Record low for euro jobless rate

[RightinNYC]

Again with your sillyness. You were the one who claimed it was 40 million, by a different method.

I have always claimed it was officially 17 million and shrinking. Then you said "the REAL level of unemployment in Europe is probably far higher", and I agreed and made an estimation that it was 40 million.

This is not the same as me claiming its 40 million. You pathetic way of twisting everything I say is getting annoying.

I never claimed it was 40 million. I said that the official numbers were 17 million, and that if you adjusted it to the same % of the labor force as the US, it would add another 17 million, bringing the total to around 35 million.

Then, you said:

I am sure the REAL amount of unemployed in Europe is not 17 million, but around 40 million, and I am sure the real amount of unemployed in the US is not 7 million but 20-25 million.

Except, here's the difference between you and I - I showed statistics to back up my claim, explained the disparity I found, and calculated out the difference. You made up a number and still refuse to provide a source for your claim about the US.

No, you think the US is superior, and any attacks on the US will be defended by silly retoric and personal attacks. You will use unfactual basis and avoid the real debate to make the US seem better than others. Just like when you said that real unemployment is probably higher than 17 million in Europe like I claimed based on official numbers.

Then I said, well, the same applies in the US. the real number might be 20 million. This you completely ignored as if only in Europe there are unofficial unemployment numbers.:2wave: :shock: :roll:

Jesus christ, how do you still not understand this point? If I were arguing my point based on a claim that the traditional method of counting unemployment undercounts the true numbers, then you might have a point. But all I'm arguing is that because Europe has a lower participation rate in the labor force than the US does, if your participation was adjusted to the baseline, there would be an additional 17 million people. It's a very simple point, and you've failed to comprehend it over and over again.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I never claimed it was 40 million. I said that the official numbers were 17 million, and that if you adjusted it to the same % of the labor force as the US, it would add another 17 million, bringing the total to around 35 million.

That doesnt make sense at all, what is that suppose to mean?

Ahh I know what you mean.. If you adjust the US labor by the methods of others the US unemployment is 18.9% and their total unemployed people is 150 million..

Now, thats a joke to ridicule your lame comment.. So where is the logic and where is the source of the same % stuff? Are you saying if the EU had the same level of unemployment in % that the US have it would be 35 million people instead of 17? Are you saying that adjusted by % the EU unemployment is measure by total population and that the number in your opinion is 35 million people?
What are you actually claiming?

Except, here's the difference between you and I - I showed statistics to back up my claim, explained the disparity I found, and calculated out the difference. You made up a number and still refuse to provide a source for your claim about the US.

Really? Like this?

I never claimed it was 40 million. I said that the official numbers were 17 million, and that if you adjusted it to the same % of the labor force as the US, it would add another 17 million, bringing the total to around 35 million.

Or like this?

Last month, the US unemployment rate fell from 4.5% to 4.4%
Falling US unemployment shows underlying economic strength | newratings.com
At this rate, we'll hit 2.1% employment by February 2009!

or perhaps like this?

So here's the 64,000 question...
If the US, with a population of 300 million, has a labor force of 149.3 million, then why does the EU, with a population of 495 million, only have a labor force of 218 million?
Almost a full 50% of our population serves as part of the labor force, and yet we still manage to have 4.4% unemployment.
Only 44% of your population even participates in that labor force, and of that number, more than 8% can't even find a job.
I'll let you mull that over for a few minutes and think about why there might be such a great disparity between the percentages of the population in the labor force. When you get an idea, come back here and we can discuss it further.

No matter you didnt check how those numbers were made, that the US number include unemployed as labor force while the EU number doesnt.

Perhaps this is a better example of how you always "back up your claims"..

If the European population participated in the labor force at the same rate as Americans, there would be an additional 17.8 million people in your labor force without the jobs for the. That would make your unemployment rate 14.8% and drive down average wages at the low end of the spectrum significantly. That's a problem.

What you are saying here is that if Europe had an additional 17.8 million people in the labor force, which we dont, the unemployment would be 14.8%..

What does that really matter?

I could also say that if the US had the same size labour force as the EU, 218 million, the US unemplyment would be 50%. Thats no relevant argument.

Here is a prime RightatNYU, a classic.

And US growth next year will be 11% and unemployment will drop to 3.2%.

Jesus christ, how do you still not understand this point? If I were arguing my point based on a claim that the traditional method of counting unemployment undercounts the true numbers, then you might have a point. But all I'm arguing is that because Europe has a lower participation rate in the labor force than the US does, if your participation was adjusted to the baseline, there would be an additional 17 million people. It's a very simple point, and you've failed to comprehend it over and over again.

Whatever you say. the US is best and the rest sucks, afterall the US is where you livem its a country of nationalism. It rules. The 100.000 US troops in Europe is the reason Europe is free not the 2 million+ European troops and advanced weapons..

 

[PeteEU]

How many people do you think fall into the category of being someone who is unemployed despite actively seeking for THREE YEARS? I can't imagine it being more than a couple thousand. Regardless, it's certainly not 17.8 million.

And how do you know? You have kicked them out of the system for fek sake. Thats every drug addict, every homeless (and dont tell me there are only a couple of a thousand homeless in the US), and so on. And where do you place your students over the age of 15 (16 in the US).. employed or unemployed or do you take them out of the equation dispite the international rules saying they are unemployed? Do you discriminate between half time and full time?

Not really. They plainly state that adjustments are made to make the systems comparable. The differences are minor and nowhere near significant enough to cover this massive difference.

Sure..The US does not follow key international guidelines and all of a sudden they can do some "simple adjustments" so the numbers can be comparable. Why not follow the international guidelines then? Maybe because it would not paint the usual rosey picture.

:lol: Do you know what the BLS payroll survey is? It's the most accurate method of surveying this stuff and tracking the month to month changes that there is. Please, if there is a more accurate way I'd love to see it.

Yes I do know what it is. Its a freaking survey, a poll. The EU numbers are mostly based on facts. Any survey or poll can be manipulated to show a certain picture. Cutting out people who have been unemployed for over 3 years is a classic example.

No, actually that means our unemployment numbers are OVERREPORTED. Think about it - they don't count the military. So assume we have two million soldiers in the military, all of whom are fully employed.

That you exclude potentionally millions of people based on a time limited unemployment factor? Thats not under reporting?

Using example numbers:

Without soldiers being counted (current system): 95m employed, 5m unemployed. 2m soldiers not counted. This results in an unemployment rate of 5%.

With soldiers being counted (alternate system): 97m employed, 5m unemployed. 2m soldiers counted. This results in an unemployment rate of 4.9%.

So, you can clearly see how if we were to count military personnel in the survey, it would make the US numbers even better. And as you pointed out, because the US military is so much larger than other countries, the change in the reporting system that you propose would benefit our numbers greater than anyone else.

hehe that is if you count the soilders as "employed". Dunno the international guidelines on this one frankly, but considering they say that students and housewifes are to be considered unemployed, then well.

This whole section is irrelevant. We're not talking about the definition of the term "labor force," because it has no impact. We're simply looking at the % of people who are participating. 149m/300m vs. 212m/395m.

It is entirely relevant. The US labour force number is at best incomplete and missleading. Like it or not the US does not have 300 million labour force. The labour force is defined by international standards (which the US probally dont follow as its not in thier political interest), as the population from 15 (16) years to the offical retirement age and thats 380 million in Europe, not the 495 million you first used. Now what is it in the US? I cant find a similar number. If you use the 380 million and do the same math you used, it would give a worker participation of over 52%, one that is higher than the US. However I cant compare it to the US number as they are not comparable unless you want to belive that the whole population is the labour force, even the 1 day olds. Also the problems with the US numbers.. the 70 million "not in labour force" and the 70 million missing from the stats.. need to be resolved.

Point is to all discussing here, use numbers that can be compared

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

And how do you know? You have kicked them out of the system for fek sake. Thats every drug addict, every homeless (and dont tell me there are only a couple of a thousand homeless in the US), and so on. And where do you place your students over the age of 15 (16 in the US).. employed or unemployed or do you take them out of the equation dispite the international rules saying they are unemployed? Do you discriminate between half time and full time?



Sure..The US does not follow key international guidelines and all of a sudden they can do some "simple adjustments" so the numbers can be comparable. Why not follow the international guidelines then? Maybe because it would not paint the usual rosey picture.



Yes I do know what it is. Its a freaking survey, a poll. The EU numbers are mostly based on facts. Any survey or poll can be manipulated to show a certain picture. Cutting out people who have been unemployed for over 3 years is a classic example.



That you exclude potentionally millions of people based on a time limited unemployment factor? Thats not under reporting?

hehe that is if you count the soilders as "employed". Dunno the international guidelines on this one frankly, but considering they say that students and housewifes are to be considered unemployed, then well.



It is entirely relevant. The US labour force number is at best incomplete and missleading. Like it or not the US does not have 300 million labour force. The labour force is defined by international standards (which the US probally dont follow as its not in thier political interest), as the population from 15 (16) years to the offical retirement age and thats 380 million in Europe, not the 495 million you first used. Now what is it in the US? I cant find a similar number. If you use the 380 million and do the same math you used, it would give a worker participation of over 52%, one that is higher than the US. However I cant compare it to the US number as they are not comparable unless you want to belive that the whole population is the labour force, even the 1 day olds. Also the problems with the US numbers.. the 70 million "not in labour force" and the 70 million missing from the stats.. need to be resolved.

Point is to all discussing here, use numbers that can be compared

People in the US are certainly best at bigmouting and bragging about themself and their country. We have some catching up there to reach even a comparable level to Americans.

 

[Synch]

Its not business cycles. Europe is the best market to invest in right now, by far. Of course I am optimistic, every single indicator is positive, except consumer spending and confidence which is sluggish. Production prices in Europe is at a standstill(1%) while in the US production price index is 7% which means that producing something in the US is getting expensive fast. Industrial production is growing, slowly like in the whole industrial world, but at least its growing. Export is growing despite a highly valuable Euro.
Business confidence and investment climate is skyrocketing, while GDP growth is steadily improving. Unemployment is falling at a very good pace.
The whole mood is optimistic, so of course I am optimistic. The only worry is consumer confidence and spending which is only VERY slowly improving.

Again, what accounts for the real change? Afaik there has been no economic liberalization in Europe. The only factor that can account for the growth of exports and lower PPI is the influx of cheap labor from the East, once that is over so will the sanguine atmosphere.

Segolene Royal, yes, she will not be elected. If she is its a crisis for France, which will also affect the Eurozone and somewhat the European Union.
I dont really have much hope for Sarkozy, but I do believe he will take some necessary steps, but he is far from any revolutionist.
I am pinning my hope on the centrist Bayrou to be elected, i think that will be most positive for France and especially Europe, but I dont believe the chance of him being elected is that great.

If the French want change they would vote for Sarkozy, although Bayrou is a moderate he's not so keen on economic liberalization, nor does it look like he can muster the numbers in Parliament to support the changes he plans to initiate.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Again, what accounts for the real change? Afaik there has been no economic liberalization in Europe. The only factor that can account for the growth of exports and lower PPI is the influx of cheap labor from the East, once that is over so will the sanguine atmosphere.

Nothing at all? Not open borders, free trade, no barriers, the Euro, free movement of people, goods, capital and services. Nothing has become more liberal? Thats just the most important things that have happend the last 15 years, the list is VERY long.

QUOTE=Synch;534203]
If the French want change they would vote for Sarkozy, although Bayrou is a moderate he's not so keen on economic liberalization, nor does it look like he can muster the numbers in Parliament to support the changes he plans to initiate.[/QUOTE]

I will vote for Bayrou in the first round of elections. If he dont pass from there to a second round, I will vote for Sarkozy, clearly.(the chance of second round is about 98%.)

 

[PeteEU]

People in the US are certainly best at bigmouting and bragging about themself and their country. We have some catching up there to reach even a comparable level to Americans.

I dont agree fully. Bragging about ones country is a national pass time for most countries, especially when said citizens are either told or belive they are the "best" at something. But that dont mean they are the best at something. But I do agree some countries tend to "brag" more than others, with the US, France and a few other larger nations being on top there. But it is hardly unique to those.

For example, Danes have for decades heard from politicans and "experts" that we have the best schooling system in the world. But the stats on that simply dont show that. While its far from the worst, it is at best in the top 10 world wide.. a feat in it self, but it is hardly the best. And again it depends on what you measure and how you do it. Danish students lag behind on common knowledge skills (and others) by the time they are aged 15, but they are far more independant and freewilled than other students at the same age in other countries. And by the time they leave university, Danish students are ahead of similar students on most subjects that they were behind at aged 15. So as always.. depends on how you measure it.

We have on these boards constantly heard bragging by Americans about the US in history, economics, social values and other policies and issues, and often they have been disproved or driven a hole through the "bragging" by bringing it into reality.. take the WW2 debates there have been. But on the other hand there has also been bragging from the "other side" where Americans have attempted and sometimes successed in drilling a hole in the "bragging".. and other times missed opportunities. For example, the "bragging" about the TGV (French train).. some how no one checked up on the "facts" given by the media, both American and French.. the fact is the Japanese bullet train has gone faster on a test track. But here again, it depends on how you measure it

Even this discussion on the Eurozone vs US is funny.. depends on how you measure it.

 

[RightinNYC]

That doesnt make sense at all, what is that suppose to mean?

Ahh I know what you mean.. If you adjust the US labor by the methods of others the US unemployment is 18.9% and their total unemployed people is 150 million..

Now, thats a joke to ridicule your lame comment.. So where is the logic and where is the source of the same % stuff? Are you saying if the EU had the same level of unemployment in % that the US have it would be 35 million people instead of 17? Are you saying that adjusted by % the EU unemployment is measure by total population and that the number in your opinion is 35 million people?
What are you actually claiming?

You still don't get it? It's not hard. The US has 47.6% of its population actively participating in the labor force. The EU has 44%. If the EU wanted to be a large enough economy to support the same percentage of workers as are supported by the US economy, it would need to add 17.8 million workers.

Really? Like this?
Or like this?
or perhaps like this?

Maximus Zeebra: Impervious to hyperbole or logic.

No matter you didnt check how those numbers were made, that the US number include unemployed as labor force while the EU number doesnt.

And I adjusted for that in a subsequent post, which brought the US total down from 50% to 47.6%. Still better than the EU.

Perhaps this is a better example of how you always "back up your claims"...

What you are saying here is that if Europe had an additional 17.8 million people in the labor force, which we dont, the unemployment would be 14.8%..

What does that really matter?

It matters because I'm pointing out that your economy is incapable of sustaining as much of the population in the workforce as the US is.

I could also say that if the US had the same size labour force as the EU, 218 million, the US unemplyment would be 50%. Thats no relevant argument.

You're right, that would be idiotic. I'm surprised it took you this long to bring that up, I would have thought you'd have claimed that hours ago.

Here is a prime RightatNYU, a classic.

Again, satire, right over your head.

Whatever you say. the US is best and the rest sucks, afterall the US is where you livem its a country of nationalism. It rules. The 100.000 US troops in Europe is the reason Europe is free not the 2 million+ European troops and advanced weapons..

:lol: You're a laugh riot.

 

[RightinNYC]

And how do you know? You have kicked them out of the system for fek sake. Thats every drug addict, every homeless (and dont tell me there are only a couple of a thousand homeless in the US), and so on. And where do you place your students over the age of 15 (16 in the US).. employed or unemployed or do you take them out of the equation dispite the international rules saying they are unemployed? Do you discriminate between half time and full time?

Sure..The US does not follow key international guidelines and all of a sudden they can do some "simple adjustments" so the numbers can be comparable. Why not follow the international guidelines then? Maybe because it would not paint the usual rosey picture.

Yes I do know what it is. Its a freaking survey, a poll. The EU numbers are mostly based on facts. Any survey or poll can be manipulated to show a certain picture. Cutting out people who have been unemployed for over 3 years is a classic example.

That you exclude potentionally millions of people based on a time limited unemployment factor? Thats not under reporting?

hehe that is if you count the soilders as "employed". Dunno the international guidelines on this one frankly, but considering they say that students and housewifes are to be considered unemployed, then well.



It is entirely relevant. The US labour force number is at best incomplete and missleading. Like it or not the US does not have 300 million labour force. The labour force is defined by international standards (which the US probally dont follow as its not in thier political interest), as the population from 15 (16) years to the offical retirement age and thats 380 million in Europe, not the 495 million you first used. Now what is it in the US? I cant find a similar number. If you use the 380 million and do the same math you used, it would give a worker participation of over 52%, one that is higher than the US. However I cant compare it to the US number as they are not comparable unless you want to belive that the whole population is the labour force, even the 1 day olds. Also the problems with the US numbers.. the 70 million "not in labour force" and the 70 million missing from the stats.. need to be resolved.

Point is to all discussing here, use numbers that can be compared

You want a perfectly calculated, completely comparable, meticulously calculated report? Ok.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf

End of discussion.

This is an incredibly exhaustive report that examines every single difference between reporting methods in the US and in foreign nations, and then recalculates every nations data to examine what the results would look like if calculated the same way.

The end result? If the EU calculated its unemployment rate the same way the US did, its unemployment rate would drop by about .4%. If the US calculated its unemployment rate the same way the EU did, it would remain the same.

So while there is a kernel of truth to your claim, its nowhere near as significant as you claim. That's that.

 

[PeteEU]

You want a perfectly calculated, completely comparable, meticulously calculated report? Ok.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf

End of discussion.

This is an incredibly exhaustive report that examines every single difference between reporting methods in the US and in foreign nations, and then recalculates every nations data to examine what the results would look like if calculated the same way.

The end result? If the EU calculated its unemployment rate the same way the US did, its unemployment rate would drop by about .4%. If the US calculated its unemployment rate the same way the EU did, it would remain the same.

So while there is a kernel of truth to your claim, its nowhere near as significant as you claim. That's that.

Yes its a big report and it does touch quite a few things, but it is hardly unbiased. To me it reads mostly as a defense of the US system, but other than that it has some issues.

For one it does not seriously debate or "clean up" the issue of definition of labour force or explain the odd results in the US numbers.. as far as I can see. They barely touch it.

And yes the issue of the 3 year "cut off" by the US... aka the "passive jobseeker". They trivialise said cutoff as putting it as insignificant. Fine lets cut all redheads out of the European stats, as they are "insignificant" too.

Point is that there are no real numbers on US "passive jobseekers".. a 1997 unpublished report states its 3.4% of the unemployement numbers.. based on what? Why unpublished? You see I got issues on this one

Yes they attempt to adjust the EU numbers to US standards, and visa versa The following is significant to me.

The Bureau does not make any adjustments to omit the
passive jobseekers in the Canadian and European unemployment
figures.

The above is mentioned when talking about adjusting EU numbers to US numbers. Now I know one of the big issues in European employment is longterm unemployment, and here "passive jobseekers" come under. While the numbers are not huge, they are not insignificant if you ask me. So the US uses US numbers without "passive jobseeker" but uses EU numbers with "passive jobseekers". But they are right, there are few numbers on how long a person has been unemployed so "streamlining" the numbers here is hard, but this number could throw the whole comparison off by a bit... and in the end, many bits is a whole lot.

The article also does not compensate from the 15 to 16 year old difference. Odd considering how easy it could be done. Infact there are very few adjustments done, and non of the "big" ones as far as I can see, which is clearly shown in the small differences in the results.

Secondly there is no debate on method.

The ILO states that population censuses and sample surveys
of households or individuals (often called labor force
surveys) constitute a comprehensive means of collecting data
on the labor force. Establishment surveys and administrative
records may also serve as sources for obtaining more precise,
more frequent, and more detailed statistics on particular components of the labor force. Although not explicitly stated by
the ILO, it is well recognized that labor force surveys are the
desirable source for international comparisons of unemployment.
In most countries, such surveys cover the entire noninstitutional
population of working age and broadly follow the
ILO standard definitions. Administrative data on employment
office registrations are not suitable for international comparisons,
because they do not cover all persons who may be unemployed
and because administrative regulations differ greatly
across countries.9 Therefore, exhibit 1 focuses on labor force
survey sources of unemployment statistics.

Who recognizes that a survey is better than hard numbers? Does this mean that a survey is better than actual results in an election? Can surveys not be manipulated to show a certain result? and so on.

I have no doubt that US jobless rates are lower than most western countries, but I do have my doubts about the way the US collects and figures out said jobless rates, because of its restrictive practises that limit the numbers. Thats not saying I dont have doubts about the EU methods either, just not as big doubts.

But as you said.. end of discussion.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

You still don't get it? It's not hard. The US has 47.6% of its population actively participating in the labor force. The EU has 44%. If the EU wanted to be a large enough economy to support the same percentage of workers as are supported by the US economy, it would need to add 17.8 million workers.

Yes, but it isnt, and your hypotetical situation doesnt prove anything. I can just as easily say if the US employment force was as big as Europe their unemployment would be 50%.

So whats your point really? I dont understand.

And I adjusted for that in a subsequent post, which brought the US total down from 50% to 47.6%. Still better than the EU.

Yet so irrelevant..

It matters because I'm pointing out that your economy is incapable of sustaining as much of the population in the workforce as the US is.

Its not really.. It might mean we have more people in pension age, it might mean we have a lower pension age in general, it might be official working age starts a year earlier.
Anyways, it doesnt matter.

You're right, that would be idiotic. I'm surprised it took you this long to bring that up, I would have thought you'd have claimed that hours ago.

Again, satire, right over your head.

:lol: You're a laugh riot.

I am laughing while I am reading your posts AND while I am answering them.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

You want a perfectly calculated, completely comparable, meticulously calculated report? Ok.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf

End of discussion.

This is an incredibly exhaustive report that examines every single difference between reporting methods in the US and in foreign nations, and then recalculates every nations data to examine what the results would look like if calculated the same way.

The end result? If the EU calculated its unemployment rate the same way the US did, its unemployment rate would drop by about .4%. If the US calculated its unemployment rate the same way the EU did, it would remain the same.

So while there is a kernel of truth to your claim, its nowhere near as significant as you claim. That's that.

That report is many years old.. European unemplyment is now 7%, Canadian 6.!% and the US 4.5%..

Besides, I wouldnt completely trust that report anyways as a source of correctness.

 

[RightOfCenter]

That report is many years old.. European unemplyment is now 7%, Canadian 6.!% and the US 4.5%..

Besides, I wouldnt completely trust that report anyways as a source of correctness.

Why the hell not? It's a government document, do you think they're lying just to prove you wrong?

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes its a big report and it does touch quite a few things, but it is hardly unbiased. To me it reads mostly as a defense of the US system, but other than that it has some issues.

For one it does not seriously debate or "clean up" the issue of definition of labour force or explain the odd results in the US numbers.. as far as I can see. They barely touch it.

And yes the issue of the 3 year "cut off" by the US... aka the "passive jobseeker". They trivialise said cutoff as putting it as insignificant. Fine lets cut all redheads out of the European stats, as they are "insignificant" too.

Point is that there are no real numbers on US "passive jobseekers".. a 1997 unpublished report states its 3.4% of the unemployement numbers.. based on what? Why unpublished? You see I got issues on this one

Yes they attempt to adjust the EU numbers to US standards, and visa versa The following is significant to me.



The above is mentioned when talking about adjusting EU numbers to US numbers. Now I know one of the big issues in European employment is longterm unemployment, and here "passive jobseekers" come under. While the numbers are not huge, they are not insignificant if you ask me. So the US uses US numbers without "passive jobseeker" but uses EU numbers with "passive jobseekers". But they are right, there are few numbers on how long a person has been unemployed so "streamlining" the numbers here is hard, but this number could throw the whole comparison off by a bit... and in the end, many bits is a whole lot.

The article also does not compensate from the 15 to 16 year old difference. Odd considering how easy it could be done. Infact there are very few adjustments done, and non of the "big" ones as far as I can see, which is clearly shown in the small differences in the results.

Secondly there is no debate on method.



Who recognizes that a survey is better than hard numbers? Does this mean that a survey is better than actual results in an election? Can surveys not be manipulated to show a certain result? and so on.

I have no doubt that US jobless rates are lower than most western countries, but I do have my doubts about the way the US collects and figures out said jobless rates, because of its restrictive practises that limit the numbers. Thats not saying I dont have doubts about the EU methods either, just not as big doubts.

But as you said.. end of discussion.

You're misreading the article. Where it said things like "The Bureau does not take any adjustments to omit the passive jobseekers in the Canadian and European unemployment figures," it's talking about in the official calculations. In this article, it DOES adjust for everything. If you read it again closely, you'll see that they DO adjust for the 15-16 year old difference as well. All of your concerns are answered in the report.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes, but it isnt, and your hypotetical situation doesnt prove anything. I can just as easily say if the US employment force was as big as Europe their unemployment would be 50%.

And that's the difference between you and I. You can say whatever you want, but I'll show you what I mean with numbers to back it up.

So whats your point really? I dont understand.

I'm well aware that there's a lot you don't understand.

Its not really.. It might mean we have more people in pension age, it might mean we have a lower pension age in general, it might be official working age starts a year earlier.
Anyways, it doesnt matter.

You're right, it might, if the report didnt adjust for those concerns.

I am laughing while I am reading your posts AND while I am answering them.

Simple pleasures...

 

[RightinNYC]

That report is many years old.. European unemplyment is now 7%, Canadian 6.!% and the US 4.5%..

Does the concept of comparative statistics elude you? Yes, the report is 7 years old, but the point behind it isn't. Unemployment is still calculated the same way in all these countries, so while the numbers might have changes, the math behind them hasn't.

Besides, I wouldnt completely trust that report anyways as a source of correctness.

Of course you wouldn't, because anything that threatens to contradict something that you've already decided in your head is automatically wrong.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

And that's the difference between you and I. You can say whatever you want, but I'll show you what I mean with numbers to back it up.

But you dont get the ppint man. I dont give a **** what hypotetical European unemployment would be in a hypotetical situation where the EU labour force was the same % of the total population as the US labor force. My stupid way of teasing you on this was starting to say that if the US labour force was as big as the EU labour force, the US unemployment would be close to 50%. This is just to show how irrelevant your argument is when we are talking about an EU unemployment rate that has shrunk from 10 to 7%.

Again, for the 5th time I ask you, "so what is your point"?

I'm well aware that there's a lot you don't understand

Most of all I dont understand you, but even more than that I dont understand the big group of war mongers on this forum who thinks the ideas and values of George w. Bush are superior to those of Jesus.

You're right, it might, if the report didnt adjust for those concerns.

Whats the point anyways? I never contested US unemployment figures. We were talking about official unemployment figures, not hypotetical ones. The difference between US reporting and EU reporting is certainly far smaller than any of those two compared to any other nations or group of nations. So I dont understand why you try to fight me on this..

Cant you just say, "yes, the falling EU unemployment rate is good, and I have read your PDF, I know quite some things about economy, and that PDF is the proof that the European economy is in a very positive trend, and heading towards even more positve growth"

In my personal opinion, the European economy will experience a bommb that will start before 2010. That you dont have to agree with, but if you want to stay on facts, you should admit the recovery and the positive trend of things.

Simple pleasures...

Arent the simple(and/or primitive) pleasures always the best ones?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Does the concept of comparative statistics elude you? Yes, the report is 7 years old, but the point behind it isn't. Unemployment is still calculated the same way in all these countries, so while the numbers might have changes, the math behind them hasn't.

Of course you wouldn't, because anything that threatens to contradict something that you've already decided in your head is automatically wrong.

Its 7 years old, I am not interested in reading it. Thats why I dont trust it, I dont just take your word for it. Besides, I never put the US way of unemployment under scrutiny. I was talking about official numbers in this thread, and those to be honest are very similarily measured in Europe and the US, especially if you see it on a worldwide scale;

I never said anything about this issue, so dont bug me about it. I dont care about hypotetical unemployment if the EU had the same % labour force as the US or the US had the same size labour force of the EU. All this is hypotetical, thats why I ridiculed you about all this. You dont manage to stick to the points of the threads and posts. You make something very specific into something broad and general, and then you start talking about all these other things as proof of something that is irrelevant of the issue at hand.

This I am sick of. its not only you but a whole bunch of people on this forum.

 

[PeteEU]

You're misreading the article. Where it said things like "The Bureau does not take any adjustments to omit the passive jobseekers in the Canadian and European unemployment figures," it's talking about in the official calculations. In this article, it DOES adjust for everything. If you read it again closely, you'll see that they DO adjust for the 15-16 year old difference as well. All of your concerns are answered in the report.

I am not misreading anything. Yes the article does adjust for everything however its the way it adjusts that can be questioned. The Passive jobseekers for example.There is one study on the US side on these numbers, which is unpublished (wonder why). That makes adjusting for this very hard, not to mention one must doubt the numbers.

On top of that there are alot of assumptions, not backed up by many facts. I dont like that at all.

Sorry, while the study is a good start, its full of what ifs, buts, and assumptions that frankly corrupt any final result. But its a good try, just easy to put holes through the results. It even has a nice explanation of the limitations of the study.. admirable.