• 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!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

Conservative said:
Really? discouraged workers don't affect the officially released unemployment rate? The more discouraged workers the lower the unemployment number and the lower the OFFICIALLY released rate.
Click to expand...
Same thing for ANYONE who stops looking for any reason: illness, injury, pregancy, family issues, transportation issues, going back to school, winning the lottery, finding a sugar daddy/mama.

The U-6 rate remains high,
Click to expand...

The U6 is more than just discouraged.


the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth,
Click to expand...
Mostly because a lower percent of the population wants a job.

and the number of part time workers looking for full time jobs remains high.
Click to expand...
but on the way down.
The electorate sees it, why can't you?
Click to expand...
What is it you think I don't see? NONE of what you've said has anything to do with your claim that discouraged are really employed. Is that how you work? You make a claim and then when asked about it, ignore the actual question and spin off a billion other points that are, at best, tangentially related.

I only asked what your definition of unemployed was that you consider discouraged to be clearly unemployed. You won't answer. Why not? It was a simple question.
Here, I'll help you out. The official definition of Unemployed is:
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 sometime 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. http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What's yours?
 
pinqy said:
Same thing for ANYONE who stops looking for any reason: illness, injury, pregancy, family issues, transportation issues, going back to school, winning the lottery, finding a sugar daddy/mama.



The U6 is more than just discouraged.



Mostly because a lower percent of the population wants a job.

but on the way down.

What is it you think I don't see? NONE of what you've said has anything to do with your claim that discouraged are really employed. Is that how you work? You make a claim and then when asked about it, ignore the actual question and spin off a billion other points that are, at best, tangentially related.

I only asked what your definition of unemployed was that you consider discouraged to be clearly unemployed. You won't answer. Why not? It was a simple question.
Here, I'll help you out. The official definition of Unemployed is:
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 sometime 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. http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

What's yours?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what it is about people like you who simply cannot admit that the more discouraged workers the lower the unemployment rate and that discouraged workers aren't counted in the unemployment numbers officially released. Never did I say that discouraged workers were employed but said the exact opposite, they are unemployed. That high number plus the high number of part time employees have made the rate lower than it really is. This coupled with the failed leadership of Obama plus poor economic policies are what the electorate is seeing. He won the election in 2008 with 53% of the vote. Today his support is 41% or a 13% drop. Those are supporters who have lost faith in him. If the GOP had put up good Senatorial candidates in 2010 he would have lost the Senate as well. The people feel the economic effects of Obama and no matter how you spin the numbers, discouraged workers, part time employment, massive debt are affecting the economy and led to Obama's loss of Congress
 
Conservative said:
I have no idea what it is about people like you who simply cannot admit that the more discouraged workers the lower the unemployment rate and that discouraged workers aren't counted in the unemployment numbers officially released.
Click to expand...
Since they are not part of the equation, they cannot affect the equation. Did you fail math? And you continue to avoid the question of why you only mention discouraged when there are many many other reasons for no longer looking. Why do you only want to include discouraged? And of course they're not counted as unemployed...they're not unemployed.


Never did I say that discouraged workers were employed but said the exact opposite, they are unemployed.
Click to expand...
That was a typo. But no, they are not unemployed. Read the definition. They don't match it.

Again, for what, the twelth time? What definition of unemployed are you using that would include discouraged but no others not trying to work?
 
Hatuey said:
If you have the cash, invest down South. Mexico may seem crazy, but it's where a lot of Americans go to retire for a reason. Food is cheap, life is great, and you get to walk by the beach every day if you want to. Price of a 2 floor home with all the bells and whistles? Around $40-50K
Click to expand...

Yes, Grim said the same thing. But to be honest, I have an inherent fear of living anywhere but the United States. I have traveled the world and experienced many cultures. I would never change that either. These exposures were truly a blessing. I have been to Mexico many times and I have enjoyed myself there very much. But, especially as of late, I am no longer inclined to even visit Mexico. Been there, done that. I'm sure my "foreign paranoia," if you will, is relatively unfounded if you and Grim have experienced positive experiences there but it is what it is.

Besides, I'm a Florida baby. I have family there. I have boats and fishing gear there. I have GPS numbers of some of the BEST fishing spots there. And, most of all, my wife LOVES it there. Happy wife, happy life. 'Nuff said? LOL!

Have a great weekend Hatuey. Thanks for getting back to me.
 
Captain America said:
Yes, Grim said the same thing. But to be honest, I have an inherent fear of living anywhere but the United States. I have traveled the world and experienced many cultures. I would never change that either. These exposures were truly a blessing. I have been to Mexico many times and I have enjoyed myself there very much. But, especially as of late, I am no longer inclined to even visit Mexico. Been there, done that. I'm sure my "foreign paranoia," if you will, is relatively unfounded if you and Grim have experienced positive experiences there but it is what it is.

Besides, I'm a Florida baby. I have family there. I have boats and fishing gear there. I have GPS numbers of some of the BEST fishing spots there. And, most of all, my wife LOVES it there. Happy wife, happy life. 'Nuff said? LOL!
Click to expand...

Just a little option to have in mind. I'm in the process of purchasing a house there right now. Renting it out to some Canadians on 6 month leases and having a friend watch over it for another 6. Good investment in case **** in the US gets worse.
 
Hatuey said:
Just a little option to have in mind. I'm in the process of purchasing a house there right now. Renting it out to some Canadians on 6 month leases and having a friend watch over it for another 6. Good investment in case **** in the US gets worse.
Click to expand...

It's always good to have a plan "B."

But it's hard to imagine things ever getting any worse in the US than they already are in Mexico. But, from a "tourista," point of view, I can see how Mexico might not seem so bad if one can stay somewhat removed from corrupt nature of Mexico, in general. But I have to say, the Mexican people in Mexico, as well as the Mexican-American people I have met in South Texas, are the salt of the earth. We could learn a LOT about just "being good people," from them.

Pretty soon, if things keep going as they seem to appear to be, it won't be long until much of the United States becomes Mexico anyways. Perhaps the move would become unnecessary.

It's kind of ironic. Mexicans are risking life and limb to come to the US for a better life and Americans are talking about moving to Mexico. LOL!
 
Captain America said:
It's always good to have a plan "B."

But it's hard to imagine things ever getting any worse in the US than they already are in Mexico. But, from a "tourista," point of view, I can see how Mexico might not seem so bad if one can stay somewhat removed from corrupt nature of mexico in general. But I have to say, the Mexican people in Mexico, as well as the Mexican people I have met in south Texas, are the salt of the earth. We could learn a LOT about just "being good people," from them.

Pretty soon, if things keep going as they seem to appear to be, it won't be long until the United States becomes Mexico. Perhaps the move would become unnecessary.

It's kind of ironic. Mexicans are risking life and limb to come to the US for a better life and Americans are talking about moving to Mexico. LOL!
Click to expand...

Yep, it's kind of sad that there are so many Americans who want to put up a wall between the US and Mexico. We share history, culture and customs. I spent nearly 2 years living there and I couldn't imagine a better people. They work harder than the average American and complain half as much if at all. I definitely wouldn't mind retiring there. Maybe later I'll post some pics of the house and how we're securing it.
 
Hatuey said:
Yep, it's kind of sad that there are so many Americans who want to put up a wall between the US and Mexico. We share history, culture and customs. I spent nearly 2 years living there and I couldn't imagine a better people. They work harder than the average American and complain half as much if at all. I definitely wouldn't mind retiring there. Maybe later I'll post some pics of the house and how we're securing it.
Click to expand...

That would be awesome. I'll see if I can dig up some photos I took in Mexico as well. It is, without a doubt, a beautiful country generally speaking. Truly, I wouldn't mind going back but I have been there 10-12 times already and with limited funds, and limited time, there are some other places on my bucket list I have yet to get too.
 
Captain America said:
That would be awesome. I'll see if I can dig up some photos I took in Mexico as well. It is, without a doubt, a beautiful country generally speaking. Truly, I wouldn't mind going back but I have been there 10-12 times already and with limited funds, and limited time, there are some other places on my bucket list I have yet to get too.
Click to expand...

Go to Cuba. We've stopped regulating travel laws to that country almost a decade ago. Definitely a place to visit if you've got the means. I go because of my wife. Great country, food and the people are beautiful.
 
Hatuey said:
Go to Cuba. We've stopped regulating travel laws to that country almost a decade ago. Definitely a place to visit if you've got the means. I go because of my wife. Great country, food and the people are beautiful.
Click to expand...

You know, that is a good idea. It's not that far and I bet it is very affordable. I have heard many stories about how beautiful and fun Cuba is. I think the US is cutting off their nose to spite their face in regards to our relationship to Cuba. Things have changed. Times are different. Maybe it's time to just get over it and let by-gone's be by-gone's. Who knows what kind of positive things could happen if everyone would just take a step back and re-consider.
 
pinqy said:
Since they are not part of the equation, they cannot affect the equation. Did you fail math? And you continue to avoid the question of why you only mention discouraged when there are many many other reasons for no longer looking. Why do you only want to include discouraged? And of course they're not counted as unemployed...they're not unemployed.



That was a typo. But no, they are not unemployed. Read the definition. They don't match it.

Again, for what, the twelth time? What definition of unemployed are you using that would include discouraged but no others not trying to work?
Click to expand...

Done with this with you, discouraged workers are part of the U-6 number along with the rest of the under employed, that to me is the true number and should be the official number
 
Conservative said:
Done with this with you, discouraged workers are part of the U-6 number along with the rest of the under employed, that to me is the true number and should be the official number
Click to expand...

And you STILL avoid the question.

And by the way, the U6 is Unemployed plus All Marginally Attached (not just Discouraged) and those working part time for economic reasons. So are you now changing to want to call all Marginally Attached as Unemployed?

Why are you continuing to refuse to give a simple definition?
It's simple....Take the current definition:
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 sometime 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. http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

Now add one what you think should be included.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
And you STILL avoid the question.

And by the way, the U6 is Unemployed plus All Marginally Attached (not just Discouraged) and those working part time for economic reasons. So are you now changing to want to call all Marginally Attached as Unemployed?

Why are you continuing to refuse to give a simple definition?
It's simple....Take the current definition:
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 sometime 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. http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

Now add one what you think should be included.
Click to expand...

It seems rather simple to me, the U-6 rate is the complete story and that is where the economic policies should be focused not simply the unemployed. You are touting the Official rate, the U-3, that includes 7.5 million part time employees that want full time jobs and claiming success for Obama. That isn't success and doesn't tell the whole story, the U-6 does. That number is included in the under employed as well so use the U-6 rate which tells it all and cannot be used for political gain.

Current U-6 is 11.5% and that is what the American electorate feels. Too high and not being addressed
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
It seems rather simple to me, the U-6 rate is the complete story and that is where the economic policies should be focused not simply the unemployed. You are touting the Official rate, the U-3, that includes 7.5 million part time employees that want full time jobs and claiming success for Obama. That isn't success and doesn't tell the whole story, the U-6 does. That number is included in the under employed as well so use the U-6 rate which tells it all and cannot be used for political gain.

Current U-6 is 11.5% and that is what the American electorate feels. Too high and not being addressed
Click to expand...

The U6 is indeed a useful rate for looking at the whole picture. No one is arguing otherwise. But it's not a measure of Unemployment. Seriously, while we certainly need to keep track of those working part time for economic reasons, do you really want to say they are Unemployed?

The U3 tells us how hard it is to get a job, any job. The Discouraged do NOT tell us how hard it is to get a job: At best they tell us how hard they believed it would be to find a job 2-12 months ago. Not really useful for telling us about the current time period.

Look at it this way, using the analogy of a store. Unemployed are the stock you have on hand in the store. Discouraged and other marginally attached are what you have in the warehouse. Part time for economic reasons are products you sold at a discount.

When looking at the broadest picture of the total profit you could theoretically have made, sure you would include inventory in the warehouse and the difference between discount and full price. But when you're looking at what you did sell and what you could have sold....you couldn't have sold the inventory in the warehouse (because it was in the warehouse not the store) and you wouldn't say the discounted items were not sales at all. You would look at how much stock you had on hand, and how many sales you made.
 
pinqy said:
The U6 is indeed a useful rate for looking at the whole picture. No one is arguing otherwise. But it's not a measure of Unemployment. Seriously, while we certainly need to keep track of those working part time for economic reasons, do you really want to say they are Unemployed?

The U3 tells us how hard it is to get a job, any job. The Discouraged do NOT tell us how hard it is to get a job: At best they tell us how hard they believed it would be to find a job 2-12 months ago. Not really useful for telling us about the current time period.

Look at it this way, using the analogy of a store. Unemployed are the stock you have on hand in the store. Discouraged and other marginally attached are what you have in the warehouse. Part time for economic reasons are products you sold at a discount.

When looking at the broadest picture of the total profit you could theoretically have made, sure you would include inventory in the warehouse and the difference between discount and full price. But when you're looking at what you did sell and what you could have sold....you couldn't have sold the inventory in the warehouse (because it was in the warehouse not the store) and you wouldn't say the discounted items were not sales at all. You would look at how much stock you had on hand, and how many sales you made.
Click to expand...


Seems that far too many simply look at the official unemployment rate and claim success or failure. There is more to that rate than meets the eye and since the Architect of Obamacare claims the electorate is stupid a bigger picture has to be painted. There are 7.5 million part time workers who want full time jobs and that has to be addressed. Simply giving Obama or any President for the official rate doesn't tell the entire story and in part is why Obama lost the Congress and why I say he has not done his job.
 
Dang. Y'all are making me dizzy.

That's it. I'm never going to use an analogy again.
 
Captain America said:
Dang. Y'all are making me dizzy.

That's it. I'm never going to use an analogy again.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that like "I'm never gonna drink again" or like "I'm never gonna drink milk without smelling it first again".
 
ecofarm said:
Do you mean that like "I'm never gonna drink again" or like "I'm never gonna drink milk without smelling it first again".
Click to expand...

Oh sure. Just spin me around some more. :shock:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom