The current employment market shows a disturbing trend in the character of both individuals and government. There are clearly a large number of people who feel they are too good for a low paying job. But government actions are contradictory and counter productive. On one hand the new health care law encourages employers to reduce working hours, while at the same time attempts to buy votes by pushing higher minimum wages and extending unemployment. And then there is the push for amnesty to get people to fill those jobs that are available. When you put these factors together it becomes clear that the goal of the federal government is not to decrease unemployment at all, but to create a dependent underclass while dividing the population and pitting groups against each other. I'm not buying that our federal government is collectively too stupid to see it. I think they know exactly what they are doing, which is disturbing because it is very clear that their intent is to better their own positions rather than those of the citizens.
That's your problem then, but even the right as a whole doesn't dispute the BLS numbers. If you choose to ignore reality, that's on you not me.
And what in my post was misleading?Ladies & gentlemen ... an example of purposefully misleading ... which in a way is better than not knowing it's misleading.
Except it hasn't been :shrug: The number of jobs created since the end of 2009 has dwarfed discouraged workers.Even if the job growth is outstripped by those giving up by 3 to 1?
However you slice it, the U3 figure is the official measure of unemployment, and the effective unemployment rate is nowhere near 20%.
So you're good with the situation as it is and looking forward to more of the same?
Yes ... like you could keep your doctor and your plan ... whether they exist or not is just trivial semantic wordplay.However you slice it, the U3 figure is the official measure of unemployment, and the effective unemployment rate is nowhere near 20%.
Yes ... like you could keep your doctor and your plan
whether they exist or not is just trivial semantic wordplay.
Nope ... the U4 has consistently been higher for the last 3 years or so ... couldn't happen unless there were more of them than jobs created.Except it hasn't been :shrug: The number of jobs created since the end of 2009 has dwarfed discouraged workers.
Irrelevant to the topic.
We know the U3 exists, and we know that it's the official measure of unemployment. We also know that no measure of un- or underemployment puts the number anywhere close to 20%.
Umm.. No. The U4 is calculated by adding together those that are categorically unemployed and those who have dropped out of the labor market due to discouraging job prospects. It has also declined from a high of 10.5 percent in late 2009 to its current level of 7.2 percent.Nope ... the U4 has consistently been higher for the last 3 years or so ... couldn't happen unless there were more of them than jobs created.
That makes what I said true ... thank you.Umm..It has also declined from a high of 10.5 percent in late 2009 to its current level of 7.2 percent.No. The U4 is calculated by adding together those that are categorically unemployed and those who have dropped out of the labor market due to discouraging job prospects.
Meanwhile the number of discouraged workers has declined by over 300 thousand since the end of 2009, while jobs have increased by 6.5 million, blowing a nice size hole in your previous claim.
you guys know the drill. the economy is (awesome!) (horrible!), and it is the (accomplishment) (failure) of (___________.)
Erm.. LOL? Your claim that those who have become discouraged outnumber those who have found employment by a 3 to 1 margin is plainly wrong. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what these figures represent.That makes what I said true ... thank you.
The reasoning would lie in the fact that the U-6 figures include roughly 10 million individuals who are employed, hence its obvious limitations as an unemployment rate.
Review the posts ... the 3 to 1 comment was relevant to the U6 vs U3 topic ... U4 is higher than U3 which means job creation ain't keeping up.Erm.. LOL? Your claim that those who have become discouraged outnumber those who have found employment by a 3 to 1 margin is plainly wrong. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what these figures represent.
It means nothing of the sort! The U4 is a combination of all unemployed and all discouraged. Quite literally the only way the U4 could be lower is if the number of discouraged workers dipped into the negative.Review the posts ... the 3 to 1 comment was relevant to the U6 vs U3 topic ... U4 is higher than U3 which means job creation ain't keeping up
It means nothing of the sort! The U4 is a combination of all unemployed and all discouraged. Quite literally the only way the U4 could be lower is if the number of discouraged workers dipped into the negative.
•U4 : U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.It means nothing of the sort! The U4 is a combination of all unemployed and all discouraged. Quite literally the only way the U4 could be lower is if the number of discouraged workers dipped into the negative.
Yes and? Still trying to wrap your head around the fact that the U4 quite literally cannot be lower than the U3? The U4 has steadily declined since the end of the recession, while employment has increased by over 6 million. Your claim was unfortunately centered around a fundamental error in your understanding of the data.•U4 : U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
Yes and? Still trying to wrap your head around the fact that the U4 quite literally cannot be lower than the U3? The U4 has steadily declined since the end of the recession, while employment has increased by over 6 million. Your claim was unfortunately centered around a fundamental error in your understanding of the data.
Yes and? Still trying to wrap your head around the fact that the U4 quite literally cannot be lower than the U3? The U4 has steadily declined since the end of the recession, while employment has increased by over 6 million..Your claim was unfortunately centered around a fundamental error in your understanding of the data
Review the posts ... the 3 to 1 comment was relevant to the U6 vs U3 topic ... U4 is higher than U3 which means job creation ain't keeping up.
If you insist the job creation number is doing well then there is nothing else to say.
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?