- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,302
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Every month we have the claims of the "real unemployment rate," and even Trump and Sanders have questioned the official definitions.
Whenever people claim that the discouraged, or marginally attached, or part time workers or whoever should be I always ask WHY?...hoping for an intelligent argument. But I never get one....just assertions and claims of "they're really unemployed." Or even dictionary defintions, which are worse than useless because they would include children and dead people and just not useful in any way.
So....who should be classified as Unemployed and why is that definition more useful than the current? Questions that must be considered are "Why do we want to know this information?" "What use will knowing it be put?" "Is this definition the most useful for our purposes?'
As a review...the definition before 1967 was:
Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be
residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.
From 1967-1993:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days
From 1994-Present:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Every month we have the claims of the "real unemployment rate," and even Trump and Sanders have questioned the official definitions.
Whenever people claim that the discouraged, or marginally attached, or part time workers or whoever should be I always ask WHY?...hoping for an intelligent argument. But I never get one....just assertions and claims of "they're really unemployed." Or even dictionary defintions, which are worse than useless because they would include children and dead people and just not useful in any way.
So....who should be classified as Unemployed and why is that definition more useful than the current? Questions that must be considered are "Why do we want to know this information?" "What use will knowing it be put?" "Is this definition the most useful for our purposes?'
As a review...the definition before 1967 was:
Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be
residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.
From 1967-1993:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days
From 1994-Present:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
I would add anyone who is not disabled (working or not) that is getting "means tested" government assistance. It seems dishonest to say that unemployment is only 5% while 15% are unable to fully support themselves (and their dependents) without "means tested" government assistance. I would exclude only those that are permanently disabled, under the age of 18 or over the age of 65. In other words, simply having a "McJob" that does not exclude you from getting "means tested" government assistance should not count as (fully??) employed - perhaps a category of partially employed or underemployed needs to be added.
I would add anyone who is not disabled (working or not) that is getting "means tested" government assistance. It seems dishonest to say that unemployment is only 5% while 15% are unable to fully support themselves (and their dependents) without "means tested" government assistance. I would exclude only those that are permanently disabled, under the age of 18 or over the age of 65. In other words, simply having a "McJob" that does not exclude you from getting "means tested" government assistance should not count as (fully??) employed - perhaps a category of partially employed or underemployed needs to be added.
I would add anyone who is not disabled (working or not) that is getting "means tested" government assistance. It seems dishonest to say that unemployment is only 5% while 15% are unable to fully support themselves (and their dependents) without "means tested" government assistance. I would exclude only those that are permanently disabled, under the age of 18 or over the age of 65. In other words, simply having a "McJob" that does not exclude you from getting "means tested" government assistance should not count as (fully??) employed - perhaps a category of partially employed or underemployed needs to be added.
For starters everyone on welfare and all 20 million illegals . :lol:
I would add anyone who is not disabled (working or not) that is getting "means tested" government assistance. It seems dishonest to say that unemployment is only 5% while 15% are unable to fully support themselves (and their dependents) without "means tested" government assistance. I would exclude only those that are permanently disabled, under the age of 18 or over the age of 65. In other words, simply having a "McJob" that does not exclude you from getting "means tested" government assistance should not count as (fully??) employed - perhaps a category of partially employed or underemployed needs to be added.
Why? What exactly are you trying to measure and to what end? Why exclude under 18 and over 65? Keep in mind that not everyone who is unemployed "needs" a job or receives any kind of benefit.
It seems to me that you're trying to measure poverty, not unemployment.
I don't want to argue with your interpretation, but am just asking for clarification on one point.
Are we including any and all "means testing" of persons with "jobs" that are eligible to receive government assistance or subsidies for any reason...at any income levels ...or are poor-folk the subject of your focus?
I would add anyone who is not disabled (working or not) that is getting "means tested" government assistance. It seems dishonest to say that unemployment is only 5% while 15% are unable to fully support themselves (and their dependents) without "means tested" government assistance. I would exclude only those that are permanently disabled, under the age of 18 or over the age of 65. In other words, simply having a "McJob" that does not exclude you from getting "means tested" government assistance should not count as (fully??) employed - perhaps a category of partially employed or underemployed needs to be added.
I can see your point, but somehow cannot totally agree. But it is a number that should be published as publicly as unemployment. But paying means tested support is not a good idea any more and should probably be replaced by a minimum income of some sort.
The idea of a minimum income varies. Some take that to mean everyone (from birth until death) gets the same public assistance of $X/year (no matter what - like the Alaska Fund) while others take that to mean a negative income tax system for "needy households".
The main thing is to save the costs of bureaucracy. To do that the payment has to be untested for means.
Every month we have the claims of the "real unemployment rate," and even Trump and Sanders have questioned the official definitions.
Whenever people claim that the discouraged, or marginally attached, or part time workers or whoever should be I always ask WHY?...hoping for an intelligent argument. But I never get one....just assertions and claims of "they're really unemployed." Or even dictionary defintions, which are worse than useless because they would include children and dead people and just not useful in any way.
So....who should be classified as Unemployed and why is that definition more useful than the current? Questions that must be considered are "Why do we want to know this information?" "What use will knowing it be put?" "Is this definition the most useful for our purposes?'
As a review...the definition before 1967 was:
Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be
residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.
From 1967-1993:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days
From 1994-Present:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
The problem with that idea is that in order to help the (poorest?) 15% then you must "over serve" the 85% that do not any assistance. It simply flips the "means tested" deal since only the top X% are taxed to pay for it.
Of course the taxes would be structured to fit. But that is quiet doable.
There is a reason we have multiple measures of unemployment, because there are multiple useful ways to define it. Here, this might help as a highlight: Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Yes, I am familiar with the alternative measures. But they all use the same definition of "unemployed." I'm talking about those who want to change the definition altogether, or eliminate the U-3 and redefine the numerator of the U-4, U-5, or U-6 as being "unemployed."
Being on welfare and having a job are not mutually exclusive.
Every month we have the claims of the "real unemployment rate," and even Trump and Sanders have questioned the official definitions.
Whenever people claim that the discouraged, or marginally attached, or part time workers or whoever should be I always ask WHY?...hoping for an intelligent argument. But I never get one....just assertions and claims of "they're really unemployed." Or even dictionary defintions, which are worse than useless because they would include children and dead people and just not useful in any way.
So....who should be classified as Unemployed and why is that definition more useful than the current? Questions that must be considered are "Why do we want to know this information?" "What use will knowing it be put?" "Is this definition the most useful for our purposes?'
As a review...the definition before 1967 was:
Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be
residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.
From 1967-1993:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days
From 1994-Present:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
Every month we have the claims of the "real unemployment rate," and even Trump and Sanders have questioned the official definitions.
Those in unemployment are people aged 15 and over who were without work during the reference week, available for work and actively seeking work during the previous four weeks including the reference week. Without work refers to those not in paid employment or self-employment during the reference week. Available for work refers to those who were available for paid employment or self-employment during the reference week or four weeks after the reference week in the case of EU countries. Seeking work refers those who took specific steps to actively seek paid employment or self-employment during a specified recent period operationalised as previous four weeks including the survey reference week.
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?