• 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!

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

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

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?

My intent was that you would do some math and realize there are more people who want work than there are jobs available.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

My intent was that you would do some math and realize there are more people who want work than there are jobs available.

Perhaps, just maybe, if more of the 4 million plus jobs that haven't been filled were filled, that would generate significant economic activity resulting in more job openings and so on, and so on.

If you believe the nonsense from the Obama administration and liberals that unemployment benefits boost the economy, think how much the economy would be goosed by people working.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

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?

Retrain?

Go back to school, and you lose your unemployment benefits.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

That would create some jobs, surveying every person in America who isn't working currently.

Lol...I meant count every single person during their monthly phone survey...my mistake.

My point was that the BLS is a joke, IMO. Bureaucrats are famous for finding useless, make-work projects so the the government has to hire more of them and swell their ranks.

The BLS tabulates all these little stats and yet sees fit to - IMO - obviously try and exclude from the work force as many people as possible using ridiculous technicalities so as to present to their elected masters the smallest unemployment U-3 number they legally can.

As I said, tabulating the U-3 should be as follows (IMO); 1) Do you work? 2) Do you want to work? 3) Can you work?

If they answer no, yes and yes, respectively...then they are part of the work force AND unemployed for U-3.

How long they have been unemployed is irrelevant, whether they are looking is irrelevant and if they can start this very second is irrelevant.

And the above should include even those Americans who are under the retirement age, claim to be retired but still want to work.


Like the GDP and especially the ridiculous 'inflation' tabulation processes done by the bureaucrats...the U-3 is yet another example of how the government, IMO, is manipulating the tabulation process to make the economy seem better then it really is.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Lol...I meant count every single person during their monthly phone survey...my mistake.

My point was that the BLS is a joke, IMO. Bureaucrats are famous for finding useless, make-work projects so the the government has to hire more of them and swell their ranks.

The BLS tabulates all these little stats and yet sees fit to - IMO - obviously try and exclude from the work force as many people as possible using ridiculous technicalities so as to present to their elected masters the smallest unemployment U-3 number they legally can.

As I said, tabulating the U-3 should be as follows (IMO); 1) Do you work? 2) Do you want to work? 3) Can you work?

If they answer no, yes and yes, respectively...then they are part of the work force AND unemployed for U-3.

How long they have been unemployed is irrelevant, whether they are looking is irrelevant and if they can start this very second is irrelevant.

And the above should include even those Americans who are under the retirement age, claim to be retired but still want to work.


Like the GDP and especially the ridiculous 'inflation' tabulation processes done by the bureaucrats...the U-3 is yet another example of how the government, IMO, is manipulating the tabulation process to make the economy seem better then it really is.

I'd add..

Are you looking for full time work?
Are you currently working full time?

I think that including the people who have given up finding full time work and are making do with a part time job (or perhaps more than one) would yield some interesting statistics.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Sure cut them off, and remove them from the labour force for being lazy.... but that does not mean that there are jobs for them to get and that is the problem. All it does, is increase the poverty levels.. and I guess that is the strategy of the GOP these days.

Unemployment benefits are intended to be temporary assistance for people who have lost jobs and need financial help to transition into a new one. They aren't supposed to be a lifestyle. Only in the fantasy minds of Reid and Pilosi are they economic stimulus.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Only in the fantasy minds of Reid and Pilosi are they economic stimulus.
Nonsense. Reid and Pelosi didn't make that up you know. The multiplier effect often touted was derived chiefly from a report authored by Mark Zandi, the chief economic advisor to one John Mccain.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

I think that including the people who have given up finding full time work and are making do with a part time job (or perhaps more than one) would yield some interesting statistics.

Here you go!

fredgraph.png


A shout out to Pinqy for providing a more historical examination.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Here you go!

fredgraph.png


A shout out to Pinqy for providing a more historical examination.

Am I reading that chart right? About 500,000 people working part time but needing full time work?
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Nonsense. Reid and Pelosi didn't make that up you know. The multiplier effect often touted was derived chiefly from a report authored by Mark Zandi, the chief economic advisor to one John Mccain.

Do I understand you right, the more money government gives to people the more the economy improves. If that is the case, to get a roaring economy going the government should give all Americans money every week. Like a $1,000 a week for starters and move it higher if the economy is not improving fast enough. Is this not the premise of your claim that government giving money to people improves the economy. Then the government should flood people with money and lets get our economy roaring.
 
Last edited:
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Do I understand you right, the more money government gives to people the more the economy improves. If that is the case, to get a roaring economy going the government should give all Americans money every week. Like a $1,000 a week for starters and move it higher if the economy is not improving fast enough. Is this not the premise of your claim that government giving money to people improves the economy. Then the government should flood people with money and lets get our economy roaring.
Consumer spending is the primary driver of economic growth. Unemployment benefits serve the purpose of maintaining consumption patterns and financial solvency in the absence of ordinary income. However, to suggest the Government cut a check to all Americans on a weekly basis is needlessly extreme.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Am I reading that chart right? About 500,000 people working part time but needing full time work?

It is 5.5% of the U6 unemployment metric.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Consumer spending is the primary driver of economic growth. Unemployment benefits serve the purpose of maintaining consumption patterns and financial solvency in the absence of ordinary income. However, to suggest the Government cut a check to all Americans on a weekly basis is needlessly extreme.

Why is that extreme, Obama has spent a trillion on a stimulus that has failed, why not give all that money to the People as you suggest that improves the economy. If government giving money to the people improves the ecomony, then the more the government gives the people the more the economy improves. This is your premise, is it not.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Why is that extreme

For obvious reasons. Since tax rate reductions have a stimulative effect, why not simply eliminate all taxes? Practicality you say? Political feasibility? Negative externalities?

Obama has spent a trillion on a stimulus that has failed

Less than a trillion, dispersed over time and a substantial portion of which went towards tax credits, cuts and shoring up entitlements in the wake of the financial crisis. It was hardly the careless spending spree you've suggested.

why not give all that money to the People as you suggest that improves the economy. If government giving money to the people improves the ecomony, then the more the government gives the people the more the economy improves. This is your premise, is it not.
In some circumstances and quantities, yes. No need at all to dumb down the argument as you've attempted to.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Here you go!

fredgraph.png


A shout out to Pinqy for providing a more historical examination.

Am I reading that chart right? About 500,000 people working part time but needing full time work?

No you're not reading it right. The numerator is "part time for economic reasons" which is currently about 7.8 million. There are two components, though...due to slow or slack business (4,884,000) and due to inability to find a full time job (2,592,000) The remainder are part time because the work is seasonal and full timers starting or ending work that week.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

For obvious reasons. Since tax rate reductions have a stimulative effect, why not simply eliminate all taxes? Practicality you say? Political feasibility? Negative externalities?

Sure why not, it is your premise that government giving all Americans more money improves the economy. However almost 50% of all Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. So therfore your premise is not fully fulfilled, government still has to give money of equal amount of the tax re leaf to all the other 50% of Americans to fully stimulate the economy.

Less than a trillion, dispersed over time and a substantial portion of which went towards tax credits, cuts and shoring up entitlements in the wake of the financial crisis. It was hardly the careless spending spree you've suggested.
:doh

In some circumstances and quantities, yes. No need at all to dumb down the argument as you've attempted to.

The fact is you say giving money to the people improves the economy, thus the more the government gives the people the more the economy grows. This is your premise and belief.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

I'd add..

Are you looking for full time work?
Are you currently working full time?

I think that including the people who have given up finding full time work and are making do with a part time job (or perhaps more than one) would yield some interesting statistics.

They already do both: Employed and Unemployed full and part-time workers
Employed Persons by class of worker and part-time status
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Why not solve simple poverty with existing infrastructure at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage in any at-will employment State. It would increase the circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets under our form of Capitalism.

By analogy:

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.

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

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.
Why? I've explained why the government uses the definition it does (and has for almost a hundred years, and used by most countries in the world), but what is your definition meant to reveal when you're including so many people who can't be hired?

LUS - 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.
There is no "legal retirement age" in the U.S. And it's unclear why you would have the age restriction. And plenty of retired people look for or get a post-retirement job...and they're classified as appropriate for what they do.

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.
Well, I did work there for a decade, and I know the procedures far better than you, so my opinion is more informed.
The Current Population Survey, which is where the Labor Force data comes from, is a joint project between BLS and census, plus BEA has input, and there is oversight. Too many people involved. Besides, I'm not even sure what kind of changes you could have in mind.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Why? I've explained why the government uses the definition it does (and has for almost a hundred years, and used by most countries in the world), but what is your definition meant to reveal when you're including so many people who can't be hired?
Because I think it offers a better window onto the employment situation in America. Includes more people that should, imo, be included.

As for it being used by lots of countries forever - I could care less. There are/were plenty of things that went on for decades that were wrong...slavery comes to mind. Longevity and righteousness are not mutually exclusive.

There is no "legal retirement age" in the U.S. And it's unclear why you would have the age restriction. And plenty of retired people look for or get a post-retirement job...and they're classified as appropriate for what they do.
It was a figure of speech - you cannot include 102 year old people. No McDonald's is going to hire a 102 year old man - except as a publicity stunt. Then call it 65 for arguments sake. The BLS is leaving a ton of people out just because they are technically retired. Many of whom - as I showed in a previous link - probably should be counted as in the work force but unemployed because they only retired when they did because they could not find work.


Well, I did work there for a decade, and I know the procedures far better than you, so my opinion is more informed.
The Current Population Survey, which is where the Labor Force data comes from, is a joint project between BLS and census, plus BEA has input, and there is oversight. Too many people involved. Besides, I'm not even sure what kind of changes you could have in mind.

You are (according to you) closer and thusly, obviously more biased then I on this.

I will not argue this - you believe they are not influenced from elected officials; I do.

Nothing further to say as neither can factually prove their position is true.


In fact, further discussion on all of this seems pointless - there is NO WAY you are changing my mind on this (that I could possibly imagine).

And obviously there is probably no way I am changing yours.

So why chat about it further...let's just agree to disagree and move on?
 
Last edited:
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Sure why not, it is your premise that government giving all Americans more money improves the economy. However almost 50% of all Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. So therfore your premise is not fully fulfilled, government still has to give money of equal amount of the tax re leaf to all the other 50% of Americans to fully stimulate the economy.

I've never suggested federal spending to be the optimal catalyst for growth, nor have I suggested they engage in a program of the scale you've suggested, just as no serious Conservative has advocated for the elimination of all taxation, despite the benefits of reductions. All things in moderation.

The fact is you say giving money to the people improves the economy, thus the more the government gives the people the more the economy grows. This is your premise and belief.
In some circumstances, yes. However, growth cannot always take precedence over fiscal sanity, nor can we ignore the negative effects that would likely occur as a result.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

I've never suggested federal spending to be the optimal catalyst for growth, nor have I suggested they engage in a program of the scale you've suggested, just as no serious Conservative has advocated for the elimination of all taxation, despite the benefits of reductions. All things in moderation.

I agree you have not, nor have I said you did. This whole debate is giving people money improves the economy, thus the more government gives to people the more the economy will grow. This is your premise.

In some circumstances, yes.

Here you confirm that belief.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

I believe we should start instructing our elected representatives to bear true witness to our own federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.
 
Back
Top Bottom