only goes to show you a few things about corporate America. Just give corporate those tax cuts and you can rely on them to give you jobs and make this country strong. Balderdash! :roll: I don't care who is in the White House either; it's still corporate America that is responsible for creating jobs in the private sector, and so far they stink at it--especially in a market that shows unprecedented profits.
I say lets up those income taxes on the rich and make it international law that institutions abroad send out 1099s to the IRS if an American citizen has money off shore. There's nothing wrong with this idea because the rich use it to protect themselves from people pirating movies, so why can't this same system be used to make the playing field more fair on taxes?
One would assume that, if the unemployment rate is unchanged that the economy lost about 192000 jobs as well?
No, 192,000 jobs is a net number.... if unemployment is unchanged, than the new jobs matched the new workers (our population is growing; people move in and out of the job market)...
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010
Unemployed
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097
2012 12748 12806 12686 12518 12695 12701 12745 12483 12082 12248 12042 12206
2013 12332 12032 11742 11659 11760 11777 11514 11316 11255 11272 10907 10351
2014 10236 10459 10486
Labor Force 2009 154185 154424 154100 154453 154805 154754 154457 154362 153940 154022 153795 153172
Labor Force 2011 153250 153302 153392 153420 153700 153409 153358 153674 154004 154057 153937 153887
Labor Force 2012 154395 154871 154707 154365 155007 155163 155013 154645 155053 155641 155319 155511
Labor Force 2013 155654 155524 155028 155238 155658 155835 155798 155486 155559 154839 155294 154937
Labor Force 2014 154460 155724 156227
Wow, you continue to buy into the liberal rhetoric, do you realize how many jobs are actually outsourced offshore? It really is insignificant and not the problem we have in this country. The problem we have is Obama and his anti business economic policies and attempts at wealth redistribution. It is always easy to blame major corporations for the high unemployment but the problem rests with the small businesses and anti growth policies of this Administration. Obama is trying to implement equal outcome and not just equal opportunity. ACA is a job killer, higher taxes are job killers, more regulations like those EPA regulations hurting the coal and rest of the energy industry are job killers. So address the real problems and not try to put lipstick on a pig. Offshoring is going to be done when economic growth in this country is stagnant and other countries promote strong pro growth policies. Companies have to grow and will outside this country as long as Obama and liberal policies promote equal outcome vs equal opportunity
...What gives?
How are companies managing to earn so much money in a sluggish economy? And why aren't their profits goosing the economy?
For starters, weak job growth has held down pay. And since the recession struck six years ago, businesses have been relentless in cutting costs. They've also stockpiled cash rather than build new products or lines of business. And they've been earning larger chunks of their profits overseas...
Yeah. You tell me how Obama is hurting these businesses making record profits. In my opinion, I would tell Obama to keep more of what you just told me coming. Like I said earlier: i don't care who is sitting in the White House. From my link:
Get that? Those companies aren't paying anything; they're slashing costs and that would include pay! The President does not control their payroll.
No. You're over blowing this by trying to take away what i have already proven: that big business is making unprecedented profits while not creating jobs. And you're are also over blowing this Affordable Care Act too when it comes to small businesses. Take note from Forbes:Simple, you are focusing on publicly traded corporations not the engine that drives our economy and employment, small businesses. It is easy to focus on big business as it is easy for liberals to attack them but it isn't big business that is getting hurt, it is the small businesses that ACA and regulations that are hurting. It is the small businesses that aren't hiring and are cutting hours leading to the millions who are long term part time employees looking for full time jobs.
Overall, the ACA brings a mixture of rules and benefits, but there is nothing to suggest that the healthcare shake up will hinder job creation and economic growth. In fact, it could inject order into the unruly medical marketplace if the administration explains benefits and requirements simply and clearly.
By the way, it isn't the people's role to provide big businesses with tax cuts that they can undoubtedly afford, too. :roll:Oh. by the way it isn't businesses role to provide people with a job but it is the businesses role to grow and in doing so will be forced to hire people.
Probably so that those workers can actually live in that state comfortably.]There is a reason that McDonald's in North Dakota are paying their workers $16 an hour. Maybe you can figure it out
Correct.Unemployment 10486 divided by labor force 156227= 6.71%
First, you can't use the +192,000 as it's a a different survey, different time frime, different definitions (it excludes agriculture, the self-employed and others).500,000 re-entered the labor force hoping to find a job thus the 192.000 job creation wasn't enough to compensate for those 500,000 increase in labor force to drop the unemployment rate.
Right...that's part of the labor force increase.Actual number of unemployed actually ticked up a couple thousand.
No. You're over blowing this by trying to take away what i have already proven: that big business is making unprecedented profits while not creating jobs. And you're are also over blowing this Affordable Care Act too when it comes to small businesses. Take note from Forbes:
By the way, it isn't the people's role to provide big businesses with tax cuts that they can undoubtedly afford, too. :roll:
Probably so that those workers can actually live in that state comfortably.
Correct.
First, you can't use the +192,000 as it's a a different survey, different time frime, different definitions (it excludes agriculture, the self-employed and others).
Second, look at the break down of that increase in the labor force: Unemployment up 27,000 and employed went up 476,000 for the net increase of 503,000 in the labor force.
But for the actual number of entry and reentry to the labor force, you have to look at the gross numbers: Labor force status flows by sex, current month 6.9 million people entered or re-entered the labor force: 4.2 million as employed and 2.7 million as unemployed.
Both the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio increased.
Right...that's part of the labor force increase.
Didn't read the Forbes article, did you.No, you are ignoring that most of the jobs created in our economy are by small businesses, not big publicly traded companies. You really need to stop buying what you are told and actually do some research. Publicly traded companies are indeed making huge profits mostly because of the trillions being pumped into the economy making money very inexpensive to these companies who are refinancing their debt and thus improving their debt service leading to increased profits.
Wrong on the North Dakota situation, try again
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?