• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Maybe so. However, anyone with a sense of self-worth and the confidence to prove it isn't going to be bothered.

Ages 20 to 24 years old is the age group with the highest unemployment rate. Pretty much double every other age group. If anything that kind of points to a reality that people have been doing what you mention and it's pushing out people trying to get entry level jobs.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Yes, as low as my opinions are about almost all federal politicians....mine of Reid is even lower.

He is a real piece of work, that one is (IMO).

Maintaining Democratic control of the senate and his own majority leadership position is his number one priority. There has been time I think his only priority. As seen in his scuttling and sabotage of the unemployment insurance bill that was a sure thing to pass for a campaign issue shows his only loyalty is to himself and his party. Not to the country or her people.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Sense of self worth? Confidence? Oh, you mean someone who hasn't already been to a couple of dozen job interviews without being hired.

Yeah, life is a bitch sometimes, isn't it. Is that you playing the violin in the background?
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Ages 20 to 24 years old is the age group with the highest unemployment rate. Pretty much double every other age group. If anything that kind of points to a reality that people have been doing what you mention and it's pushing out people trying to get entry level jobs.

Perhaps the people in the 20 to 24 yr range aren't acquiring the skills and knowledge necessary to enter the workforce where there is need. How many of those 20 to 24 yr olds have a virtually useless BA in some liberal arts field? Somebody 20 to 24 has no need for 2 plus years of unemployment insurance benefits - period.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

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

Too bad that this is not accurate.

Same old Dirty Harry continues his same old dirty tricks with the media's compliance and distortion.
He is backing a plan crafted by Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would restart the benefits for three months and figure out later how to offset the billions of dollars it would cost the government to do so. Many Republicans, especially in the House, have resisted the idea of writing more benefits checks without a way to pay for them first.

Reid emphasized it’s his belief that it is “not Republicans, but Republican members of Congress” who are unwilling to extend emergency unemployment benefits. “The vast majority of the American people believe that unemployment benefits should be extended,” he said.
Reid pressures Republicans to extend emergency unemployment benefits January 5

It's not unwilling to extend unemployment benefits, it's doing so without paying for them.

But the other side of the story is much different. I shows a bullying Senator Majority Leader Reid.

But hopes for a breakthrough were dashed when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered up a mostly Democratic-driven plan that would cover the $18 billion cost of extending the federal benefits through November.

Senate Republicans were further incensed when Reid told them he would not allow any amendments to the plan.

“I have been waiting here for more than 24 hours for a reasonable proposal by my Republican friends to pay for this. We don’t have one yet,” Reid said on the floor.

Republicans lashed out at Reid, arguing that they had put ideas forward and that all they wanted to do was sit down and work out a bipartisan agreement.
. . . .
What was shaping up to be a humdrum day on Capitol Hill turned into a firestorm as Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed his own plan to extend unemployment benefits and effectively blocked Republicans from having further say in the matter.
UI talks stall after Reid locks out Republican changes « Hot Air January 10

So your aspersions on Republicans, as much as it may make you feel good, isn't based on facts. Sorry about bursting your bubble.

It's not as if the Democrats have a strong track record of honoring their commitments to cut spending in the future to pay for spending now. Democrats want spending now AND more spending int he future. That's just fiscally irresponsible.
DemocratsLucypullsFootballoutfromunderEstablishmentRepublicansCharlieBrown_zps71973607.png
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Why do you "fall out of the labor force" when you get these benefits? Real question.

You don't. You fall out when you stop getting them. If BLS can't track you through a government unemployment program or tax data then you don't count in the U3 Unemployment statistic.

I would guess what Zero Hedge is talking about is the very real phenomenon where people dropping out of Unemployment programs are no longer counted as employed. They are "discouraged workers" and only get counted in U6 Unemployment figures.

So if you have 3 out of 10 people unemployed but enrolled in a jobs program then U3 would show 7/10 employed and a 30% unemployment. If those 1 of those people drops out of the unemployment program, even though they never found a job, the U3 number is 7/9 or 23% unemployment. It looks like unemployment is dropping when in fact it isn't.

What we will see, more than likely, is a precipitous drop in the U3 unemployment with a far smaller or non-existent drop in U6 unemployment.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

The labor force consists of people working and looking for work. However the people looking for work only count for around six months. Anyone looking for work for more than 6 months (about 24-25 weeks) is no longer counted.
Absolutely untrue. There is no maximum time As long as you're trying to find work, you're classified as unemployed.
A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment shows over 2.5 million unemployed over a year.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

What's horse **** is presuming that underemployment is the only option. There are many cases where individuals wouldn't be underemployed, just underpaid in their own inflated view of their worth. It may seem trite to you, perhaps someone who believes living off the avails of the working is more honorable than a decent days work, but not to me.

I'll give an example that may be laughable to you, but I remember a movie titled Kramer vs Kramer where a father was fighting for custody of his child and he lost his high paying job just before his court hearing. He didn't sit back and wait for another high paying job to come his way or wallow in the unfairness. He went out and beat the streets and got a similar job to the one he had, but at the bottom of the ladder at a fraction of his former salary because he needed a job in order to save his hope of keeping custody of his son.

More people need to get back on the bottom rungs of the ladder and work themselves back up to the positions they had prior to the recession. That's what I'm talking about, not some idiotic example of an accountant working as a janitor.

Movie analogies aside, underemployment is detrimental to long term employment growth..., not to mention long term productivity. An economic policy that incentivizes skill mismatch might have some emotional support/appeal, but from a purely economic POV, people would be better served upskilling/retraining than working full time at a job they are clearly overqualified to hold.

For many American firms, the legacy cost of employing well into a person's 60's is a burden many companies have been relieving themselves of as of recently (circa 2009). Why pay a mid level executive $100k/yr + benefits for him and his family when you can hire a young buck and train them at 60% the cost? Kids, house, families cost of living, education expenses, etc... does cost money. Selling the house, cashing in the 401k and moving to another location is not the tempting option it once was (well, maybe partially due to various credit easing policies, but hey), especially if they are within the realm of negative equity. That's always an encouraging dose of reality, paying on $30k you owe the bank after selling the house, grossing $45k/yr. They were better off staying where they were, working as a janitor!

And just so it's clear, underemployment has been the norm when it comes to job growth these past few years. Underemployment can be accurately estimated by the spread between U6 and U5 alternative underutilization measures.

Ladies and gentleman, i give you the underemployment rate in the U.S.

fredgraph.png


FWIW, i was setting you up for this.
 
Last edited:
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Perhaps the people in the 20 to 24 yr range aren't acquiring the skills and knowledge necessary to enter the workforce where there is need. How many of those 20 to 24 yr olds have a virtually useless BA in some liberal arts field? Somebody 20 to 24 has no need for 2 plus years of unemployment insurance benefits - period.

:no:

I think you have a pretty misconstrued value of what an education entails.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Perhaps the people in the 20 to 24 yr range aren't acquiring the skills and knowledge necessary to enter the workforce where there is need. How many of those 20 to 24 yr olds have a virtually useless BA in some liberal arts field? Somebody 20 to 24 has no need for 2 plus years of unemployment insurance benefits - period.

Bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by field of study: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2011-12

Using the numbers posted in here the % of degrees in Social science and Humanities are either close to or less than the average. Computer science/Business have seen huge gains.

I don't think it pans out that everyone is getting social science degrees or Humanities degrees and therefore can't find jobs.

For graduate school the degrees people are getting are moving much more towards business and further away from Humanities and Social Science.

It's not the kids just graduating fault...it's a weak job market.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

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

if you are considered long term unemployed IE > 6 months companies are not even looking at your resume.

The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic

how hard is it to go to a local store or some where else and apply for a job. no it might not be the work you want to do but you will have an easier time finding a job if you have a job vs sitting back collecting unemployment.

so the people that have been out for 2 years not getting a job have basically shot themselves in the head, but who cares they are getting free money to sit at home.

Unemployment is meant for short term compensation while you try and find another job it isn't a long term lifestyle. if you can't find some kind of work any kind of work in 2 years you have issues.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Movie analogies aside, underemployment is detrimental to long term employment growth..., not to mention long term productivity. An economic policy that incentivizes skill mismatch might have some emotional support/appeal, but from a purely economic POV, people would be better served upskilling/retraining than working full time at a job they are clearly overqualified to hold.

For many American firms, the legacy cost of employing well into a person's 60's is a burden many companies have been relieving themselves of as of recently (circa 2009). Why pay a mid level executive $100k/yr + benefits for him and his family when you can hire a young buck and train them at 60% the cost? Kids, house, families cost of living, education expenses, etc... does cost money. Selling the house, cashing in the 401k and moving to another location is not the tempting option it once was (well, maybe partially due to various credit easing policies, but hey), especially if they are within the realm of negative equity. That's always an encouraging dose of reality, paying on $30k you owe the bank after selling the house, grossing $45k/yr. They were better off staying where they were, working as a janitor!

And just so it's clear, underemployment has been the norm when it comes to job growth these past few years. Underemployment can be accurately estimated by the spread between U6 and U5 alternative underutilization measures.

Ladies and gentleman, i give you the underemployment rate in the U.S.

fredgraph.png


FWIW, i was setting you up for this.
The U6 doesn't measure underemployment as you seem to be describing. In addition to the unemployed and marginally attached, it includes those working part time for economic reasons. Those are people who want to and can work 35+ hours a week but worked less than 35 due to slow business or couldn't find a full time job. Experience, education, or previous salary are irrelevant.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

The U6 doesn't measure underemployment as you seem to be describing. In addition to the unemployed and marginally attached, it includes those working part time for economic reasons. Those are people who want to and can work 35+ hours a week but worked less than 35 due to slow business or couldn't find a full time job. Experience, education, or previous salary are irrelevant.

Unfortunately, BLS does not collect the qualitative data necessary to measure full time underemployment. You can tease discouraged workers out of the u6-u5 spread, but that really doesn't achieve the desired result.

My example was to convey the idea of underemployment to another poster. The graph was just to drive home the idea that underemployment is a problem within this recovery.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

You don't. You fall out when you stop getting them. If BLS can't track you through a government unemployment program or tax data then you don't count in the U3 Unemployment statistic.

Whether or not one receives unemployment benefits does not effect one's unemployment status. It's not taken into account by the Bureau. The BLS also does not "track" the work status of individuals over time.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

You don't. You fall out when you stop getting them. If BLS can't track you through a government unemployment program or tax data then you don't count in the U3 Unemployment statistic.

I would guess what Zero Hedge is talking about is the very real phenomenon where people dropping out of Unemployment programs are no longer counted as employed. They are "discouraged workers" and only get counted in U6 Unemployment figures.

So if you have 3 out of 10 people unemployed but enrolled in a jobs program then U3 would show 7/10 employed and a 30% unemployment. If those 1 of those people drops out of the unemployment program, even though they never found a job, the U3 number is 7/9 or 23% unemployment. It looks like unemployment is dropping when in fact it isn't.

What we will see, more than likely, is a precipitous drop in the U3 unemployment with a far smaller or non-existent drop in U6 unemployment.

I've always contended that these unemployment numbers are meaningless and this just supports my theory.

OTOH, I was listening to the radio on my way around today and they were discussing how millions of people are pressuring the states to legalize online gaming wit only one major player fighting it - Sheldon Adelson, who can't abide the thought of anyone making money except his own selfish-prick billionaire self. And it made me think that if millions are worried about this form of wasting money - how bad can things be really?

I don't think the employment picture is all that pretty but apparently plenty of people have good enough jobs to even care about online gaming. I suppose only a Nevadan would fully grok this, but you should see what I'm referring to.

Thanks for the intelligent and logical response to my original question.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Yeah, life is a bitch sometimes, isn't it. Is that you playing the violin in the background?

Just me being realistic about what can destroy a person's confidence and sense of self worth.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Just me being realistic about what can destroy a person's confidence and sense of self worth.

We're talking about people here who have been receiving upwards of 99 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits and looking to get that extended. If they haven't developed a sense of self worth, confidence and a pretty thick skin by now, there's not much hope that a few extra months of benefits is going to change anything. Should they be offered benefits in perpetuity?
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

We're talking about people here who have been receiving upwards of 99 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits and looking to get that extended. If they haven't developed a sense of self worth, confidence and a pretty thick skin by now, there's not much hope that a few extra months of benefits is going to change anything. Should they be offered benefits in perpetuity?

Actually, they were talking about extending it once again to 99 weeks. Once they've had that, then there is no more anyway. It's time to take whatever is available, or move where the job market is better. I know people who chose the latter option and are doing much better now. But, the reality is that looking and looking, and constantly being turned down for work can lead one to despair.

Now, here is a question:

Are there enough jobs for everyone? If no, then if someone is out of work long term, is it due to laziness, or lack of work?

Option 1: The economy is getting better, the job market is improving, and so anyone who tries hard enough can find work.

Option 2: The economy is in the toilet, therefore, people out of work is a failure of the people in charge of the economic policies, and not the individual job seeker.

Believing both at the same time requires a talent for doublethink.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Actually, they were talking about extending it once again to 99 weeks. Once they've had that, then there is no more anyway. It's time to take whatever is available, or move where the job market is better. I know people who chose the latter option and are doing much better now. But, the reality is that looking and looking, and constantly being turned down for work can lead one to despair.

Now, here is a question:

Are there enough jobs for everyone? If no, then if someone is out of work long term, is it due to laziness, or lack of work?

Option 1: The economy is getting better, the job market is improving, and so anyone who tries hard enough can find work.

Option 2: The economy is in the toilet, therefore, people out of work is a failure of the people in charge of the economic policies, and not the individual job seeker.

Believing both at the same time requires a talent for doublethink.

It's due to laziness - more specifically, it's due to them refusing to work in a field that may not be identical to the one they just left, and deciding to "wait it out" while staying on the dole.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

It's due to laziness - more specifically, it's due to them refusing to work in a field that may not be identical to the one they just left, and deciding to "wait it out" while staying on the dole.

I see. So, you believe option 1, the job market is getting better?
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

You don't. You fall out when you stop getting them. If BLS can't track you through a government unemployment program or tax data then you don't count in the U3 Unemployment statistic.

I would guess what Zero Hedge is talking about is the very real phenomenon where people dropping out of Unemployment programs are no longer counted as employed. They are "discouraged workers" and only get counted in U6 Unemployment figures.

So if you have 3 out of 10 people unemployed but enrolled in a jobs program then U3 would show 7/10 employed and a 30% unemployment. If those 1 of those people drops out of the unemployment program, even though they never found a job, the U3 number is 7/9 or 23% unemployment. It looks like unemployment is dropping when in fact it isn't.

What we will see, more than likely, is a precipitous drop in the U3 unemployment with a far smaller or non-existent drop in U6 unemployment.
Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense? I'm honestly curious what source you used, because that is about the strangest, and most off the wall claim I've ever heard.
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Unfortunately, BLS does not collect the qualitative data necessary to measure full time underemployment.
What are you defining as full time underemployment? I've never heard that expression so I'm not sure what you mean by it? I think you might be talking about underemployment meaning overqualified for a job, but since there's no objective definition, it.s not possible to measure that.

You can tease discouraged workers out of the u6-u5 spread, but that really doesn't achieve the desired result.
Why would you have to "tease" them out instead of just constructing the ratio without them?

My example was to convey the idea of underemployment to another poster. The graph was just to drive home the idea that underemployment is a problem within this recovery.
I understood what you were doing, but you were t a liking about people working for lower salaries or jobs they were overqualified for, but NOW in no way measures that as nd it's certainly not part of the U6
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

What are you defining as full time underemployment? I've never heard that expression so I'm not sure what you mean by it? I think you might be talking about underemployment meaning overqualified for a job, but since there's no objective definition, it.s not possible to measure that.

Part time underemployment is expressed explicitly as the spread between U6 and U5. Full time underemployment in is the theoretical construct of a person whose skill-set supersedes the requirements of their job, who happen to work full time. And yes, there is no survey to test for this situation.

Why would you have to "tease" them out instead of just constructing the ratio without them?

Can't be done within the Fed's economic database. It has to be derived from U4 and U3 data to be expressed graphically.

I understood what you were doing, but you were t a liking about people working for lower salaries or jobs they were overqualified for, but NOW in no way measures that as nd it's certainly not part of the U6

This is true, and i should have done a better job at differentiating each concept (example and visual).
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Part time underemployment is expressed explicitly as the spread between U6 and U5.
Why are you starting with the U6 and U5 instead of just using the number from the report?

Full time underemployment in is the theoretical construct of a person whose skill-set supersedes the requirements of their job, who happen to work full time. And yes, there is no survey to test for this situation.
But do you see how someone might think from your post that the U6 did measure that in some way?



an't be done within the Fed's economic database. It has to be derived from U4 and U3 data to be expressed graphically.
Yes it can and no it doesn't
You just have to take the series "Part time for economic reasons all industries, put it on the s as me line as Labor Force (or employed, depending on what base you want) and divide.
fredgraph.png
 
Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

Whether or not one receives unemployment benefits does not effect one's unemployment status. It's not taken into account by the Bureau. The BLS also does not "track" the work status of individuals over time.

False. BLS tracks UNEMPLOYMENT by the total number of people registered in unemployment programs who can therefor be tracked as looking for work. If those people stop participating in an unemployment program they drop off the U3 statistic, so they are not counted as unemployed in the official unemployment number. They do show up on U6, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom