• 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

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.
You can't use a term to define itself. And I don't know what your "etc"s are. You may have some definition of "unemployed" in your head, but the common, most used definition in economics is willing, available, and doing something about work.

There are plenty of retirees and full time students looking for part time jobs.
 
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.

Seems to me, that when you try to break it down so far to a level where there are categories, sub categories, and so on, that you lose the true numbers. I understand that not all unemployed, able bodied people are equal, but the parsing of the numbers is meant to lie to us, that's my opinion.
 
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?

Greetings, Pinqy. :2wave:

It used to be based on three simple common sense points: You have no job now; you are available for work now; and you have actively looked for work in the past four weeks.

The method for calculating unemployment has changed in several ways. Simply losing your job doesn't mean you're unemployed today, although it sure as H*** feels like it when you don't have a paycheck coming in so you can pay your bills. However, if you stop actively looking for work, you are longer considered unemployed. I don't know what those discouraged people are called today, but they don't have a job, so they are unemployed by most people's definition.

On the other hand, if you are working part-time at a low-paying job because that's all that is available, you are considered employed. You could have been an engineer but now you are working at WalMart sweeping floors, but that's how it's calculated, and it is an unfair double standard!

Then you have what is called the "labor participation rate," which measures the total labor force available versus those actually working doing some kind of job, no matter how menial or part time. So if you have 10 unemployed, but five have just stopped looking for work because there are no jobs available, the unemployment rate will drop because those five are no longer considered unemployed. :screwy: It doesn't change the fact that they still don't have a job, but it makes the unemployment rate look better.

That's the problem with the way it's currently calculated. If the unemployment rate falls due to people giving up looking, rather than job creation, it shows that the labor market is not expanding, but either shrinking or not expanding enough to accommodate new workers joining the labor force.

Obama told us for years that he was focusing on job creation "like a laser," but so far only part time or low-paying jobs are available for the most part, and our standard of living is dropping for an awful lot of people. Companies need to make a profit or they either close or move to more business-friendly countries. When companies like GM build a new plant in Mexico instead of here, that pits Wall Street and the need to satisfy shareholders against the workers on Main Street USA who used to do those jobs- the workers lose every time! I have repeatedly suggested that thousands of new jobs could be created if we just upgraded our grid which is badly needed, as an example, and that would be a double good...people go back to work and we bring our grid into the 21st century where we all live now. Just my opinion..... :shrug:
 
Seems to me, that when you try to break it down so far to a level where there are categories, sub categories, and so on, that you lose the true numbers.
You don't really lose the true numbers, you get a more complete (and more useful) description of what's actually happening.

For example, let's say you were in charge of a business that had salesman. Would you be content with just knowing how much money the salesman as a group made you (let's say $100, for an easy number)? Or would you want to know that salesman A made $60, salesman B made $30 and salesman C-E combined only made $10? Furthermore, would you not want to know that salesman A made his $60 by selling 50 units of product A, 30 units of product B and 5 units of products C-E?

Of course you would. Having more detailed information allows for a more exact picture of what is actually happening. If I just said "well, I made $100", then it would hide the fact I had 3 salesmen who were not really doing anything and it would hide the fact I spending money on products C-E which don't sell.

Simple numbers may be easy for those who don't really care but having more detailed information is just more useful and gives a much better picture of what is actually happening.
 
Seems to me, that when you try to break it down so far to a level where there are categories, sub categories, and so on, that you lose the true numbers. I understand that not all unemployed, able bodied people are equal, but the parsing of the numbers is meant to lie to us, that's my opinion.
Why do you think it's meant to lie? It's meant to give an accurate picture of the labor market conditions. The subcategories of Not in the Labor Force give a clearer picture of who is likely to start looking for work.
 
Greetings, Pinqy. :2wave:

It used to be based on three simple common sense points: You have no job now; you are available for work now; and you have actively looked for work in the past four weeks.

The method for calculating unemployment has changed in several ways. Simply losing your job doesn't mean you're unemployed today, although it sure as H*** feels like it when you don't have a paycheck coming in so you can pay your bills. However, if you stop actively looking for work, you are longer considered unemployed. I don't know what those discouraged people are called today, but they don't have a job, so they are unemployed by most people's definition.

On the other hand, if you are working part-time at a low-paying job because that's all that is available, you are considered employed. You could have been an engineer but now you are working at WalMart sweeping floors, but that's how it's calculated, and it is an unfair double standard!

Then you have what is called the "labor participation rate," which measures the total labor force available versus those actually working doing some kind of job, no matter how menial or part time. So if you have 10 unemployed, but five have just stopped looking for work because there are no jobs available, the unemployment rate will drop because those five are no longer considered unemployed. :screwy: It doesn't change the fact that they still don't have a job, but it makes the unemployment rate look better.

That's the problem with the way it's currently calculated. If the unemployment rate falls due to people giving up looking, rather than job creation, it shows that the labor market is not expanding, but either shrinking or not expanding enough to accommodate new workers joining the labor force.

Obama told us for years that he was focusing on job creation "like a laser," but so far only part time or low-paying jobs are available for the most part, and our standard of living is dropping for an awful lot of people. Companies need to make a profit or they either close or move to more business-friendly countries. When companies like GM build a new plant in Mexico instead of here, that pits Wall Street and the need to satisfy shareholders against the workers on Main Street USA who used to do those jobs- the workers lose every time! I have repeatedly suggested that thousands of new jobs could be created if we just upgraded our grid which is badly needed, as an example, and that would be a double good...people go back to work and we bring our grid into the 21st century where we all live now. Just my opinion..... :shrug:


Excellent work, Pol ... but you know it won't bring an end to this, don't you?
 
Why do you think it's meant to lie? It's meant to give an accurate picture of the labor market conditions. The subcategories of Not in the Labor Force give a clearer picture of who is likely to start looking for work.

I think it is meant to lie, because if the true numbers were out there people would revolt.
 
Greetings, Pinqy. :2wave:

It used to be based on three simple common sense points: You have no job now; you are available for work now; and you have actively looked for work in the past four weeks.
That's still the definition, although, as always, those on temporary layoff who expect to return to their old job do not have to have looked.

The method for calculating unemployment has changed in several ways. Simply losing your job doesn't mean you're unemployed today, although it sure as H*** feels like it when you don't have a paycheck coming in so you can pay your bills. However, if you stop actively looking for work, you are longer considered unemployed. I don't know what those discouraged people are called today, but they don't have a job, so they are unemployed by most people's definition.
Where is the change? And regardless of what most people's definition is, it's not a useful definition.

On the other hand, if you are working part-time at a low-paying job because that's all that is available, you are considered employed. You could have been an engineer but now you are working at WalMart sweeping floors, but that's how it's calculated, and it is an unfair double standard!
So you have two people working the same part time job for the same pay andyou want to call one of them employed and the other unemployed because one has a high school education and the other has a degree. That makes sense to you?

How about someone who has a degree in theater and is working as a waitress while trying to break into Hollywood. Employed or unemployed? Or someone who was an engineer, but retired and now has a part time job as a Wal-Mart greeter to stay active and earn a little money. Employed or Unemployed?

Simplistic doesn't work for a scientific approach trying to measure a lot of people with a sample.

Then you have what is called the "labor participation rate," which measures the total labor force available versus those actually working doing some kind of job, no matter how menial or part time.
No, that's not what the labor force participation rate is. The Labor Force is employed plus unemployed (everyone doing something about work) and the participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population.

So if you have 10 unemployed, but five have just stopped looking for work because there are no jobs available, the unemployment rate will drop because those five are no longer considered unemployed. :screwy: It doesn't change the fact that they still don't have a job, but it makes the unemployment rate look better.
But we're not trying to measure who doesn't have a job....we're trying to measure who is trying to get a job. And what if the five stopped looking because they were sick, ill, pregnant, had to take care of a family member, or they decided they just wanted to smoke pot in their mom's basement? They still don't have a job, are they still unemployed?
 
I think it is meant to lie, because if the true numbers were out there people would revolt.

You realize that all the data is available...so the "true numbers" are out there.

But I'm still puzzled by insistence on "the true numbers." What makes them that? What's the definition, and why?
 
Last edited:
Here's what I don't get....Not working, available for work, currently looking for work, is the basic definition used in the U.S. since 1920 when the Census first started asking about unemployment, it's the standard of Eurostat, the International Labour Organization (of the U.N.) and every country in the world that collects unemployment data. there are variations, of course...some countries have a maximum age, some include military in the population, some don't, some include people hired but not working as unemployed regardless of job search, some have relaxed standards for looking (those more Socialist countries where the government finds a job for you).

And yet...there are people who insist that that's not a "real" definition. I find it odd to declare every expert in the field wrong.

j-Mac...it's like civilians calling the M-16A2 or the M-4 an automatic weapon or machine gun. To them, "automatic" and "semi-automatic" are the same thing.

For J
 
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.

Excellent post! :thumbs: Everyone knows someone who has lost their job through no fault of their own, and few feel things have gotten better - even though they are told by the media that they have! Besides, the original numbers are always revised, so most people don't pay attention to them anyway, since it looks like they don't want people to know the actual facts.

Isn't there anyone in government these days who has actually worked in the business world and knows how that works? Hiring more people to work in the government in DC is a drain on the taxpayers - we pay their salaries for what? Making new rules and regulations which creates departments of people who don't produce anything except headaches for businesses trying to comply with same? No wonder they are leaving for friendlier countries, taking the jobs that used to be done here somewhere else!

Someone somewhere around the world today is doing the job that a worker employed in the business world here used to do, damn it! And they're happy to have that job, too, so they aren't complaining and making problems for their employers, even though they aren't making a fraction of what our workers used to be paid! We just aren't competitive any more, sad to say - small wonder China has taken our number one position in GDP growth!

I don't know what the answer is, because we can't live on a salary of $5.00 a day here. We'd better think of something, though, because if this continues, people won't even be able to afford eating at McDonalds!
 
Excellent post! :thumbs: Everyone knows someone who has lost their job through no fault of their own, and few feel things have gotten better - even though they are told by the media that they have! Besides, the original numbers are always revised, so most people don't pay attention to them anyway, since it looks like they don't want people to know the actual facts.

Isn't there anyone in government these days who has actually worked in the business world and knows how that works? Hiring more people to work in the government in DC is a drain on the taxpayers - we pay their salaries for what? Making new rules and regulations which creates departments of people who don't produce anything except headaches for businesses trying to comply with same? No wonder they are leaving for friendlier countries, taking the jobs that used to be done here somewhere else!

Someone somewhere around the world today is doing the job that a worker employed in the business world here used to do, damn it! And they're happy to have that job, too, so they aren't complaining and making problems for their employers, even though they aren't making a fraction of what our workers used to be paid! We just aren't competitive any more, sad to say - small wonder China has taken our number one position in GDP growth!

I don't know what the answer is, because we can't live on a salary of $5.00 a day here. We'd better think of something, though, because if this continues, people won't even be able to afford eating at McDonalds!

Excellent Pol, You have put my feelings into writing which portrays them as they should be. I don't have an answer either. We lost our industrial base due to an over abundance of regulations, mandates and taxes. And yes, those once good paying jobs are overseas making someone else happy. Do we as a country actually make anything anymore?
 
Anyone with a bit of common sense knows the unemployed are the unemployed.
Still trying to figure out your definition, so let's try:
A 16 year old looking for a part time job.
Someone fired for cause and hasn't tried to find a new job.
Someone who quits and starts looking for a new job.
Someone who got laid off and decided they didn't need a job and would stay home with the kids.
A multi-million dollar lottery winner who stops looking for work.
Someone who stops looking for work due to pregnancy.
Someone who stops looking for work because he's just enrolled in a trade school.
A retiree who decides to look for a part time job.

Is it really as simple as you thought? Are your divisions clear, do they make sense, and do they give you the info you want?
 
That's still the definition, although, as always, those on temporary layoff who expect to return to their old job do not have to have looked.

Where is the change? And regardless of what most people's definition is, it's not a useful definition.

So you have two people working the same part time job for the same pay andyou want to call one of them employed and the other unemployed because one has a high school education and the other has a degree. That makes sense to you?

How about someone who has a degree in theater and is working as a waitress while trying to break into Hollywood. Employed or unemployed? Or someone who was an engineer, but retired and now has a part time job as a Wal-Mart greeter to stay active and earn a little money. Employed or Unemployed?

Simplistic doesn't work for a scientific approach trying to measure a lot of people with a sample.


No, that's not what the labor force participation rate is. The Labor Force is employed plus unemployed (everyone doing something about work) and the participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population.

But we're not trying to measure who doesn't have a job....we're trying to measure who is trying to get a job. And what if the five stopped looking because they were sick, ill, pregnant, had to take care of a family member, or they decided they just wanted to smoke pot in their mom's basement? They still don't have a job, are they still unemployed?

Why are we trying to measure who is trying to get a job, versus those who don't? I don't understand that reasoning. Is the thinking that people are basically lazy, and need to be prodded into looking for a job? If that's the case, then someone who visits a company or two during the week and gets a confirmation that they were indeed there, is trying? Or someone who sends their resume to 25 companies is trying?

The old rules always excluded the pregnant and the ill, which covered the "available for work" part. Your analogy of two workers both doing the same job on a part time basis wouldn't apply here, IMO, because under the new way of calculating things, both would be considered employed, so educational background wouldn't be a consideration. If you're working, even a few hours a week, you're considered employed.

Some of the rules changed during the Clinton administration, probably because of NAFTA, so this isn't all new with Obama. I believe the "labor force participation rate" is newly defined by Obama, though. Ross Perot had it exactly correct when he made the statement - and I paraphrase - "the giant sucking sound we hear is the result of jobs leaving America" during his Presidential campaign. Job loss has certainly increased since then - no unemployed workers today would dispute that!

Regarding your last paragraph: With the two exceptions I listed above, which were in the old rules, I believe that if you had a job and you no longer have a job, for whatever reason, then yes you are unemployed. There will always be those who will attempt to beat the system, so what else is new? It's human nature for some, I guess. You could show up for an interview for a job you don't want, dressed like a slob and smelling bad, but you've tried, right? Is that good enough to satisfy the new rules?
 
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.
We have. Many times.

But you still quote them anyways when they support the point you want to make. You are the very definition of bias and partisanship.

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.

You use the numbers Obama want you to see. Real unemployment is twice that. You want to ignore labor participation because it show how bad the employment situation really is
 
You don't really lose the true numbers, you get a more complete (and more useful) description of what's actually happening.

For example, let's say you were in charge of a business that had salesman. Would you be content with just knowing how much money the salesman as a group made you (let's say $100, for an easy number)? Or would you want to know that salesman A made $60, salesman B made $30 and salesman C-E combined only made $10? Furthermore, would you not want to know that salesman A made his $60 by selling 50 units of product A, 30 units of product B and 5 units of products C-E?

Of course you would. Having more detailed information allows for a more exact picture of what is actually happening. If I just said "well, I made $100", then it would hide the fact I had 3 salesmen who were not really doing anything and it would hide the fact I spending money on products C-E which don't sell.

Simple numbers may be easy for those who don't really care but having more detailed information is just more useful and gives a much better picture of what is actually happening.

Stop the lies. Obama and the democrats never give the truth. They always try to make it look not as bad as it really is. Try looking at real unemployment

Laid Off? Join 31 million unemployed Americans - UCubed — Blog — The Real Unemployment Rate
 
Estimates? You call that reliable? :doh

Compared to your pulling numbers out of your ass? Of course.

What more reliable method would you propose?
For the UE rate, at 90% confidence, the margin of error is +/- 0.2 percentage points (meaning the "real" number is somewhere between 5.7 and 6.1%

Compare to Gallup's estimate with a margin of error of +/- 0.7 percentage points.

But in any case, I note you're skipping over that you just made up where the data came from and decided to pass it off as fact without trying to see if you were right. Do you really consider that honest?
 
Excellent Pol, You have put my feelings into writing which portrays them as they should be. I don't have an answer either. We lost our industrial base due to an over abundance of regulations, mandates and taxes. And yes, those once good paying jobs are overseas making someone else happy. Do we as a country actually make anything anymore?

I sure have a hard time trying to find a label "Made in America." I actually cried when Levi Jeans threw in the towel. They came up with the concept of "jeans" during the California gold rush days, and Levi saw that they would sell. They invented the word jeans, and they were an honest American icon. Now they're gone, like so many other industries that used to employ our workers. Sad....

Ironically, there are many men's clothiers whose apparel is still made in the USA, from t-shirts to jackets to other items. Woolrich has been in business since 1830 - they made blankets during the Civil War - and they still make the best outdoor shirts and jackets for men that I have ever seen. They're woolen, they're soft, they look good, and they are very well made. They're a bit pricey, but they last forever. That what I've always bought as gifts for the male members of my family, and they LOVE them! I'm doing my part for our economy. :mrgreen:
 
Why are we trying to measure who is trying to get a job, versus those who don't? I don't understand that reasoning.
Because we want to know how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to work is not available for work.


Is the thinking that people are basically lazy, and need to be prodded into looking for a job? If that's the case, then someone who visits a company or two during the week and gets a confirmation that they were indeed there, is trying? Or someone who sends their resume to 25 companies is trying?
If someone does something that could get them a job and fails, that tells us something. Someone who doesn't do anything to get a job doesn't tell us anything when they don't.

The old rules always excluded the pregnant and the ill, which covered the "available for work" part.
But why would you exclude them if they want a job? Or if they quit looking? What difference is there as far as likelihood to be hired between someone who cannot work and someone just not trying to?

Some of the rules changed during the Clinton administration, probably because of NAFTA, so this isn't all new with Obama.
From 1967-1993 the definition of Unemployed was "Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days."

From 1994 on, the definition has been "Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."

Labor Force was still Employed plus Unemployed and the UE rate was still Unemployed divided by Labor Force.


I believe the "labor force participation rate" is newly defined by Obama, though.
Why do you believe that? Do you really think Obama was defining anything in 1975? Table A-1 of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scrib...=/docs/releases/bls/bls_employnews_197502.pdf

Job loss has certainly increased since then - no unemployed workers today would dispute that!
Except the number of employed and the number of jobs has been going steadily up for a few years now.

Regarding your last paragraph: With the two exceptions I listed above, which were in the old rules, I believe that if you had a job and you no longer have a job, for whatever reason, then yes you are unemployed. There will always be those who will attempt to beat the system, so what else is new? It's human nature for some, I guess. You could show up for an interview for a job you don't want, dressed like a slob and smelling bad, but you've tried, right? Is that good enough to satisfy the new rules?
So a teenager looking for his/her first job is what? And if someone had a job years ago, but stayed home with the kids for 10 years and is now looking for a job....have they been unemployed the whole time? And why do you make an exception for retirees when they match your description. Or someone who decides they don't want/need a job.

First, you're really confused about "old method," Did you even spot the tiny difference between before 1994 and after? One minor change to the unemployment definition in 1994. There were a lot of other changes, mostly in questionnaire design, computerization and big redefinitions of "part time for economic reasons" and "discouraged worker."

Your attempts at definitions are sloppy and have no coherency. WHY are you making the distinctions. I told you the actual reason: People not trying to work will not get hired. We know this. So why do you think they are as likely to get hired as someone looking for work or more likely to get hired as someone who is retired or pregnant or doesn't want a job?
 
Last edited:
Excellent work, Pol ... but you know it won't bring an end to this, don't you?

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

I really don't know why I bother, except it's my attempt to figure out the current thinking. We know that Clinton changed the rules because it was almost a certainty that unemployment would rise after he signed NAFTA - and it did. It was touted as a job maker for Americans at the time, if you recall, but Ross Perot knew better because he was a businessman, and he made his famous comment about the sucking sound of jobs leaving our shores.

I believe that the simple truth still applies: 1. You have no job now. 2. You are available for work now. 3. You have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. Using the K.I.S.S. principle was easy, but now there's all sorts of "what ifs" throw in which are totally unnecessary because everything was handled by the above. Now, if you're looking for work, you're no longer unemployed? Huh? People have never told a lie I guess. Anyway, using that criteria the unemployment number drops, which was what it was intended to do. Unfortunately it's not accurate, but that's reality today.

Fortunately, there are people who track these things, and when they tell us that the real unemployment numbers are nearly double what is being reported, with the black youth numbers nearly triple what is reported, I believe them! :shrug:
 
GreetiWe know that Clinton changed the rules
Except he didn't as I already proved and you've ignored. The questionnaire was computerized and one minor definition change regarding people waiting to start a job.

I believe that the simple truth still applies: 1. You have no job now. 2. You are available for work now. 3. You have actively looked for work in the past four weeks.
THAT IS THE CURRENT DEFINITION!!!!! Employment Situation Technical Note
"People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.


Now, if you're looking for work, you're no longer unemployed?
What???? Where did you get that nonsense?
 
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

I really don't know why I bother, except it's my attempt to figure out the current thinking. We know that Clinton changed the rules because it was almost a certainty that unemployment would rise after he signed NAFTA - and it did. It was touted as a job maker for Americans at the time, if you recall, but Ross Perot knew better because he was a businessman, and he made his famous comment about the sucking sound of jobs leaving our shores.

I believe that the simple truth still applies: 1. You have no job now. 2. You are available for work now. 3. You have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. Using the K.I.S.S. principle was easy, but now there's all sorts of "what ifs" throw in which are totally unnecessary because everything was handled by the above. Now, if you're looking for work, you're no longer unemployed? Huh? People have never told a lie I guess. Anyway, using that criteria the unemployment number drops, which was what it was intended to do. Unfortunately it's not accurate, but that's reality today.

Fortunately, there are people who track these things, and when they tell us that the real unemployment numbers are nearly double what is being reported, with the black youth numbers nearly triple what is reported, I believe them! :shrug:

Told Ya.
 
Back
Top Bottom