- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,302
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Cheap shot.
What I said is in plain English. If you don't understand, that is really 'n truly too bad.
Had English lessons recently ... ?
And you are saying that since 2008/2009 Americans have been better off?
So, now pull the other leg. You just out of kindergarten ... ?
A higher E-to-P ratio is better than a lower one - now you give me concrete evidence why it isn't so.
I want examples, and non-refutable evidence ...
Yes. Clearly the economy is much improved since then.And you are saying that since 2008/2009 Americans have been better off?
Ok. June 1953, Emp-pop ratio =57.1%, UE rate = 2.5% Meaning 57.1% of the population was working and 2.5% of those doing something about work were unsuccessful.A higher E-to-P ratio is better than a lower one - now you give me concrete evidence why it isn't so.
I want examples, and non-refutable evidence ...
Yes, 'tis sad, 'tis sad - but oh so true.
And Germany is not the only country. France has an increasing obesity rate as well. The only question that remains is, "Why do the Eurasian countries show much lower rates (by about at least half) than the lowest European/American countries"?
OECD Obesity rates amongst adults (2012):
View attachment 67200133
Yes, yes, - the US is way down at the very bottom, meaning the most obese of the lot ...
Me: In each state you need not "register" yourself for unemployment?
Well, sure. But that has nothing to do with the Unemployment Rate.
In better days, one worker per household could earn enough to take care of the whole family. I think most people would return to that arrangement in a heartbeat.
How else can a valid calculation of the "Unemployment Rate" then be made ... ?
Well, sure. But that has nothing to do with the Unemployment Rate.
How can you have a valid calculation if you only include people receiving UI benefits??
Perhaps, but history moves on.
In fifty years, someone on this forum will look back at 2020 as "better days", unless America gets its finger out (of you know what) and understand that Income Disparity is a cancer upon working Americans.
It must be corrected, and only will the renunciation of 30% flat-rate taxation above $105K per year achieve that objective. Rates should go back up before LBJ stoopidly started tinkering with them - when they were at 90%.
I give up. You make comments without justifying them.
Moving right along ...
Because the "U" in "UI" (unemployment insurance) stands for ... uh, "unemployment"?
No, I think he's resorting to asking you provide rationale for your belief the definition should be altered. Claiming the definition should be altered because YOU think so is completely subjective and is thus not a valid argument. I know for a fact he's asked you many times for why and you never respond.So, you are resorting to 'standard phrases' now?
They've changed it twice. How exactly do the facts fit your narrative?BTW, the answer to the OP is irrelevant because it is very obvious to me that the BLS will alter the makeup of the term 'unemployment rate' as much as they can to make the unemployment rate seem as positive as possible.
Can you provide definitive proof the numbers are corrupt? Better yet, can you even provide concrete evidence? You don't even have to prove anything, just provide a couple pieces of concrete evidence besides, "c'mon, you know".To assume no corruption whatsoever is naive in the extremis.
Source?They merely stipulate that a statistic is to include/exclude whatever statistics are required to leave the desired result. All legal.
Likely because it's not true and you've never once provided a single piece of concrete evidence to support it. He's even stipulated it's possible that a particular individual might have an agenda, but the overall operation does not have a single piece of concrete evidence to suggest corruption.Surely pinqy will disagree with this (he has before)
I don't work for the BLS and I trust his word far more than I will ever trust yours on this subject. Likely because he provides actual evidence for his positions, evidence beyond "ya'know".but he claims to have worked for the BLS- so there is obviously a huge conflict of interest there on this subject
Wait, wait, wait...you claim pinqy, who worked in the BLS and is always willing to back up his post with actual facts, is not a trustworthy source on this topic and then you try to use DONALD TRUMP as a source? You serious, Clark?Try the Federal Reserve and the two leading anti-establishment candidates in this election - Donald Trump
Huh? The unemployment rate is not and has never been based on registering as unemployed or eligibility or receipt of UI benefits. What do I need to "justify?"
Unemployment benefits are generally given only to those registering as unemployed, and often on conditions ensuring that they seek work and do not currently have a job.
To begin a claim, the unemployed worker must apply for benefits through a state unemployment agency. In certain instances, the employer initiates the process.
I have no idea how your reply is a response to my quote.It is "indicative of movement" in the employment picture. That is ALL that is necessary for policy making. (Presuming that the rate was actually employed in policy-making, which is a stretch of the imagination in most countries.)pinqy said:Huh? The unemployment rate is not and has never been based on registering as unemployed or eligibility or receipt of UI benefits. What do I need to "justify?"
No, I said nothing of the sort.So, you are correcting me (and you have every right to do so) because one need not show up at an Unemployment Office in the US and register to collect UI?
Every month, Census visits or calls 60,000 households. Next week is the week they go out in April. Excluded are people under 15, active duty military, prisoners, people in institutions such as nursing homes or mental health care. They will ask if, this week, the respondents owned a business/farm, worked for pay, or worked 15+ hours unpaid in a family business/farm. If they did not work, they're asked if they have a job but were just out due to vacation, strike, illness/injury, or weather.And, indeed, if the above IS true but the BLS finagles the number to include other unemployment-subsets not-registered, please explain the why, how and wherefore. Either one is working (regardless of the number of hours worked or even the days/weeks not worked) or one is "not working" and therefore not eligible for UI.
I believe the "confusion" usually lies with the fact that many times the statistics don't support what people want to believe. Whether they are good or bad, someone will find the numbers don't support what they want to be true. In my experiences, that seems to be the biggest factor behind how people view the process.Is that clear enough? I'm not sure where the confusion was.
Is that clear enough? I'm not sure where the confusion was.
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.
A better reflection of what? I think that's what people sometimes forget, that each of these numbers have a unique purpose, a purpose not tied to any political discourse.the department of labor already tracks all of this.
the biggest number that most people have an issue with is the U3 number.
the numbers that give a better reflection are the U5 and U6 numbers.
A better reflection of what? I think that's what people sometimes forget, that each of these numbers have a unique purpose, a purpose not tied to any political discourse.
I live in France. It is obviously done differently over here. Largely because everybody in Europe has an identity card and all governmental assistance is obtained by means of that card.
If the Census Bureau wants to do it the way you have indicated ... then fine. But I don't think it is adequate. It's just sampling, and not additioning.
In Europe, when unemployed, the Bureau of Employment monitors the rehiring process:
*All unemployed (receiving unemployment-benefits) respond regularly to an inquiry (either personally or by email) regarding their employment status. (If cheating, that is, receiving UI-payments though they are employed, their UI is terminated and they face a fine.)
*Visits are imposed and the unemployed must attend, where employment perspectives are discussed with interlocutors who assit and advise - regarding CVs (Résumés), interview techniques, etc. You must also show your personal activity as regards looking for a job. And the unemployed have access to a national job-opening database updated by employers seeking work.
*You may refuse a job-offer made by means of the Employment Bureau's auspices only twice. The third-refusal and your benefits stop.
*Further vocational training is also discussed where thought necessary, because it is offered free, gratis and for nothing.
*Different countries do the above differently - but all employ the person's identity-card in order to assure the process benefits only those who pay taxes in the country concerned
I think you will find that the above approach is more "hands-on" than stateside. But, at the same time, the EU has at present an unemployment rate much higher than the US. (For which, the EU remains forever indebted to the Great Recession imported from the US.)
The two processes are evidently very different ...
the U3 numbers ignore certain worker statuses and doesn't count them.All 6 measures do that.
The U5 is unemployed plus the marginally attached (wants a job, available for work, looked in last 12 months but not last 4 weeks) as a percent of the Labor Force plus the marginally attached.The U5 number includes people that have dropped out of the workforce or those that have quit looking for a job.
Close enough.the U6 number includes those people plus part-time workers that are working part time for economic reasons, and
it also includes marginally attached workers.
What does that mean? What makes something the "real" unemployment rate?the real unemployment rate is somewhere between the U5 and the U6 number.
The formula has always been Unemployed/Labor Force. I gave the 3 definitions; please explain why the previous ones were "more robust."the U3 number is purely a political number that is used that is why the formula was changed.
it use to be a bit more robust in reporting.
The U-3 is not a political number...it's the one that best shows the state of the labor market.
The U5 is unemployed plus the marginally attached (wants a job, available for work, looked in last 12 months but not last 4 weeks) as a percent of the Labor Force plus the marginally attached.
Close enough.
What does that mean? What makes something the "real" unemployment rate?
The formula has always been Unemployed/Labor Force. I gave the 3 definitions; please explain why the previous ones were "more robust."
The U-3 is not a political number...it's the one that best shows the state of the labor market.
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?