• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

Perotista said:
You telling me they do not revise the month employment rates. I think you better tell that to the news stations. I keep hearing them report in October the the monthly revised unemployment rate is so and so for September. Now I think it is you who does not know what you are talking about. Either that or all these years the newspapers, TV news and on the radio have been filling the airways with propaganda.
Click to expand...
Since the September data wasn't published until October, and the next release is in November, how are you claiming you heard revisions to September?
The Official Employment numbers (newjobs) are revised for 2 months after publication, but the unemployment and other labor force data x are not, except in the December data.
Do you really need me to link through all the press releases to prove my point?

Now I really do not know about you, who in the world said one should count retirees?
Click to expand...
Ptif keeps calling all those not in the Labor Force unemployed

Or full time students? ETC. Etc. If a person loses his job even if he stops looking for a job and he is not retired, a student etc. etc., he still should be counted.
Click to expand...
Why? And why only those who lose their jobs? If you're not trying to get a job, you won't: it doesn't matter if you were laid off, fired, quit, retired, etc....none of them are available.

Now here again, I have heard on the news that although more people were hired this month than lost their jobs this month, the unemployment rose a tenth of a point because a lot of those who stopped looking for work started looking again. So why weren't those people counted as unemployed to begin with.
Click to expand...
The unemployment rate dropped from August to September. So no you didn't hear that this month.

But to answer your question: retired, in school, looking after kids or parents, I'll, injured, Oregon a Mr.... all kinds of reasons people aren't looking for work. Some change their minds, some become able to get a job... many reasons


1. you are either unemployed, out of work or you are working.
Click to expand...
Is that three categories, or two?
But what is wrong with the historical divisions: working, not working but trying to work, not trying to work.

That seems pretty simple to me.
 
pinqy said:
Since the September data wasn't published until October, and the next release is in November, how are you claiming you heard revisions to September?
The Official Employment numbers (newjobs) are revised for 2 months after publication, but the unemployment and other labor force data x are not, except in the December data.
Do you really need me to link through all the press releases to prove my point?


Ptif keeps calling all those not in the Labor Force unemployed


Why? And why only those who lose their jobs? If you're not trying to get a job, you won't: it doesn't matter if you were laid off, fired, quit, retired, etc....none of them are available.


The unemployment rate dropped from August to September. So no you didn't hear that this month.

But to answer your question: retired, in school, looking after kids or parents, I'll, injured, Oregon a Mr.... all kinds of reasons people aren't looking for work. Some change their minds, some become able to get a job... many reasons



Is that three categories, or two?
But what is wrong with the historical divisions: working, not working but trying to work, not trying to work.

That seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...

If you want to count all those not seeking employment at the moment non-existent, that's fine. But if they're non-existent because they gave up looking for work, what are they doing receiving unemployment benefits, why count them when they start looking, they're non-existent. My point is either they exist, if so count them or they don't. If you're unemployed, you're unemployed regardless of whether you are trying to find a job or not. You exist, the stats for unemployment says you don't exist. What is so hard to understand about that.

Aw, forget it. Government and common sense do not go together.
 
It's the economy stupid--except when it's not the GOP economy of piss-poor GDP in 2008 but vibrant yesterday. A lot of guessing fer yer team--just two teams--Romney would be a hero with these numbers and there would be no Ebola scare since it's only in 3 countries. Nixon, Atwater and McCarthy would be proud
 
Perotista said:
If you want to count all those not seeking employment at the moment non-existent, that's fine.
Click to expand...
Who said they're non-existent? They're just not unemployed. Those not in the Labor Force are sub-categorized by desire for work, ability to work, and reason for not looking.
I don't even know what definition of unemployed you're using.

But if they're non-existent because they gave up looking for work, what are they doing receiving unemployment benefits, why count them when they start looking, they're non-existent.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. If they start looking again, then they are unemployed. Not sure we by you think they wouldn't be.

If you're unemployed, you're unemployed regardless of whether you are trying to find a job or not.
Click to expand...
No, because unemployed is defined as looking for work.

You exist, the stats for unemployment says you don't exist. What is so hard to understand about that.
Click to expand...
Besides what your definition of unemployed is? I don't get what you're talking about as far as "don't exist" No one is saying people not trying to work don't exist.
 
Romney praised the GDP numbers yesterday--the usual GOP lying spinners didnt--he must think it's safe to talk now--as we saw with Lissy Graham's good ole boy plantation remarks--typical for a JAG--just like Cotton--entitled since they served safe officer service
 
Perotista said:
If you want to count all those not seeking employment at the moment non-existent, that's fine. But if they're non-existent because they gave up looking for work, what are they doing receiving unemployment benefits, why count them when they start looking, they're non-existent. My point is either they exist, if so count them or they don't. If you're unemployed, you're unemployed regardless of whether you are trying to find a job or not. You exist, the stats for unemployment says you don't exist. What is so hard to understand about that.

Aw, forget it. Government and common sense do not go together.
Click to expand...

Point made, though! Sad, but true! :thumbs:
 
pinqy said:
No, first, please tell me why you thought only people who went through state agencies were considered unemployed and why you would state that as a fact.

I'm always curious where people get these strange ideas, but no one ever wants to answer.
Did you just decide that must be true based on nothing?
Click to expand...
Because what other source does government have.
 
pinqy said:
How can you say that when you don't know how either is derived?
Click to expand...

Because i trust nothing that comes from government. You on the other hand love the government like Obama tells you to do
 
pinqy said:
Who said they're non-existent? They're just not unemployed. Those not in the Labor Force are sub-categorized by desire for work, ability to work, and reason for not looking.
I don't even know what definition of unemployed you're using.


That makes no sense. If they start looking again, then they are unemployed. Not sure we by you think they wouldn't be.


No, because unemployed is defined as looking for work.


Besides what your definition of unemployed is? I don't get what you're talking about as far as "don't exist" No one is saying people not trying to work don't exist.
Click to expand...

Okay, I lose my job, I am unemployed. I stop looking for a job, I am not longer unemployed although I still do not have work, but once I start looking for a job I become unemployed again. If I find a job, then I am employed. But if I am not looking, then I don't count as being unemployed even though I am unemployed. According to the government stats, if I am not looking and am unemployed I do not exist only because I am not looking. Unemployed is unemployed whether one is looking or not. You either have a job or you don't. What is so hard to understand about that.
 
polgara said:
Point made, though! Sad, but true! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I think it boils down to the stats on unemployment are not true stats. Its been this way for a long time. At one time everyone unemployed was counted, I forget when it changed.
 
ptif219 said:
Stop with Obama talking points There have been no jobs. Most jobs were part time jobs

The Workforce Part-Time Employment Ratio: Looking Better for the Core Age Group
Click to expand...
I'm tired of dealing with you. You've been given the numbers, you have been given the facts. Every time you get facts you just brush them off because you don't want to hear the truth. I'm done with trying to explain things to someone who clearly has no interest in the truth.
ptif219 said:
Show proof
Click to expand...
We have. Many times.
ptif219 said:
I still call the government figures BS
Click to expand...
But you still quote them anyways when they support the point you want to make. You are the very definition of bias and partisanship.
pinqy said:
Where on Earth did you get that idea from????????
Is that what you do: just decide something is true without caring about reality?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what he does.

There are groups of people in the world who do not care about facts and are more than willing to lie just so their team can win. They don't care about truth and they have no integrity. When facts show them to be wrong, they just call the facts lies, without any basis to do so. These types of people are simply nuts (or sometimes they manifest themselves as trolls) and they completely ruin any attempt at quality conversation.
 
Perotista said:
Okay, I lose my job, I am unemployed. I stop looking for a job, I am not longer unemployed although I still do not have work, but once I start looking for a job I become unemployed again. If I find a job, then I am employed.
Click to expand...
Correct.

But if I am not looking, then I don't count as being unemployed even though I am unemployed.
Click to expand...
No, you're not unemployed, you're "Not in the Labor Force."

According to the government stats, if I am not looking and am unemployed I do not exist only because I am not looking.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "you do not exist?" I have no idea what you mean. You would be classified as "Not in the Labor Force." If you still want a job, you would be classified as "Not in the Labor Force: wants a job now." If it's been less than 12 months since you stopped looking, and you could start work if offered, you would be "Marginally Attached to the Labor Force." If you stopped looking because you believed you'd be unsuccessful due to lack of skills, abilities, no jobs in the area or your field, or discrimination, you would be classified as "Discouraged Worker."

Unemployed is unemployed whether one is looking or not. You either have a job or you don't. What is so hard to understand about that.
Click to expand...
You yourself have made distinctions. Retirees, disabled, stay home spouses, students, anyone else who is unable or does not want to work....so by the definition you're giving now...they'are unemployed. But earlier you said they shouldn't be included. You wouldn't want to include them as existing.

Why would you call someone who is not trying to get a job unemployed? What definition are you using?
 
Perotista said:
I think it boils down to the stats on unemployment are not true stats. Its been this way for a long time. At one time everyone unemployed was counted, I forget when it changed.
Click to expand...

The definition has ALWAYS been "looking for work."
 
Perotista said:
I think it boils down to the stats on unemployment are not true stats. Its been this way for a long time. At one time everyone unemployed was counted, I forget when it changed.
Click to expand...

No one wants to look bad, so you are almost forced to try to do what you can to change the perception of the things people see. That's only a surface thing, though - the underlying cause is still there, and until that is acknowledged and corrected by providing jobs for those that want to work, fudgy numbers that no one believes will be what is provided. Human nature....
 
Perotista said:
I think it boils down to the stats on unemployment are not true stats. Its been this way for a long time. At one time everyone unemployed was counted, I forget when it changed.
Click to expand...

polgara said:
No one wants to look bad, so you are almost forced to try to do what you can to change the perception of the things people see. That's only a surface thing, though - the underlying cause is still there, and until that is acknowledged and corrected by providing jobs for those that want to work, fudgy numbers that no one believes will be what is provided. Human nature....
Click to expand...

Kinda like changing how "Deportations" are counted.
 
polgara said:
No one wants to look bad, so you are almost forced to try to do what you can to change the perception of the things people see.
Click to expand...

So, one change in BLS data that did occur under Obama:
Prior to 2011, when respondents were asked how long they had been looking for work, any answer over 2 years was simply recorded as "2 years," basically making it "2 or more years."
But in 2011, that was changed so that the actual number of weeks was recorded, up to 5 years. Now, this had no change on the UE rate or Labor Force or anything like that. It didn't even change "media number of weeks unemployed." But it did change the average number of weeks unemployed, making it a lot worse.

So...we have one change which made things look worse.
Talk to me about all the changes that made things look better?
 
pinqy said:
Correct.


No, you're not unemployed, you're "Not in the Labor Force."


What do you mean by "you do not exist?" I have no idea what you mean. You would be classified as "Not in the Labor Force." If you still want a job, you would be classified as "Not in the Labor Force: wants a job now." If it's been less than 12 months since you stopped looking, and you could start work if offered, you would be "Marginally Attached to the Labor Force." If you stopped looking because you believed you'd be unsuccessful due to lack of skills, abilities, no jobs in the area or your field, or discrimination, you would be classified as "Discouraged Worker."


You yourself have made distinctions. Retirees, disabled, stay home spouses, students, anyone else who is unable or does not want to work....so by the definition you're giving now...they'are unemployed. But earlier you said they shouldn't be included. You wouldn't want to include them as existing.

Why would you call someone who is not trying to get a job unemployed? What definition are you using?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

How about calling them "Lost Their Job And Stopped Looking Because They Can Get Unemployment Benefits For Over A Year And It Helps Make The Unemployment Rate Look Better".
I could suggest a shorter name but that would open a big ol' can-o-worms.
 
pinqy said:
Correct.


No, you're not unemployed, you're "Not in the Labor Force."


What do you mean by "you do not exist?" I have no idea what you mean. You would be classified as "Not in the Labor Force." If you still want a job, you would be classified as "Not in the Labor Force: wants a job now." If it's been less than 12 months since you stopped looking, and you could start work if offered, you would be "Marginally Attached to the Labor Force." If you stopped looking because you believed you'd be unsuccessful due to lack of skills, abilities, no jobs in the area or your field, or discrimination, you would be classified as "Discouraged Worker."


You yourself have made distinctions. Retirees, disabled, stay home spouses, students, anyone else who is unable or does not want to work....so by the definition you're giving now...they'are unemployed. But earlier you said they shouldn't be included. You wouldn't want to include them as existing.

Why would you call someone who is not trying to get a job unemployed? What definition are you using?
Click to expand...

The whole thing is crazy, unemployed is unemployed, working is working. Forget I said anything as it is getting us nowhere.
 
polgara said:
No one wants to look bad, so you are almost forced to try to do what you can to change the perception of the things people see. That's only a surface thing, though - the underlying cause is still there, and until that is acknowledged and corrected by providing jobs for those that want to work, fudgy numbers that no one believes will be what is provided. Human nature....
Click to expand...

No big thing Pol, I will just go back to ignoring the stats because they are not accurate, they are nothing more than one big lie. I just can't see what is so hard to understand if one is unemployed he is unemployed, period. If one has a job, he is working, period. Until the government starts looking at things that way, we will always have a problem as I suppose it is the governments way of making things look rosier than they really are.

If I were an elected official I would want people to look at the glass as being half filled, not half empty. It helps my political career.
 
Perotista said:
No big thing Pol, I will just go back to ignoring the stats because they are not accurate, they are nothing more than one big lie. I just can't see what is so hard to understand if one is unemployed he is unemployed, period.
Click to expand...

But you refuse to define what you mean by unemployed. At one point you say it means not working, but then you want to treat retirees and full time students as non-existent.

Employed is employed and unemployed is unemployed...that's how it is! Unemployed means not working, available to work, and looking for work. How hard is that?

There is a reason. Someone who is trying to work and doesn't get hired tells us how hard it is to get hired. Someone not trying to work and doesn't get hired tells us absolutely nothing. So why do you want to treat them the same?
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
But you refuse to define what you mean by unemployed. At one point you say it means not working, but then you want to treat retirees and full time students as non-existent.

Employed is employed and unemployed is unemployed...that's how it is! Unemployed means not working, available to work, and looking for work. How hard is that?

There is a reason. Someone who is trying to work and doesn't get hired tells us how hard it is to get hired. Someone not trying to work and doesn't get hired tells us absolutely nothing. So why do you want to treat them the same?
Click to expand...

Why do you want to use numbers you know doesn't include all people that would like to have a job?
 
pinqy said:
But you refuse to define what you mean by unemployed. At one point you say it means not working, but then you want to treat retirees and full time students as non-existent.

Employed is employed and unemployed is unemployed...that's how it is! Unemployed means not working, available to work, and looking for work. How hard is that?

There is a reason. Someone who is trying to work and doesn't get hired tells us how hard it is to get hired. Someone not trying to work and doesn't get hired tells us absolutely nothing. So why do you want to treat them the same?
Click to expand...

Anyone with a bit of common sense knows the unemployed are the unemployed. Common sense tells you not to count retirees as they are retired. Common sense tells you not to count full time students as they are full time students. ETC. ETC.
 
j-mac said:
Why do you want to use numbers you know doesn't include all people that would like to have a job?
Click to expand...

Because what we're trying to measure is actual supply and demand of labor, and how hard it is to get a job. Someone saying they want a job but not doing anything doesn't tell us anything.

Someone who actively looks for a job....Contact employer directly/interview, Contacted public employment agency, Contacted private employment agency, Contacted friends or relatives, Contacted school/university employment center, Sent out resumes/filled out applications, Checked union/professional registers, Placed or answered ads, or other, such as had an audition or bid on a contract..........did something that could have gotten them a job and did not.

If someone did nothing that could have gotten them a job, then they could not have gotten a job, no matter how much they say they want one. As far as getting a job goes, someone who says he wants a job but is not trying to work is no more likely to get a job than anyone else not trying to work.

Those not looking who say they want a job are counted...A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
But look...of the 6 million people not looking for work who say they want a job, 3.2 million have done nothing at all about getting a job in the last year (this includes teenagers who've never had a job and never looked for one). Do you think they're really a good indicator of how easy or difficult it is to actually get a job? Do you even think it likely they'll start to look soon?

And further...of those who did look in the last year but not the last month, 593,000 could not have accepted a job if offered on a plate. What do they tell us about the job market?

That's what it boils down to...the job market. People not participating in it can't tell us anything about its condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom