Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 126

Thread: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass Sen

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    But how does that affect the labor market? If they're not looking for work, competing for jobs, then on a practical level it makes no difference if they were forced to retire or did it voluntarily.

    The UE rate is not a measure of hardship, it's a measure of the labor market
    If these people want a job but are forced to abandon looking for work because they could not find it...but would take a job and are able to do so if one existed for them...they should be considered in the work force.

    'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
    Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'


    BLS Glossary

    And who is to say they did not look for work in the past 12 months? Did they hear a job was open that might suit them. So they made enquires but found out that that business won't hire people over 55. So they actively looked for work...if not officially so.

    To my knowledge, the BLS does not define 'looking for work'. If I look through the want ads just ONCE per year, specifically for a job for myself - how is that technically not 'looking for work'? If I ask people I know if they are hiring people in my category (were I a discouraged, over 55 worker), how is that not 'looking for work'?


    IMO, this 'looking for work' notion is silly and irrelevant and impossible to accurately measure. As far as I am concerned, if I want to work and can work then I should be part of the labor force...period.

    I don't care how the BLS defines it now. IMO, that is (generally) how it should be defined...you want to work? Yes. Can you work? Yes. Okay...you are part of the labor force.

    Excluding as many people from the labor force as possible to make the unemployment rate look lower is obviously something the WH/Congress puts pressure on the BLS to do.
    Last edited by DA60; 01-16-14 at 02:25 PM.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    A deterministic anecdote following a normative rant. I guess that is the way of things
    Providing background for the source of my motivation, but i suppose that's probably too much for one like yourself.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  3. #93
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Not really, you seem to be of the mind that people should be punished for working.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #94
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,377

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    If these people want a job but are forced to abandon looking for work because they could not find it...but would take a job and are able to do so if one existed for them...they should be considered in the work force.
    But they won't take a job and wouldn't be able to take one if one did exist, because they aren't doing anything about it, and wouldn't know if 10 jobs were available for them. How could they?

    And who is to say they did not look for work in the past 12 months?
    They are. The exact question is "Did you look for work in the last twelve months?"

    Did they hear a job was open that might suit them. So they made enquires but found out that that business won't hire people over 55. So they actively looked for work...if not officially so.
    They would be classified as unemployed if it was in the 4 weeks before the survey because they actively looked for work. Don't know why you think they wouldn't be.

    To my knowledge, the BLS does not define 'looking for work'.
    Well, of course they do. The best way to see it is in the interviewer's manual from Census: http://www.census.gov/cps/files/intm...hapter%202.pdf. It's broad…anything that could lead to a job offer without doing anything else.
    If I look through the want ads just ONCE per year, specifically for a job for myself - how is that technically not 'looking for work'?
    It is, but it's passive, not active and wouldn't count. Answering or placing an ad is active.

    If I ask people I know if they are hiring people in my category (were I a discouraged, over 55 worker), how is that not 'looking for work'?
    It is counted as an active search, and would make you unemployed if it was in the four weeks before the survey.

    IMO, this 'looking for work' notion is silly and irrelevant and impossible to accurately measure. As far as I am concerned, if I want to work and can work then I should be part of the labor force...period.
    Why? You never answer that. And how can you say someone not trying to work is able to work? You can't get a job if you don't do anything about it. That's why there's always been a search requirement.

    I don't care how the BLS defines it now. IMO, that is (generally) how it should be defined...you want to work? Yes. Can you work? Yes. Okay...you are part of the labor force.
    In what sense? They can't be hired because no employer knows about them.

    The whole concept of the Labor Force is that of people available for work. Someone not trying to work is obviously not available. Discouraged and other Marginally Attached are tracked because they're likely to start looking. But someone who hasn't done anything at all in over a year? Not likely they will. So what are you trying to measure?

    It's not a conspiracy, it's basic labor economics.
    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.

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    But they won't take a job and wouldn't be able to take one if one did exist, because they aren't doing anything about it, and wouldn't know if 10 jobs were available for them. How could they?

    They are. The exact question is "Did you look for work in the last twelve months?"

    They would be classified as unemployed if it was in the 4 weeks before the survey because they actively looked for work. Don't know why you think they wouldn't be.


    Well, of course they do. The best way to see it is in the interviewer's manual from Census: http://www.census.gov/cps/files/intm...hapter%202.pdf. It's broad…anything that could lead to a job offer without doing anything else. It is, but it's passive, not active and wouldn't count. Answering or placing an ad is active.

    It is counted as an active search, and would make you unemployed if it was in the four weeks before the survey.

    Why? You never answer that. And how can you say someone not trying to work is able to work? You can't get a job if you don't do anything about it. That's why there's always been a search requirement.

    In what sense? They can't be hired because no employer knows about them.

    The whole concept of the Labor Force is that of people available for work. Someone not trying to work is obviously not available. Discouraged and other Marginally Attached are tracked because they're likely to start looking. But someone who hasn't done anything at all in over a year? Not likely they will. So what are you trying to measure?

    It's not a conspiracy, it's basic labor economics.
    Whoa...this does not interest me NEARLY enough to do the 'answer every quote in a huge multi-quote post'.

    The bottom line is - to me - is that the BLS is doing a poor job of tabulating the employment situation in America, imo.

    And what it SHOULD do - imo - is count every single person as part of the work force if they a) want to work and b) can work...period. And that should include people who cannot take a job because they are involved in a commitment (like school) that they would not have gotten into had they believed they could have gotten a job had they tried before they entered into the commitment.

    PLUS - the BLS should ask every single person under the legal retirement age who claims to be retired whether they would like to work if they could find a job; or not. And if they do want a job - they should be counted as part of the labor force until they are past the legal retirement age.

    You don't agree...fine.


    And btw - there is absolutely no way you can know that successful pressure has not been put on the BLS from elected officials behind closed doors to legally alter the stats/how they are tabulated to show a lower unemployment rate.

    You can think, hope, believe...but you cannot know (nor can I of the opposite - but I strongly believe they have to some extent).


    And for the record, I am neither dem nor rep...so there is no partisanship going on..I think both parties are worse then useless.
    Last edited by DA60; 01-18-14 at 04:20 AM.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,596

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Whoa...this does not interest me NEARLY enough to do the 'answer every quote in a huge multi-quote post'.

    The bottom line is - to me - is that the BLS is doing a poor job of tabulating the employment situation in America, imo.

    And what it SHOULD do - imo - is count every single person as part of the work force if they a) want to work and b) can work...period. And that should include people who cannot take a job because they are involved in a commitment (like school) that they would not have gotten into had they believed they could have gotten a job had they tried before they entered into the commitment.

    PLUS - the BLS should ask every single person under the legal retirement age who claims to be retired whether they would like to work if they could find a job; or not. And if they do want a job - they should be counted as part of the labor force until they are past the legal retirement age.

    You don't agree...fine.


    And btw - there is absolutely no way you can know that successful pressure has not been put on the BLS from elected officials behind closed doors to legally alter the stats/how they are tabulated to show a lower unemployment rate.

    You can think, hope, believe...but you cannot know (nor can I of the opposite - but I strongly believe they have to some extent).


    And for the record, I am neither dem nor rep...so there is no partisanship going on..I think both parties are worse then useless.
    That would create some jobs, surveying every person in America who isn't working currently.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  7. #97
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Providing background for the source of my motivation, but i suppose that's probably too much for one like yourself.
    Your motivation ignores the reality for millions of people. The desire to work hard does not put food on the table, it is the act itself. When millions of Americans cannot find a decent paying job, for no fault of their own, maybe it would be best to take yourself out of the equation when passing judgement.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #98
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Not really, you seem to be of the mind that people should be punished for working.
    Paying taxes is not punishment. In fact, the ability to pay taxes is actually an accomplishment.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #99
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You know, to be blunt, that's just so much crap.

    According to numbers I've seen there are upwards of 4 million job openings in the US and that is projected to rise this year and for the next decade. There are many reasons these positions aren't being filled but three primary ones are 1) the skills required for the jobs available don't match the skill set of those looking 2) too many unemployed are looking for jobs that pay them the same or higher than the ones they lost, and 3) uncertainty in the economy, around things like Obamacare, that keep businesses leary of new hires and more selective than they may otherwise be.

    So as I said, no extension to unemployment insurance should be adopted unless it's fully paid for and it's tied specifically to training initiatives. And yes, some are lazy and don't want to work at anything they consider "beneath" them and would rather sit on their asses collecting unemployment insurance for 2 plus years.

    Get government out of the way and ditch the incentives to be lazy. Nothing makes a person take a job faster than an empty belly and a need to ensure your own survival.
    There are at least 10 million people seeking work.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  10. #100
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,205

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    There are at least 10 million people seeking work.
    Indeed - but how many of them have been on unemployment benefits for upwards of two years and still haven't attempted to retrain or relocate?

    Do you want to pay them not to work indefinitely, or until such time as they qualify for social security?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •