Productivity Slump Threatens Economy’s Long-Term Growth

[SailaWay]

Which rate better shows what percent of people who could be working are not?

gallup says its the 9.7 figure and calls it the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE


also check to see how the media and entertainment makes their money to also see the totally rigged system for liberalism.. disney owns entertainment and abc and the news.....

to drug out as many as possible they would have to bring in lower IQ's and that is liberalism's harm to the nation

 

[pinqy]

gallup says its the 9.7 figure and calls it the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE


also check to see how the media and entertainment makes their money to also see the totally rigged system for liberalism.. disney owns entertainment and abc and the news.....

to drug out as many as possible they would have to bring in lower IQ's and that is liberalism's harm to the nation

No, gallup does not claim that 9.7% is the percent of people who could be working and are not. The 9.7% doesn't measure that at all.

 

[SailaWay]

No, gallup does not claim that 9.7% is the percent of people who could be working and are not. The 9.7% doesn't measure that at all.

gallup does say its the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE can't you read its clear

 

[SailaWay]

when there is a system that works short term profit capitalism over long term profit capitalism.... what we have today is short term that guarantees destruction long term.. this short term help can be predicted along with the long term destruction FROM the short term help

example running in low IQ's to vote and to drug out more and get them to vote taxes on the producers for them to get that money which the media and entertainment industry takes by drugging them out with wasting time and stopping productivity..

THIS can be all predicted....liberalism destroys long term because of having low iQ's robbed by the crooks

what nation cannot understand how there are IQ's of 80.. 100.. 130 and 160 and when they treat each voter as equal then the nation is set up to be robbed by the crooks

and the wise founders predicted this by saying there never was a democracy that didn't commit suicide

 

[pinqy]

gallup does say its the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE can't you read its clear

They can call it any damn thing they want, but that doesn't make it true.
If someone normally works 35 hours a week, but for one week out of the month only worked 32 hours because he was sent home early on a slow day, would you consider him unemployed?
If someone wanted to work 36 hours/week, but could only find a job offering 30 hours/week, would you consider her unemployed?

Please just answer those.

 

[SailaWay]

They can call it any damn thing they want, but that doesn't make it true.
If someone normally works 35 hours a week, but for one week out of the month only worked 32 hours because he was sent home early on a slow day, would you consider him unemployed?
If someone wanted to work 36 hours/week, but could only find a job offering 30 hours/week, would you consider her unemployed?

Please just answer those.

now at least you are saying that is exactly what they are saying..... which is they are saying the REAL unemployment rate is 9.7%..

and since there are several ways to measure and the media only speaks of the lowest rate measure and not the others??? that proves crookedness to help the current system

 

[pinqy]

now at least you are saying that is exactly what they are saying..... which is they are saying the REAL unemployment rate is 9.7%..

But that doesn't make it the real unemployment rate.

and since there are several ways to measure and the media only speaks of the lowest rate measure and not the others??? that proves crookedness to help the current system

The lowest rate number is 1.6%....the insured unemployment rate.

But please answer my questions:
If someone normally works 35 hours a week, but for one week out of the month only worked 32 hours because he was sent home early on a slow day, would you consider him unemployed?
If someone wanted to work 36 hours/week, but could only find a job offering 30 hours/week, would you consider her unemployed?

 

[Kushinator]

have you heard the media putting out the 9.7% number equal to the 4.9% number???

4.9% reflects unemployment. 9.7% reflects unemployment and a slew of other measurements.

You are wrong.

 

[SailaWay]

here is john zogby speaking on this issue by gallup

////////////////////

Let me begin with this disclaimer: we pollsters are not a gracious lot. Picture a faculty review committee discussing merit pay or tenure. We are competitive, sanctimonious, and altogether not a very nice bunch of people. With that said, I am compelled to comment on the recent statements by Jim Clifton, longtime CEO of Gallup, on the “real unemployment rate.” In short, Clifton penned an op-ed on the company website referring to the “big lie” of the official Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly unemployment rate. The 5.7% rate for January he says is woefully inadequate and does not take into account part-time workers, those earning $20 a week, those underemployed, and the hundreds of thousands of others who have simply given up looking for work. The real unemployment is much larger – at least double the official rate, and probably higher.

In all of this, Clifton is absolutely right. The published rate is not only woefully inadequate, it is misleading and dishonest.

/////////////////

but zogby seems to have some issue with gallup saying it is the adminstration spinning the lie....

but we should now know it is THE LIBERAL MEDIA doingthe work for liberal govts

 

[SailaWay]

4.9% reflects unemployment. 9.7% reflects unemployment and a slew of other measurements.

you are wrong... the 9.7% is indeed the unemployment rate and zogby agrees with gallup on this issue

 

[Kushinator]

you are wrong... the 9.7% is indeed the unemployment rate and zogby agrees with gallup on this issue

It has been explained to you, on multiple occasions in this thread, why 9.7% doesn't reflect the rate of unemployment, i.e. those seeking to work, but for some reason cannot find a job.

There is no excuse.

 

[pinqy]

here is john zogby speaking on this issue by gallup

////////////////////

Let me begin with this disclaimer: we pollsters are not a gracious lot. Picture a faculty review committee discussing merit pay or tenure. We are competitive, sanctimonious, and altogether not a very nice bunch of people. With that said, I am compelled to comment on the recent statements by Jim Clifton, longtime CEO of Gallup, on the “real unemployment rate.” In short, Clifton penned an op-ed on the company website referring to the “big lie” of the official Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly unemployment rate. The 5.7% rate for January he says is woefully inadequate and does not take into account part-time workers, those earning $20 a week, those underemployed, and the hundreds of thousands of others who have simply given up looking for work. The real unemployment is much larger – at least double the official rate, and probably higher.

In all of this, Clifton is absolutely right. The published rate is not only woefully inadequate, it is misleading and dishonest.

/////////////////

but zogby seems to have some issue with gallup saying it is the adminstration spinning the lie....

but we should now know it is THE LIBERAL MEDIA doingthe work for liberal govts

Do you think that "part-time workers, those earning $20 a week" are really unemployed?
Do you think that people who are "underemployed" are really unemployed?
Do you think that people not trying to work are really unemployed?

 

[SailaWay]

Do you think that "part-time workers, those earning $20 a week" are really unemployed?
Do you think that people who are "underemployed" are really unemployed?
Do you think that people not trying to work are really unemployed?

zogby agrees its dishonest so why can't you?


//////////////////////

In all of this, Clifton is absolutely right. The published rate is not only woefully inadequate, it is misleading and dishonest.

 

[pinqy]

zogby agrees its dishonest so why can't you?


//////////////////////

In all of this, Clifton is absolutely right. The published rate is not only woefully inadequate, it is misleading and dishonest.

If you answer my questions, you'll find out why it's not dishonest.

 

[SailaWay]

If you answer my questions, you'll find out why it's not dishonest.

already see one question that is wrong... you saying someone working 20 hours is the same as one working 40 hours

that is terrible logic and so wrong...you are trying to say.. working 20 hours prove you ARE EMPLOYED but its totally different than working 40 hours.. see zogby and gallup are correct and you are wrong .. you cannot say 20 hours of employment is equal to 40 hours

 

[pinqy]

already see one question that is wrong... you saying someone working 20 hours is the same as one working 40 hours

that is terrible logic and so wrong...you are trying to say.. working 20 hours prove you ARE EMPLOYED but its totally different than working 40 hours.. see zogby and gallup are correct and you are wrong .. you cannot say 20 hours of employment is equal to 40 hours

I didn't say it was. Are you saying 20 hours of employment is the same as no employment at all? Someone working 20 hours/week...employed or unemployed?

 

[SailaWay]

I didn't say it was. Are you saying 20 hours of employment is the same as no employment at all? Someone working 20 hours/week...employed or unemployed?

see that is where you are trying to spin this with low logic....you are saying that 20 hours employment is equal to 40 hours and should be counted as such as employed.. under employed is different than fully employed and should not be counted as equal employed as the 4o hour worker

that is where you fail and zogby said that published rate is dishonest... can't you read?

 

[SailaWay]

I didn't say it was. Are you saying 20 hours of employment is the same as no employment at all? Someone working 20 hours/week...employed or unemployed?

is some one working 5 mins a week equal to 40 hours??


no its not equal and counting them equal proves dishonesty like zogby and gallup says

 

[pinqy]

see that is where you are trying to spin this with low logic....you are saying that 20 hours employment is equal to 40 hours

I am not saying they are equal. I am saying they are both employed as in they both are working.

And as a matter of fact, someone voluntarily working 20 hours/week...or even just 1 hour/week is NOT part of the 9.7%. The only part timers that includes are those who want and are available to work 35+ hours.

So if 9.7% is the "real unemployment rate", we would have one person voluntarily working 5 hours a week and he would be employed.
Another person who normally works 40 hours a week but for the survey week had his hours cut to 34 would be unemployed (if we accept the U-6 numerator as "unemployed.")

Hell, you could have two people working side by side in the same job for the same hours and same pay and call one employed and the other unemployed if one of them wanted to work full time but couldn't find a full time job.

 

[pinqy]

is some one working 5 mins a week equal to 40 hours??


no its not equal and counting them equal proves dishonesty like zogby and gallup says

Actually, someone working only 5 minutes a week would be considered unemployed.

But you're still not answering. Is 20 hours employed or unemployed? Gallup is saying that someone working 34 hours a week and picking up a paycheck every week is actually unemployed IF and ONLY IF he really wants to work 35 or more hours. They also say that someone working 5 hours a week by choice is employed.

Do you agree?

 

[pinqy]

see that is where you are trying to spin this with low logic....you are saying that 20 hours employment is equal to 40 hours and should be counted as such as employed.. under employed is different than fully employed and should not be counted as equal employed as the 4o hour worker

that is where you fail and zogby said that published rate is dishonest... can't you read?

Someone can work 20 hours/week and be fully employed. When I was in college I worked 5 hours/week and that was all I wanted. Zogby is being dishonest.

Should or should not someone working 20 hours a week be considered employed if it's by choice and unemployed if it's involuntary? That's what Gallup is saying.

 

[SailaWay]

Someone can work 20 hours/week and be fully employed. When I was in college I worked 5 hours/week and that was all I wanted. Zogby is being dishonest.

Should or should not someone working 20 hours a week be considered employed if it's by choice and unemployed if it's involuntary? That's what Gallup is saying.

see you are WRONG.. you are trying to say 20 hours is equal to 40 hours... that is where you got RAT _TRAPPED !!!

counting 20 hours as equal to 40 hours is indeed dishonest.... yep RAT_TRAPPED !!

 

[pinqy]

see you are WRONG.. you are trying to say 20 hours is equal to 40 hours... that is where you got RAT _TRAPPED !!!

counting 20 hours as equal to 40 hours is indeed dishonest.... yep RAT_TRAPPED !!

I think I know what I'm trying to say. I am saying that someone who has a job where he works 20 hours a week HAS A JOB! You want to say he is unemployed, the same as someone with no job at all. I note that you don't deny it.

 

[Visbek]

This is what happens when you have gigantic amounts of cheap money sloshing around (companies buyback stocks for quick profits instead of investing in the future) and forced, government pay rises which mean higher costs for a set amount of production (among other reasons).

Or, not.

Cheap money doesn't suppress productivity. In fact, it could potentially enhance it, as it makes it easier and cheaper to invest in new technologies that enhance productivity. This can range from lending to startups, to helping corporations purchase new equipment that increases productivity.

In practice, of course, corporations aren't doing that; capital spending has slowed. That is one reason productivity growth is slowing (and is still not linked to low interest rates or cheap credit).

It's more likely that the great wave of productivity-enhancing technology has largely matured, thus resulting in lower productivity gains. We've spent about 20 years throwing new technology at everything, and expecting it to never end is slightly ridiculous.

And anyone who thinks this is not a big deal - if it continues, and it probably will (overall) for the foreseeable future - simply does not understand what it means.

And yet, you don't actually bother to explain what it means? Seems odd.

I don't see a terribly strong correlation between productivity growth rates, and GDP growth rates, in the US since 1950.

Usually, we assume that productivity growth rates are linked with and/or correlated to wage growth. However, it's pretty obvious that since the 1970s, wage growth has not been equally distributed -- very possibly due to the ways that productivity has grown. E.g. when you replace 19 workers with automation, that 1 remaining worker will have significantly higher productivity, but certainly won't get all the wages of those 19 fired workers.

So tell us, what does a potential flattening of productivity growth portend?

 

[SailaWay]

I think I know what I'm trying to say. I am saying that someone who has a job where he works 20 hours a week HAS A JOB! You want to say he is unemployed, the same as someone with no job at all. I note that you don't deny it.

again this proves its all a lie to count 20 hours equal to 40 hours.... that is what they are counting proving totally dishonest in pretending they are the same


RAT -TRAPPED !!!