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

DA60 said:

'Following last week's surprising passage of the preliminary approval to extend emergency unemployment claims, i.e. emergency jobless claims, for 3 months, when six republicans sided with democrats and gave approval to the original $6.4 billion legislation, there was an expectation that up to 1.4 million Americans would get their benefits extended once again (despite the so-called recovery in the economy, and the job market, instead of just all time high S&P500). Moments ago such hopes were dashed, when a Senate plan to restore long-term jobless benefits hit a wall Tuesday after Republicans withdrew their support amid complaints over cost and other issues.

The $18 billion bill, which would restore the benefits through the end of 2014, failed to clear a key test vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needed to attract 60 senators to move the bill forward, but the bill stalled on a 52-48 vote.

No Republicans voted in favor.
What happened between then and now, and why did those republicans revert back to the party line?

Reid lost their support when he amended the bill and failed to come up with a plan to offset the cost within 10 years.

"It doesn't look good," Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins said before the vote and after a meeting with Reid.

Collins and Nevada GOP Sen. Dean Heller unsuccessfully proposed that Reid go back to the three-month extension. "We're back to ground zero," Heller said.

The senators are expected to return to the negotiating table. The GOP-controlled House has yet to vote on extending the benefits.

Reid postponed a prior vote Monday night upon realizing he didn't have enough support and said he needed time to talk with members of both parties.
It almost makes one wonder if Reid isn't trying to sabotage his own legislation. Whatever the answer, it increasingly seems that no law, retroactive or otherwise, will pass before the end of the month, which also means that up to (a record) 1.4 million Americans will fall out of the labor force, in addition to the now traditional 200K-600K people who quietly exit the labor pool every month. Which also means that, as we explained previously, since the impact on the unemployment rate could be as high as 0.8% from just the EUC expiration alone, that the unemployment rate for January could crash to under 6% just as the economy is starting to really backslide, as shown by the recent horrendous data from retailers across the board.'

Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass Senate | Zero Hedge

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see if that turned out to be the case, I just want to know how you would plan on separating the drop in unemployment due to these benefits expiring and the drop that is already naturally occurring. In other words unemployment has been going down and will likely to continue to go down, so how will you tell that it dropped specifically because o this?

Also some people may have seen that their benefits were ending months ago and already started to go out and look for jobs if they weren't already, so we may have already been feeling the impact of this law ending. And remember unemployment is defined by those people who do not currently have work but are looking for it, meaning that people drawing unemployment benefits under this program could technically be counted as employed by the Department of Labor which generates the unemployment statistics if they are actively seeking work. You may not see any impact from these benefits ending in the unemployment numbers because perhaps its not the correct metric.

So what I'm saying is, I'm curious how "Zero Hedge" or anyone else would measure this claim because I'd be very interested and seeing if they are right or not.

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

DA60 said:

'Following last week's surprising passage of the preliminary approval to extend emergency unemployment claims, i.e. emergency jobless claims, for 3 months, when six republicans sided with democrats and gave approval to the original $6.4 billion legislation, there was an expectation that up to 1.4 million Americans would get their benefits extended once again (despite the so-called recovery in the economy, and the job market, instead of just all time high S&P500). Moments ago such hopes were dashed, when a Senate plan to restore long-term jobless benefits hit a wall Tuesday after Republicans withdrew their support amid complaints over cost and other issues.

The $18 billion bill, which would restore the benefits through the end of 2014, failed to clear a key test vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needed to attract 60 senators to move the bill forward, but the bill stalled on a 52-48 vote.

No Republicans voted in favor.
What happened between then and now, and why did those republicans revert back to the party line?

Reid lost their support when he amended the bill and failed to come up with a plan to offset the cost within 10 years.

"It doesn't look good," Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins said before the vote and after a meeting with Reid.

Collins and Nevada GOP Sen. Dean Heller unsuccessfully proposed that Reid go back to the three-month extension. "We're back to ground zero," Heller said.

The senators are expected to return to the negotiating table. The GOP-controlled House has yet to vote on extending the benefits.

Reid postponed a prior vote Monday night upon realizing he didn't have enough support and said he needed time to talk with members of both parties.
It almost makes one wonder if Reid isn't trying to sabotage his own legislation. Whatever the answer, it increasingly seems that no law, retroactive or otherwise, will pass before the end of the month, which also means that up to (a record) 1.4 million Americans will fall out of the labor force, in addition to the now traditional 200K-600K people who quietly exit the labor pool every month. Which also means that, as we explained previously, since the impact on the unemployment rate could be as high as 0.8% from just the EUC expiration alone, that the unemployment rate for January could crash to under 6% just as the economy is starting to really backslide, as shown by the recent horrendous data from retailers across the board.'

Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass Senate | Zero Hedge

Click to expand...

I'll bet Reid did that for political points. He wanted to lose Republican support, because that's the kind of weasel he is.

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

pinqy said:

The BLS term is "Labor Underutilization.

Good thing for me I didn't say "always," isn't it? i said "tends to"

Not necessarily. The U6 and U5 both include the Marginally Attached: Those who want to work, are available to work, and who looked for work in the previous 12 months but not previous 4 weeks. So someone could "drop out" but not be available or no longer want a job and therefore would not be marginally attached. Note too, that most of the marginally attached aren't looking for personal reasons such as care of family, going back to school, illness/injury, etc. The discouraged are are seen in the U4.

Besides...why do you think someone who is not trying to work should be considered unemployed?

Click to expand...

U3 is a subset of U6 so long tern trends will always have a high correlation. But we aren't talking about long term trends, we are talking about the short term trends and what happens to the U3 and U6 when unemployment ends.

If you want to talk long term trends then throw the participation rate in as well since that has been the single largest driver in the U3 and U6 long term trends over the last 5 years.

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

DA60 said:

They should ask because I guarantee you there are a heck of a lot of premature retirees that were forced into that situation because they could not find work.[

Click to expand...

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

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

PeteEU said:

A middle class person use to a certain income will not go get a burger flipping job that pays 1/10 of his/her former income. That is what people on the right are telling people to do... just not realistic. Unemployment is meant to be temporary, I agree, but you have to factor in the health of the economy and availability of good paying jobs that people can live off. It is no use in removing unemployment payouts if you have not successfully recuperated the lost jobs and started at least to retrain the unemployed into the areas where there are jobs. Sadly this takes longer than 2 years.

Click to expand...

That is the biggest load of crap i have ever heard in my lifetime.

You do what you have to do in order to provide for your family and if that means flipping burgers then by God you flip burgers. until you can find something else.
Cause guess what sitting on your butt collecting a check for less than minimum wage (by the time you factor taxes) isn't doing you any good.

If you are on unemployment longer than 6 month you have no shot at getting hired. companies aren't even looking at your resume.
see the article i posted. it tells you why continuing to expand unemployment is doing more harm than good.

It only takes longer than 2 years if you aren't trying. you can find a job doing something in 2 years. no it might not be what you want to do but it at least shows you are able to be hired.

If i see two resume's with the same qualifications but one person has been on unemployment for 5 months and the other guy in that time has been working i am going to look at the guy who has been working.

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

PeteEU said:

Of those jobs, hotel desk and cleaning staff require no training or education. You just dont go from making cars to being a nurse at a hospital, or to preparing taxes. And that is my point.

Click to expand...

Actually the temporary tax prep people are just plugging your numbers in to Turbo Tax or a similar program like H&R Block software. There are advantages to having a low income when it comes to job training. Back before I started this business my wife wanted to go to school for medical lab tech but we could not afford it. I was making decent money but on top of our other bills I couldn't pay for school. Then I started the business and we experienced very low income for the first couple of years. At that point she qualified for both a Pell grant and Hope thru the state. We actually made money on that. They covered all expenses and she ended up getting about $1000 from overages (from buying used books and such to reduce expenses) per quarter. She is now working in a histology lab at the local hospital and making decent money with a promotion coming up. Before that she had one of those jobs listed in the paper this week, night audit at a hotel which paid half as much. She continued to work that job 3 nights a week for the first year of school until the homework ramped up. I think too often people are looking for their ideal job instead of being creative. School was 2 1/2 years, I remember in the beginning she thought the task was insurmountable. But we decided to look at it one semester at a time and adjust as necessary and we made it.

And that is MY point. There are jobs, there are grants, there are other opportunities available for those who can look past their preconceived notions of what their career should look like and do the work. I have a customer who took welding classes in high school and then paid his way thru technical college with an engineering degree without loans while making $15 an hour part time as a welder. It's all in how you look at it and what you are willing to do to make it happen.

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

ludin said:

That is the biggest load of crap i have ever heard in my lifetime.

Click to expand...

Oh?

You do what you have to do in order to provide for your family and if that means flipping burgers then by God you flip burgers. until you can find something else.

Click to expand...

Yes but how can you find something else if you are working 10 hours a day flipping burgers to maybe pay the electrical bill?

Cause guess what sitting on your butt collecting a check for less than minimum wage (by the time you factor taxes) isn't doing you any good.

Click to expand...

See that is the biggest load of crap I have heard in a while. Are you saying that the millions of unemployed are all lazy and sit on the butt and not doing anything to get a job? You sound like the same right wing fanatics that think all unemployed and poor are slackers and should not get any handouts, where as they the rich privilege should get tax breaks and handouts for being who they are.

If you are on unemployment longer than 6 month you have no shot at getting hired. companies aren't even looking at your resume.
see the article i posted. it tells you why continuing to expand unemployment is doing more harm than good.

It only takes longer than 2 years if you aren't trying. you can find a job doing something in 2 years. no it might not be what you want to do but it at least shows you are able to be hired.

Click to expand...

And that is a problem in it self.... bias by the employers. Also if you are over 40 then chances of a job are much less.

If i see two resume's with the same qualifications but one person has been on unemployment for 5 months and the other guy in that time has been working i am going to look at the guy who has been working.

Click to expand...

LOL well that is your bias that comes into it. Let me guess you would higher the 20 something over the 50 something right?

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

MrVicchio said:

Taxing the hell out of productive people to keep unproductive people reliant on Government for Votes is the DNC way... and that just keeps people chained in a cycle of poverty.

Click to expand...

So the "productive" people in the US are being taxed the hell out off? HAHAHA

The GOP believes YOU will do what it in your best interest when faced with adversity, where as people like yourself believe that without Government people will just die in the streets.

Click to expand...

No that is what they say, but what they believe is in staying in power at any cost and that cost is giving tax breaks and handouts to their rich backers. The idea of self reliance and less government has not been part of actual GOP policy since the 1960s.

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

tech30528 said:

Actually the temporary tax prep people are just plugging your numbers in to Turbo Tax or a similar program like H&R Block software. There are advantages to having a low income when it comes to job training. Back before I started this business my wife wanted to go to school for medical lab tech but we could not afford it. I was making decent money but on top of our other bills I couldn't pay for school. Then I started the business and we experienced very low income for the first couple of years. At that point she qualified for both a Pell grant and Hope thru the state. We actually made money on that. They covered all expenses and she ended up getting about $1000 from overages (from buying used books and such to reduce expenses) per quarter. She is now working in a histology lab at the local hospital and making decent money with a promotion coming up. Before that she had one of those jobs listed in the paper this week, night audit at a hotel which paid half as much. She continued to work that job 3 nights a week for the first year of school until the homework ramped up. I think too often people are looking for their ideal job instead of being creative. School was 2 1/2 years, I remember in the beginning she thought the task was insurmountable. But we decided to look at it one semester at a time and adjust as necessary and we made it.

And that is MY point. There are jobs, there are grants, there are other opportunities available for those who can look past their preconceived notions of what their career should look like and do the work. I have a customer who took welding classes in high school and then paid his way thru technical college with an engineering degree without loans while making $15 an hour part time as a welder. It's all in how you look at it and what you are willing to do to make it happen.

Click to expand...

I understand and agree, but as you point out yourself.. it takes time. Your wife did not overnight get the qualifications for her new job, and that time it takes also requires money to live off. Like it or not, it is not easy to change professions... or cheap, and not by a long shot. Add in the family aspect and then it gets even harder and the older you are the less of a chance of profession change and employment.

And by removing unemployment benefits without alternatives will only push people into two categories... those you mention above.. the minority, and then the rest will be pushed into poverty.

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

MrVicchio said:

Taxing the hell out of productive people to keep unproductive people reliant on Government for Votes is the DNC way... and that just keeps people chained in a cycle of poverty.

The GOP believes YOU will do what it in your best interest when faced with adversity, where as people like yourself believe that without Government people will just die in the streets.

Click to expand...

In case you missed it, taxation is now a mere option - the federal gov't simply borrows the difference between what "needs to be" spent and what it dares to ask for in direct taxation. Although both parties profess to disagree with that "budgeting" arrangement, it has received bipartisan support for over four decades.

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

The problem with ending the benefits is there wasn't a "transition" phase that included retraining or possibly child care. Retraining is not free and during that time child care is needed. Now some will just say "Well it's not our faults that they have kids". No, it isn't however, ending the benefits and forcing people out on the streets is going to be creating a problem for people eventually.

Too many times the GOP and the Dems look at a problem from only ONE side and they don't think ahead to what will happen later when they pass or don't pass something.

Sad really that people continually think the Dems and Reps are actually FOR the people. They are FOR themselves.

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

Kushinator said:

Thank you for pointing this out. I was not aware the Fed's database contained all BLS data.



Yes, but let me assure you it was not my intent.



It does provide a more accurate metric than simply subtracting ratios.

Click to expand...

It seems that no matter what figures or graphs you use, they all show a huge jump in unemployment around 2008/2009, and a gradual decrease since then, but with unemployment still a lot higher than it was before the recession.

You can spin those numbers however you want. If you're a Democrat, then it's the "Bush recession" that is responsible for the jump in unemployment. If you're a Republican, then the higher numbers currently are obviously due to having a Democrat in the White House, this despite the fact that little changed when the letter after the POTUS' name changed.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of people are hurting financially, and that they therefore aren't contributing to the tax receipts, nor are they keeping the wheels of commerce spinning by buying that new car, big screen, washing machine, or anything else.

which, of course, keeps the recession moving along.

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

MrVicchio said:

Taxing the hell out of productive people

Click to expand...

A qualitative statement lacking both context and relativity.

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

MrVicchio said:

Ya know, when I left the Navy, I had a high paying job lined up. The day of the interview a Hurricane hit Houston. The company I was going to work for their building was damaged and the company folded. I got stuck, on family land in San Antonio. I went on unemployment, for 3 weeks. I couldn't tolerate those checks. I took a base level position with Best Buy. I actually made LESS on that then I did my unemployment check, but I was earning it. I quit that job after landing a better job, and kept looking for better opportunities.

It's been almost 9 years since I got out of the Navy, my wife and I started out making at or just above Min wage, today, we're doing much much better. We had nothing, now we have something. We are planning to buy a house this year. We went without lots of nice things, we went pay check to pay check. We worked our asses off. I have rich relatives, I could have leaned on them for money, but I didn't. I could have lived on their land, living off unemployment and all kinds of welfare for years, but I refused to be a leech.

I have little pity for people that refuse to work hard, sacrifice to get ahead. I have compassion for people in need who strive to improve.

Life ain't fair, wallowing in self pity or believing you're owed something isn't right.

Click to expand...

A deterministic anecdote following a normative rant. I guess that is the way of things :shrug:

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

PeteEU said:

I understand and agree, but as you point out yourself.. it takes time. Your wife did not overnight get the qualifications for her new job, and that time it takes also requires money to live off. Like it or not, it is not easy to change professions... or cheap, and not by a long shot. Add in the family aspect and then it gets even harder and the older you are the less of a chance of profession change and employment.

And by removing unemployment benefits without alternatives will only push people into two categories... those you mention above.. the minority, and then the rest will be pushed into poverty.

Click to expand...

It comes down to a decision of whether or not an individual wants to settle for the status quo or put forward the effort to succeed. Our route was a challenge and while she was going to school there were considerable logistics involved to be able to make it all work. For those who have been long term unemployed they have had enough time to figure out that what they were doing was not going to cut it. What they decide (or have already decided) to do is an individual decision, but it is entirely possible if you are willing to "accept the suck" long enough to achieve the goal. And we did have family to deal with as well, our son was in grade school at the time.

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

pinqy said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Kushinator said:

A deterministic anecdote following a normative rant. I guess that is the way of things :shrug:

Click to expand...

Providing background for the source of my motivation, but i suppose that's probably too much for one like yourself.

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

Kushinator said:

A qualitative statement lacking both context and relativity.

Click to expand...

Not really, you seem to be of the mind that people should be punished for working.

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

DA60 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

Click to expand...

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/intman/Part B Chapter 2.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'?

Click to expand...

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'?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

pinqy said:

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/intman/Part B Chapter 2.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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

DA60 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

MrVicchio said:

Providing background for the source of my motivation, but i suppose that's probably too much for one like yourself.

Click to expand...

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.

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

MrVicchio said:

Not really, you seem to be of the mind that people should be punished for working.

Click to expand...

Paying taxes is not punishment. In fact, the ability to pay taxes is actually an accomplishment.

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

CanadaJohn said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are at least 10 million people seeking work.

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

Dezaad said:

There are at least 10 million people seeking work.

Click to expand...

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?