• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

pinqy said:
Just the U-3. The others are measures of underutilization, especially the U-4 to U-6 as they include people who are not unemployed, and the U-6 includes many employed in the numerator.

Only the U-3 is official, though all 6 are valuable for looking at different aspects of the labor market.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the actual number of "unemployed" be a better metric?
 
danielpalos said:
Shouldn't the actual number of "unemployed" be a better metric?
Click to expand...

The level? No, because changes in population would distort that. We have far more unemployed now than during the Depression, but that's because we have a much larger population. So percent of the labor force, the U-3 is better.

But of course the level is published every month.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
Why do people "drop off the rolls" and are no longer counted?
Click to expand...

You should learn the concepts: There are no rolls, so no one falls off them. Either someone meets the definition, or they don't. Unemployed has never been the same as not working. Most people not working are not unemployed.
 
pinqy said:
You should learn the concepts: There are no rolls, so no one falls off them. Either someone meets the definition, or they don't. Unemployed has never been the same as not working. Most people not working are not unemployed.
Click to expand...

I meant the unemployment rolls.

That is what I meant by using only one official number that doesn't merely play shell games with Statism.
 
danielpalos said:
Employment at will is already defined and it is very simple. Unemployment compensation that Faithfully executes a federal Doctrine and State laws, is a solution to simple poverty when due to a simple lack of income.
Click to expand...

So, if I understand what you're getting at here, you think that to solve poverty, we should just print enough money to give everyone the average median income today...are you for real?
 
j-mac said:
So, if I understand what you're getting at here, you think that to solve poverty, we should just print enough money to give everyone the average median income today...are you for real?
Click to expand...

Thats what I figured too.

You know, so " Socialism can bail out Capitalism".

He has no idea of what the hell he's talking about.
 
danielpalos said:
I meant the unemployment rolls.
Click to expand...
So instead of the official number of unemployed for March of 10,486,000, you'd prefer to just use the 3,201,504 collecting Unemployment Insurance. Way to lower the number of unemployed!

That is what I meant by using only one official number that doesn't merely play shell games with Statism.
Click to expand...
There is only one official number, and it doesn't play she'll games. You clearly don't know the concepts.
 
pinqy said:
So instead of the official number of unemployed for March of 10,486,000, you'd prefer to just use the 3,201,504 collecting Unemployment Insurance. Way to lower the number of unemployed!

There is only one official number, and it doesn't play she'll games. You clearly don't know the concepts.
Click to expand...

They are no longer looking for work if they aren't trying to get out of being poor on an at-will basis.
 
danielpalos said:
They are no longer looking for work if they aren't trying to get out of being poor on an at-will basis.
Click to expand...
Why do you think they're not? And what specific actions do you consider "trying to get out of being poor on an at-will basis?" That's a concept you invented, so I can't learn it unless you explain it.

Since the definition of unemployed is looking for work, it seems strange to say they're not, especially those desperately looking because they aren't eligible for unemployment benefits.
 
pinqy said:
Why do you think they're not? And what specific actions do you consider "trying to get out of being poor on an at-will basis?" That's a concept you invented, so I can't learn it unless you explain it.

Since the definition of unemployed is looking for work, it seems strange to say they're not, especially those desperately looking because they aren't eligible for unemployment benefits.
Click to expand...

They need not look for work on unemployment in an at-will employment jurisdiction, in that case, and could be considered analogous to U6; but as a much more comprehensive metric that doesn't resort to polls or surveys or even gender studies.
 
danielpalos said:
They need not look for work on unemployment in an at-will employment jurisdiction, in that case, and could be considered analogous to U6; but as a much more comprehensive metric that doesn't resort to polls or surveys or even gender studies.
Click to expand...

Since you only talk about "at-will employment jurisdictions," I'm curious as to how you think things should be different in not at will employment areas. But first…Name a state that is NOT an "at-will employment jurisdiction. No "it would be like," or "it would be where," etc. A specific state, or more than one.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
Since you only talk about "at-will employment jurisdictions," I'm curious as to how you think things should be different in not at will employment areas. But first…Name a state that is NOT an "at-will employment jurisdiction. No "it would be like," or "it would be where," etc. A specific star, or more than one.
Click to expand...

I'll give daniel this, he has usual opponents agreeing that he is off his rocker. :mrgreen:
 
Helix said:
monthly jobs report. rage or rejoice.
Click to expand...
There is still way too many young Americans unemployed and underemployed in this country.
 
pinqy said:
Since you only talk about "at-will employment jurisdictions," I'm curious as to how you think things should be different in not at will employment areas. But first…Name a state that is NOT an "at-will employment jurisdiction. No "it would be like," or "it would be where," etc. A specific state, or more than one.
Click to expand...

I believe only Montana is not an at-will employment jurisdiction, but I could be wrong.

It may not matter, since anyone who is in poverty due to a lack of gainful employment should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment jurisdiction, simply for being unemployed. It is more cost effective than means tested social programs the right keeps complaining about due to their having to work on their moral of "goodwill toward men".
 
danielpalos said:
Full employment of resources is a goal. Simplification is another goal.

We can achieve both, through existing infrastructure.

We could solve simple poverty when due to a simple lack of a simple income that would otherwise, simply, keep people above our poverty thresholds; through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, in that simple manner. That is what I mean by simple poverty; it can be solved, simply, with existing legal and physical Infrastructure regarding the concept of employment at will.
Click to expand...

Words uttered superciliously contribute naught to the actuality of their obfuscated meaning.
 
Mithros said:
Words uttered superciliously contribute naught to the actuality of their obfuscated meaning.
Click to expand...

Did you know that only people who are full of fallacy, resort to diversions instead of reason? Why not get a clue and a Cause when claiming you are trying to help diagnose the Body politic.
 
danielpalos said:
Did you know that only people who are full of fallacy, resort to diversions instead of reason? Why not get a clue and a Cause when claiming you are trying to help diagnose the Body politic.
Click to expand...

Assessing your goldbergian prose and indiscriminate capitalization as sufficient Proof of said intention to divert eyes from omitted Reason adds fortuitous credence to your Otherwise spurious postulate.

Clarity in communication implies intellect in ways exceeding expressions of supercilious sophistry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom