- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,032
- Reaction score
- 19,491
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I've always contended that these unemployment numbers are meaningless and this just supports my theory.
OTOH, I was listening to the radio on my way around today and they were discussing how millions of people are pressuring the states to legalize online gaming wit only one major player fighting it - Sheldon Adelson, who can't abide the thought of anyone making money except his own selfish-prick billionaire self. And it made me think that if millions are worried about this form of wasting money - how bad can things be really?
I don't think the employment picture is all that pretty but apparently plenty of people have good enough jobs to even care about online gaming. I suppose only a Nevadan would fully grok this, but you should see what I'm referring to.
Thanks for the intelligent and logical response to my original question.
Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense? I'm honestly curious what source you used, because that is about the strangest, and most off the wall claim I've ever heard.
That is, once again, completely inaccurate. The total number of those unemployed is not tracked through unemployment compensation, and those who fail to receive benefits may still be counted as unemployed. Straight from the source:False. BLS tracks UNEMPLOYMENT by the total number of people registered in unemployment programs who can therefor be tracked as looking for work. If those people stop participating in an unemployment program they drop off the U3 statistic, so they are not counted as unemployed in the official unemployment number. They do show up on U6, though.
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
In my opinion Reid did exactly that, he sabotaged his own bill. He had 61 votes for the 3 month extension and if he stayed with it the bill was a fore gone conclusion or a sure thing the unemployment benefits would be extended. But he added a bunch of stuff to it, said he would allow no amendments from Republicans and basically made the new version so offensive to the Republicans that they couldn't except. Not even Collins.
So the unemployed do not get their benefits, but more important to Senator Reid than peoples lives, he has a campaign issue to use in hopes that his democratic party can retain control of the senate and Reid keep his job as majority leader. He will blame the Republicans for not passing the unemployment benefits when it was Reid himself who was responsible.
I would expect nothing less out of Senator Reid.
It is strange, yes. It is also off the wall. But it is true, nonetheless.
I'll leave it to you to look up what all those categories mean, it's all there on that site.
Which is completely untrue. BLS doesn't get the info for the Employment Situation from UI records. There's a monthly survey and the national figures are extrapolated from the results. Unemployed is defined as did not work during the survey reference week, wants to work, could have started work during the reference week, and actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week. Those on temporary layoff need not have looked for work.You don't. You fall out when you stop getting them. If BLS can't track you through a government unemployment program or tax data then you don't count in the U3 Unemployment statistic.
Discouraged are included in the U4, and as part of the Marginally Attached in the U5 and U6. Discouraged workers are those who want to work, are available for work, looked for work in the previous 12 months but not the previous 4 weeks and who is not looking because s/he believes there is no work available, they don't have the right skills/education, or believes they would suffer discrimination.I would guess what Zero Hedge is talking about is the very real phenomenon where people dropping out of Unemployment programs are no longer counted as employed. They are "discouraged workers" and only get counted in U6 Unemployment figures.
No, the UE rate is unemployed divided by the labor force, which is employed plus unemployed. If someone is no longer trying to work, they are no longer part of the labor force (the basic concept of the labor force is those available for work. Someone not trying to get a job is obviously not available to be hired).So if you have 3 out of 10 people unemployed but enrolled in a jobs program then U3 would show 7/10 employed and a 30% unemployment. If those 1 of those people drops out of the unemployment program, even though they never found a job, the U3 number is 7/9 or 23% unemployment. It looks like unemployment is dropping when in fact it isn't.
We've never seen such a thing before. They tend to move in the same direction at about the same rate of change. Oh, and U6 is NOT a measure of unemployment as it includes many employed in the numerator.What we will see, more than likely, is a precipitous drop in the U3 unemployment with a far smaller or non-existent drop in U6 unemployment.
That is, once again, completely inaccurate. The total number of those unemployed is not tracked through unemployment compensation, and those who fail to receive benefits may still be counted as unemployed. Straight from the source:
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Why are you starting with the U6 and U5 instead of just using the number from the report?
But do you see how someone might think from your post that the U6 did measure that in some way?
Yes it can and no it doesn't
You just have to take the series "Part time for economic reasons all industries, put it on the s as me line as Labor Force (or employed, depending on what base you want) and divide.
We've never seen such a thing before. They tend to move in the same direction at about the same rate of change. Oh, and U6 is NOT a measure of unemployment as it includes many employed in the numerator.
That is precisely what just happened.
Reid is one sly devil who will do anything and everything to remain the majority leader. Nothing else matters to him even if the million plus unemployed goes without benefits.
Yup. The funny thing is, this is actually good policy, just done for evil reasons and so one can make spiteful arguments. Republicans are going to have to be pretty fast on the ball to point out how he killed this bill to the point where it will actually sink in; because that's a fine point that I'm thinking is beyond the capability of the general public to really delve into. Kind of a weird black-flag op, really.
The general public do not pay any attention to the inner workings of the senate. Right now most of the reporting is not on the agreed bill between Reid and the 6 Republicans that would have passed and extended the benefits, it is now on how the republicans are preventing extension of unemployment benefits with the latest vote.
Nothing is being said of Reid changing the agreed bill to something totally different after he had an agreement. It will be very hard to get the truth out on this one.
Absolutely untrue. There is no maximum time As long as you're trying to find work, you're classified as unemployed.
A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment shows over 2.5 million unemployed over a year.
The BLS term is "Labor Underutilization.Yes, U6 measures unemployment and under employment.
Good thing for me I didn't say "always," isn't it? i said "tends to"But no, they don't always move in the same direction and at the same rate. Just this past month U3 dropped 0.3% while U6 remained steady. The month prior the U6 declined at 3 times the rate of U3. And before that U6 increased while U3 remained steady, and so on.
Not necessarily. The U6 and U5 both include the Marginally Attached: Those who want to work, are available to work, and who looked for work in the previous 12 months but not previous 4 weeks. So someone could "drop out" but not be available or no longer want a job and therefore would not be marginally attached. Note too, that most of the marginally attached aren't looking for personal reasons such as care of family, going back to school, illness/injury, etc. The discouraged are are seen in the U4.Also, those who stop looking for work to show up in U6 but drop out of U3.
Yup. This is one of those things where it's all about Optics > Reality.
They ask. If the person is still looking for work, s/he is unemployed, otherwise, they're not in the labor force...not competing for work.Then how do they differentiate between people who...
Return to school
They don't ask about "early." And why would you consider them unemployed..especially if it's pure choice. But again, if they look for work, they're unemployed...if not, then they're not in the labor force...not competing for work.Retire early
This one, I'm a little shakier on, but if I understand it correctly, then if the business is not yet in place and operational, then it is not yet a business. So the person isn't working or running a business with the intent of profit, nor is s/he looking for work. So s/he wouldn't be in the labor force that month.start their own business but it's not off the ground yet
reinoe said:Re hiring: some of those jobs are simply fake. As in companies post jobs with no intention of ever filling them. I saw that happen at where I used to work. They had about many job openings and were never filled. I know several qualified people who applied for them and recommended some others. And I don't mean not filled by the people I know I mean not filled at all ever. I'm not sure why companies do this sort of thing.
They don't ask about "early." And why would you consider them unemployed..especially if it's pure choice. But again, if they look for work, they're unemployed...if not, then they're not in the labor force...not competing for work.
Interesting perspective. Just for giggles I pulled up my local small town paper and looked at the classified. 2 pages. Anything from wait staff and cooks for Huddle House, hotel desk and cleaning staff, entry level manufacturing, several levels of nursing positions for hospital, in home and retirement facilities, tax preparation and sales positions. Seems there are some jobs available, and at various levels of skill and pay.
I didn't quote your entire response - just reading it gave me a headache and a distinct desire to punch a wall it was so obtuse.
The above part I did quote simply because my original comment that you did quote and respond to said very clearly to anyone with passing knowledge of the English language that I agreed with Rand Paul who said that any extension of unemployment insurance benefits had to be paid for and had to include a job training component.
Unemployment is meant for short term compensation while you try and find another job it isn't a long term lifestyle. if you can't find some kind of work any kind of work in 2 years you have issues.
They are already out of the labor force in reality.
Taxing the hell out of productive people to keep unproductive people reliant on Government for Votes is the DNC way... and that just keeps people chained in a cycle of poverty.Sure cut them off, and remove them from the labour force for being lazy.... but that does not mean that there are jobs for them to get and that is the problem. All it does, is increase the poverty levels.. and I guess that is the strategy of the GOP these days.
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?