Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CNN money is spinning in their seats. Just watch what happens in Jan. You will see an "UNEXPECTED" rise in people collecting UE again. You know what that's from right? Yep, you guessed it, all the holiday hirings being laid off again. It happens EVERY YEAR and some here fall for it every time.
um u6 unemployment rates have fallen. That includes those who have "fallen off the radar".
No it doesn't. They don't count those people anymore. Actually, they count them as going back to work. So much for the workforce actually growing at the rate they said it was, many of those SUPPOSED hirings are just people who exhausted their UE benefits and are sitting home.
No it doesn't. They don't count those people anymore. Actually, they count them as going back to work. So much for the workforce actually growing at the rate they said it was, many of those SUPPOSED hirings are just people who exhausted their UE benefits and are sitting home.
Actually no, they are counted in u6. Where did you read that they didn't?
First of all, it's the Christmas season. Hiring ALWAYS goes up before and during the Christmas period. This is as concrete as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west
That ain't as set in stone as you make it to be. Let us see the numbers for job growth in private sector, in October and in November through the years (years when November did better than October in green, otherwise red):
So, in six out of eleven years, job growth in November was better than it was in October. In five years, it was the opposite. In other words, November doesn't guarantee a better hiring season than the previous month. It is however generally true that when job growth was in fashion, November brought better results, the exceptions being 2001 and 2010. Worry less about those libbies, and worry more about what you present as facts.
Quote:
Second, each administration defines unemployment differently, if they want to. The way Obama defines unemployment, if I was the president, I can get the UE down to 4%! All I would have to do is convince the states to close down their unemployment offices and end unemployment benefits. When people stop receiving unemployment, they fall off the radar and, tada! the unemployment rate goes down
Just ignore those pesky numbers that tell you what the labor participation rate is in comparison to the civilian workforce. Those numbers don't matter. Only UE does!
Would you mind highlighting the difference in UE calculation between Bush administration and Obama administration, and how it has helped lower numbers under Obama? Thanks in advance.
Actually no, they are counted in u6. Where did you read that they didn't?
They aren't counted because it is impossible to. I know this because I work for a State Labor Dept. They have NO IDEA what happened to a person after they exhaust their benefits. How does anyone know they actually went back to work or are sitting home? There is absolutely no way to track this, so they just consider them back to work because it looks better that way.
They aren't counted because it is impossible to. I know this because I work for a State Labor Dept. They have NO IDEA what happened to a person after they exhaust their benefits. How does anyone know they actually went back to work or are sitting home? There is absolutely no way to track this, so they just consider them back to work because it looks better that way.
What state was that?
So am I to assume that "discouraged workers" are collecting unemployment benefits? Do "marginally attached workers" collect benefits as well?
I don't know what 'experts' you were reading but ADP was predicting +120K a few days ago.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't fudge employment numbers at the request of the White House.
What this shows is that the economy is slowly improving. It still isn't anything near the Clinton employment numbers of an average gain of 250,000 per month but it's sure better than the last year of the Bush years.
Unemployment in the last quarter of 2007 under Bush was under 4.5... he didn't HAVE to make up 120,000k jobs... His footprint was MUCH smaller than Obama's.... And that being said 120,000k is garbage. 8.6 is not good.
Bush sucked too by the way... thanks
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
