If there are no jobs then what?

[pinqy]

Not U it seems
16 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force in the last 10 years: The growth of long-term unemployment, low wage labor, and distorted employment figures.

hmmm Where did that 16 million "dropped out" come from? Apparently the blog you cite is simply counting the change in the number of people not in the labor force. But not in the labor force does not mean "dropped out." Someone turning 16 who doesn't have and isn't looking for work is a new addition to "not in the labor force" but can hardly be considered to have dropped out. Retirees, disabled, stay home spouses, etc are also not in the labor force.And since the majority of those not in the labor force don't want a job.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Do you really think a blog is a reliable source? Look at my link: there are 502,000 people who left the labor force due to discouragement in the last year. The others left for personal reasons. Of the 3.5 million who say they want a job but haven't looked in the last year, do you really think people who haven't done anything at all about finding a job in over a year really want a job and are likely to start looking?

• U.S. underemployment rate - May 2016 | Statistic

This is from Gallup, and their measure of "underemployment" is people who work part time who say they want to work full time. They do NOT check if the people are actually available to work full time, so their number is inflated.

Real Unemployment - Department of Labor (U-6)

The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment, let alone the "real" number. It is unemployed plus those marginally attached to the labor force, plus those working part-time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.
Do you really consider people who have jobs (many of them normally full time) are "really" unemployed? The U-6 measures how much labor and potential labor is not being used to its fullest. That's not unemployment.

I spent over a decade working with these numbers and teaching the methodology.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What is the source of your numbers? And what's wrong with the employment definition? The purpose is to measure how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to get a job is not available to work. So why should they be considered the same as those trying to get a job?



How are you calculating that?


There has been no change in definitions or methodology of unemployment that would affect the U-3.
There is no time limit for unemployed so no one is "unemployed so long they are no longer counted." And for the unemployment rate, people are counted once no matter how many jobs they have.

Does anyone bother to do research?

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
After the Bush administration, the Burau started counting people on Federal Aid as employed by the government.

 

[pinqy]

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
After the Bush administration, the Burau started counting people on Federal Aid as employed by the government.

Your source does not back up your claim. It makes no claims about those on Federal Aid at all. And it is absolutely not true that people on Federal Aid are classified as government employees. That's ridiculous.

As a matter of fact, the survey used for the unemployment rate doesn't ask any questions about Federal Aid. And the employment survey (for the official jobs numbers) uses admin data from government agencies (excluding CIA, NSA, DIA, and NGA) so again would not know about those receiving aid.

Official Definition of Employed as collected by Census and used by BLS for the unemployment rate:
Employed people are those who, during the reference week (a) did any work at all (for at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own businesses, professions, or on their own farms; or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a family member or (b) were not working, but who had a job or business from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job.

Employed citizens of foreign countries who are temporarily in the United States but not living on the premises of an embassy are included. Excluded are people whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, cleaning, or other home-related housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, or other organizations.

Subject Definitions

 

[justabubba]

This issue illustrates why our nation will necessarily move toward a more socialist form of democracy

thirty percent of kids leave school without a diploma

it's already difficult for these under skilled to compete against illegals for the few available low skill jobs

what happens when they next have to compete against bots for truck driving jobs and against them for construction work

These people with limited job potential will be reduced to staying home and having babies ... No bot on the horizon to replace them in that "skill"

But they will require a sustenance income - unless we want them preying on that small portion of the population who are gainfully employed

And the semi skilled will be next, expanding this reality even further

 

[Kushinator]

Unemployment is actually at around 9.6%, when you exclude people on Federal Aid from the total.

No it is not. You are sitting the U6 figure because it is roughly double the current unemployment (u3) rate.

 

[Kushinator]

Basic income guarantee, and various public - private partnerships, will fill the gap of diminished demand for human labor. The impact of the transition towards this point is anyone's guess, but I don't see it as something entirely painless. Some segments of society will refuse to adapt to the current / future reality.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Your source does not back up your claim. It makes no claims about those on Federal Aid at all. And it is absolutely not true that people on Federal Aid are classified as government employees. That's ridiculous.

As a matter of fact, the survey used for the unemployment rate doesn't ask any questions about Federal Aid. And the employment survey (for the official jobs numbers) uses admin data from government agencies (excluding CIA, NSA, DIA, and NGA) so again would not know about those receiving aid.

Official Definition of Employed as collected by Census and used by BLS for the unemployment rate:
Employed people are those who, during the reference week (a) did any work at all (for at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own businesses, professions, or on their own farms; or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a family member or (b) were not working, but who had a job or business from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job.

Employed citizens of foreign countries who are temporarily in the United States but not living on the premises of an embassy are included. Excluded are people whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, cleaning, or other home-related housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, or other organizations.

Subject Definitions

Well, thank you for correcting me, I guess I heard wrong.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No it is not. You are sitting the U6 figure because it is roughly double the current unemployment (u3) rate.

I got the reason wrong, but basically anyone who worked even a single hour is considered employed, and the people who have stopped looking for work aren't included in the numbers.
Missing Workers: The Missing Part of the Unemployment Story | Economic Policy Institute

 

[Kushinator]

I got the reason wrong, but basically anyone who worked even a single hour is considered employed, and the people who have stopped looking for work aren't included in the numbers.
Missing Workers: The Missing Part of the Unemployment Story | Economic Policy Institute

People who have stopped looking for work are not unemployed. They are perhaps detached, or discouraged, but not unemployed. Any attempt to alter the meaning of defined benchmarks will continue to fall on deaf ears. The unemployment rate is 4.9%; it doesn't matter if that is a political inconvenience.

 

[pinqy]

I got the reason wrong, but basically anyone who worked even a single hour is considered employed, and the people who have stopped looking for work aren't included in the numbers.
Missing Workers: The Missing Part of the Unemployment Story | Economic Policy Institute

In June, there were 1.5 million people who worked between 1 and 4 hours. That is not enough to affect the UE rate.
Besides which, I've had student jobs working for very few hours and would certainly have considered myself to have a job.

If someone isn't trying to get a job, they won't. Guaranteed. So what do you think people not trying to work tells us about how hard it actually is to get a job now?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

People who have stopped looking for work are not unemployed. They are perhaps detached, or discouraged, but not unemployed. Any attempt to alter the meaning of defined benchmarks will continue to fall on deaf ears. The unemployment rate is 4.9%; it doesn't matter if that is a political inconvenience.

Less a political inconvenience, more used to mislead the far left drones.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In June, there were 1.5 million people who worked between 1 and 4 hours. That is not enough to affect the UE rate.
Besides which, I've had student jobs working for very few hours and would certainly have considered myself to have a job.

If someone isn't trying to get a job, they won't. Guaranteed. So what do you think people not trying to work tells us about how hard it actually is to get a job now?

It tells us that they've given up. My brother had to search for a job for months, and he had actual experience, and that's in one of the states with the best economy.

 

[chuckiechan]

Basic income guarantee, and various public - private partnerships, will fill the gap of diminished demand for human labor. The impact of the transition towards this point is anyone's guess, but I don't see it as something entirely painless. Some segments of society will refuse to adapt to the current / future reality.

It is necessary for the human organism to work at something most of the time. You can't just send checks and expect people to thrive. That won't work in the broader population.

 

[pinqy]

It tells us that they've given up. My brother had to search for a job for months, and he had actual experience, and that's in one of the states with the best economy.

Ok....Let's say someone gave up looking September 2015 and has not done a single thing to find work since then. What does that tell us about the labor market in July 2016? At best, it tells us he thinks there are no jobs for him. But that's opinion, not knowledge.
But more to the point...most people not looking for work don't want/need a job. And most of those who not looking who say they want a job stopped looking for personal reasons, not economic.

Only half a million people who want, are available to work, and have looked for work in the last year but not the last month. Adding them in raises the rate to 5.2%.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ok....Let's say someone gave up looking September 2015 and has not done a single thing to find work since then. What does that tell us about the labor market in July 2016? At best, it tells us he thinks there are no jobs for him. But that's opinion, not knowledge.
But more to the point...most people not looking for work don't want/need a job. And most of those who not looking who say they want a job stopped looking for personal reasons, not economic.

Only half a million people who want, are available to work, and have looked for work in the last year but not the last month. Adding them in raises the rate to 5.2%.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Sounds like you're trying to tell me that the poor state of the economy isn't due in part to Obama's war on business, which is ridiculous.

 

[pinqy]

Sounds like you're trying to tell me that the poor state of the economy isn't due in part to Obama's war on business, which is ridiculous.

That's an interesting interpretation. I am only commenting on methodology, not on any policy or what the results are.

 

[Kushinator]

Less a political inconvenience, more used to mislead the far left drones.

Was the jump in the unemployment rate from 2006-2011 used to mislead the far left drones? Unemployment has a meaning; especially given the way in which it is measured.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Was the jump in the unemployment rate from 2006-2011 used to mislead the far left drones? Unemployment has a meaning; especially given the way in which it is measured.

No, that was genuinely an Establishment Servant doing an awful job, and a result of a terrorist attack.

 

[Kushinator]

No, that was genuinely an Establishment Servant doing an awful job, and a result of a terrorist attack.

????

You must be confused. The economy peaked in 2006, and went into recession in Q3 2007. It had absolutely nothing to do with what you call an establishment servant doing an awful job or a terrorist attack. The U.S. economy went into the deepest downturn since the 1930's because of market failure, i.e. private sector investors mis-priced trillions upon trillions in financial assets. That was their job, and they failed so bad that the Federal Government had to bail them out.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

????

You must be confused. The economy peaked in 2006, and went into recession in Q3 2007. It had absolutely nothing to do with what you call an establishment servant doing an awful job or a terrorist attack. The U.S. economy went into the deepest downturn since the 1930's because of market failure, i.e. private sector investors mis-priced trillions upon trillions in financial assets. That was their job, and they failed so bad that the Federal Government had to bail them out.

The Federal Government didn't need to bail them out, no business is too big to fail. The economy would have stabilized regardless.

 

[Kushinator]

The Federal Government didn't need to bail them out, no business is too big to fail.

It wasn't a business, it was various industries that had the potential to completely cripple the aggregate economy. The banking system was on the brink of collapse (money market funds were beginning to break the buck), the U.S. automobile industry was bankrupt, and home prices fell by more than 30 percent (2006-2009).

The economy would have stabilized regardless.

It's not a matter of would... only a matter of when. Then there is the issue of continually deteriorating capital, both physical and human. Idle plants and equipment would depreciate, and there wouldn't be nearly as many jobs for people entering the workforce. An entire generation of capital would have sat idle while we waited for the market to correct itself.

Now we sit on the highest level of employment on record, the greatest level of net worth, highest level of aggregate output, and yet... you want to pretend like it didn't happen due to partisan nonsense founded on normative ignorance.

 

[Helix]

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It wasn't a business, it was various industries that had the potential to completely cripple the aggregate economy. The banking system was on the brink of collapse (money market funds were beginning to break the buck), the U.S. automobile industry was bankrupt, and home prices fell by more than 30 percent (2006-2009).



It's not a matter of would... only a matter of when. Then there is the issue of continually deteriorating capital, both physical and human. Idle plants and equipment would depreciate, and there wouldn't be nearly as many jobs for people entering the workforce. An entire generation of capital would have sat idle while we waited for the market to correct itself.

Now we sit on the highest level of employment on record, the greatest level of net worth, highest level of aggregate output, and yet... you want to pretend like it didn't happen due to partisan nonsense founded on normative ignorance.

Oh please, I found your post informative until the last part, couldn't remain civil, could you?

 

[Kushinator]

Oh please, I found your post informative until the last part, couldn't remain civil, could you?

You actually claimed the rise in unemployment between 2006 and 2011 was the result of the Obama administration and a terrorist attack. You then double down on ignorance by claiming the U.S. economy would have been fine had the Federal Government allowed its industries to fail.

How do you expect people to respond?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You actually claimed the rise in unemployment between 2006 and 2011 was the result of the Obama administration and a terrorist attack. You then double down on ignorance by claiming the U.S. economy would have been fine had the Federal Government allowed its industries to fail.

How do you expect people to respond?

No, it was definitely due in part to the Obama Administration, I just didn't know about the other things. Uhm, I HOPE for everyone to discuss everything civilly, like adults. I EXPECT some people, you for example, to follow everything up with some sort of petty insult. So, either way, you're fulfilling a hope or an expectation.