Page 34 of 48 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 480

Thread: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

  1. #331
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,252

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    And how do you figure that someone not trying to work is able to work? How could they be working if they're not trying? By your standard, unemployed would include around 80 million adults who don't want a job.
    From dealing with people over my 35 years of business experience. There is a segment of the population that will take whatever they can get and lack the initiative to actually get a job. You seem very naive when it comes to actually dealing with people. You rely on a survey of people that designate them as Discouraged. What you fail to recognize is that survey is easily skewed by the answers people give but the real reality is that there are almost double the number of reported discouraged workers each month under the Obama Administration vs. the Bush Administration

    This economic performance is terrible to say the least

  2. #332
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    From dealing with people over my 35 years of business experience. ToThere is a segment of the population that will take whatever they can get and lack the initiative to actually get a job.
    And how many of them did you hire? None. How could you have? They weren't available for you to hire, anymore than any other person not trying to work. So when we're measuring people who could be working, you can't count them.

    Yu seem very naive when it comes to actually dealing with people. You rely on a survey of people that designate them as Discouraged. What you fail to recognize is that survey is easily skewed by the answers people give
    No, I'm well aware of that. "Have you looked for work? What exactly have you done?" is relatively reliable. "You have not looked for work, would you take one if offered is less reliable. And therefore one of the reasons they're not included as unemployed, but tracked separately.

    but the real reality is that there are almost double the number of reported discouraged workers each month under the Obama Administration vs. the Bush Administration

    This economic performance is terrible to say the least
    Have I argued otherwise?
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  3. #333
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,655

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    No one has said otherwise. But let's re_examine what I said and you claim is false: "The people aren't available until they try to find work."
    Ok, explain how. Person X has not so now anything to find a job since January. How could she have been hired in July?

    But the people ARE available, that is what you don't get, and they actually DO need jobs. Person X COULD have been hired in July IF the economy was creating enough jobs that she felt it was worthwhile to apply. Her apathy is commentary on the job market, not on her willingness to work.


    But until they do, can they be hired?

    You fail to see the real issue here. Person X could spend every day reading job ads, but if they never find a job to apply for they don't show up on the U-3 statistics because they don't meet the criteria for "unemployed". It doesn't mean that person X isn't looking.


    Not necessarily. Need and desperation aren't factors. Paris Hilton giving up looking for a tv job would make her discouraged.

    What percentage of unemployed people do you think fit your Paris Hilton example versus my example?


    You'd win the Nobel Prize if you could figure out how to measure that.

    It's already tracked by BLS.


    They're measured. But they're not unemployed.

    They are "marginally attached", meaning they are willing to work, have been actively looking in the last 12 months but didn't meet the "unemployment" criteria (ie. active in the Unemployment system) in 4 weeks. They are included in the U-6 numbers but not in the U-3 and therefore U-6 is a FAR better measure of how many jobs the country needs to create than is U-3.


    It's not a qualitative measure...all it's supposed to measure is percent of people who could, in reality, have been working. That it doesn't measure something it's not supposed to isn't a flaw.

    And the "marginally attached" people "could have been working". The fact that U-3 ignores this group of people is why we can celebrate simply because it drops. It's like a refugee camp celebrating that there are fewer people in line for rice while ignoring that many people are too weak to get in line.


    Right. But the U3 isn't meant to "measure the pain" it's meant to be an objective measure of the labor market....the U6 is very subjective.

    So you are saying that nobody should use U-3 to trumpet job market improvement? Are you saying that anyone trumpeting the U-3 numbers as a positive sign for the economy are using them wrong? Well, hello. Welcome to my friggin' point!


    Wrong question. The analogous question is which one could reach the island.

    No, that is analogous to your silly argument of how U-3 numbers are used. In a round about way you agree with my point that the U-3 numbers are piss poor for tracking the actual pain in the job market, you are just too myopic to see that that is precisely how people try to use the U-3 number. My whole point is that if someone wanted to use a BLS statistic to actually track improvement in the job market then U-6 is a far more appropriate statistic.

  4. #334
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,252

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    pinqy;1062147882]And how many of them did you hire? None. How could you have? They weren't available for you to hire, anymore than any other person not trying to work. So when we're measuring people who could be working, you can't count them.
    You continue to miss the point, discouraged workers are people who have stopped looking for work based upon a survey. How do you know that survey is accurate and the reality is they are actually available for work but stopped looking because of laziness, lack of ambition, or the available funds from the taxpayers to keep food on the table?


    No, I'm well aware of that. "Have you looked for work? What exactly have you done?" is relatively reliable. "You have not looked for work, would you take one if offered is less reliable. And therefore one of the reasons they're not included as unemployed, but tracked separately.

    Have I argued otherwise?
    Point being that there are record numbers of Discouraged workers under this Administration which affects the unemployment rate and the more discouraged the better the rate looks. Regardless of whether or not people are discouraged or the numbers are being skewed by the Administration it is a serious problem that stems for poor leadership and poor economic policies.

  5. #335
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,545
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    But the people ARE available, that is what you don't get, and they actually DO need jobs. Person X COULD have been hired in July IF the economy was creating enough jobs that she felt it was worthwhile to apply. Her apathy is commentary on the job market, not on her willingness to work.

    You fail to see the real issue here. Person X could spend every day reading job ads, but if they never find a job to apply for they don't show up on the U-3 statistics because they don't meet the criteria for "unemployed". It doesn't mean that person X isn't looking.

    What percentage of unemployed people do you think fit your Paris Hilton example versus my example?

    It's already tracked by BLS.

    They are "marginally attached", meaning they are willing to work, have been actively looking in the last 12 months but didn't meet the "unemployment" criteria (ie. active in the Unemployment system) in 4 weeks. They are included in the U-6 numbers but not in the U-3 and therefore U-6 is a FAR better measure of how many jobs the country needs to create than is U-3.

    And the "marginally attached" people "could have been working". The fact that U-3 ignores this group of people is why we can celebrate simply because it drops. It's like a refugee camp celebrating that there are fewer people in line for rice while ignoring that many people are too weak to get in line.

    So you are saying that nobody should use U-3 to trumpet job market improvement? Are you saying that anyone trumpeting the U-3 numbers as a positive sign for the economy are using them wrong? Well, hello. Welcome to my friggin' point!

    No, that is analogous to your silly argument of how U-3 numbers are used. In a round about way you agree with my point that the U-3 numbers are piss poor for tracking the actual pain in the job market, you are just too myopic to see that that is precisely how people try to use the U-3 number. My whole point is that if someone wanted to use a BLS statistic to actually track improvement in the job market then U-6 is a far more appropriate statistic.
    At the very LEAST the U-6 is more helpful. Even then it does not track the effects of all potential employees who are not too old, too young, or too disabled to work but for some reason have stated in the latest survey they are not seeking work. Discouraged worker figures only measure ex-job seekers after 12 months of not seeking, then they just drop into the 40 million or so persons the government estimates are "not seeking" work but are able and available for work.

    BTW, welcome to the argument for reality, and not the fantasy many economic theorist's and our government want us to buy into.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  6. #336
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Someone must have hacked your account and posted this, then:



    Like I said, that shouldn't be surprising since it says very little about taxes at all.
    No, nobody hacked my account. I stated that to let him know he needs to apply that logic to business too. See above

  7. #337
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,252

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    No, nobody hacked my account. I stated that to let him know he needs to apply that logic to business too. See above
    You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund but more concerning is the fact that you appear to care more about what someone else or some business pays in Federal Income taxes as if we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt.

  8. #338
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    We have adequate safety nets in place and because we have a very diverse economy and 50 sovereign states there is no comparison between this country and Chile no matter how you want to spin it. Many banks did not want to take TARP loans and that speaks volumes about the real problem in this country, the inability to hold people accountable for poor choices. The fact remains liberalism has created a dependent society where there aren't consequences for failure. You prove that with every post.
    http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/19449.pdf

    And, you are correct that our safety nets in place are much better than Chile's at the time of the crisis. They had pretty much privatized mostly everything and dismantled most of their safety nets. My concern is we are heading in that directions with warped attitudes.

  9. #339
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund but more concerning is the fact that you appear to care more about what someone else or some business pays in Federal Income taxes as if we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt.
    Keep changing the subject.

  10. #340
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,252

    Re: US unemployment lowest in 4 years

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/19449.pdf

    And, you are correct that our safety nets in place are much better than Chile's at the time of the crisis. They had pretty much privatized mostly everything and dismantled most of their safety nets. My concern is we are heading in that directions with warped attitudes.
    And my concern is that we are headed in the direction of the European Socialist model where Govt. spending is the largest part of GDP and that is a prescription for disaster.

Page 34 of 48 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •