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.
It's interesting that when the denomination of the President changes, people *suddenly* remember there are flaws in unemployment calculation after eight years of selective amnesia.
The rate does not depend on who is getting a check, but maybe the rate will go down simply because some of those people who have been collecting the checks, will now have to get a job, even an undesirable one.
O.K., but are they still unemployed, collecting a check or not, should they be counted?
If they do not receive a check, but still unemployed, do they count against the UE rate?
A factor in the unemployment rate is the impact of the baby boomers reaching retirement age on the workforce. Those born at the start of it (around 1946) should have recently reached full retirement age, and that significant bulge in population demographics leaving the workforce will certainly impact workforce size and thus the unemployment rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
If they do not receive a check, but still unemployed, do they count against the UE rate?
As long as they are looking for work once a month, yes.
86 Million unemployed !! Yup! The economy is fantastic growing STRONGER every day!
I'm pretty sure those people can't wait to vote obama in for 4 more years (of no work)!
Lets put Obama out of work; and let him collect Unempolyment
Like anyone, I have my own opinions on the economy. I'm an 'Obamabot', so I'll just get that out of the way now.
But looking beyond that, I think the biggest problem we have is that we have no mandate, and because of that, we have no clear, coherent sense of political policy. There's no agreement on what the problem is, and so because of that, we don't really know where to begin fixing 'the problem.'
I have more or less accepted that Obama could be a one-termer. I find that unfortunate, but there's no use in going up in smoke over it. I think a Romney presidency in different times might not only be not harmful, but it might have been a good thing once, like when there were forces of political moderation at play. He has made a career out of being a pragmatist. But what Romney wants more than anything else is to get elected, and in order to do that, he's going to have to carry the water of the big banks, of Wall St. CEOs, and of the tea party anti-tax nut jobs. And they're completely unwilling to waver or compromise. And I think this is going to be disastrous. I predict that after about 4-8 more years of hardcore, no compromise GOP rule, people just might get it. But honestly, there's really no use in voting democrat until people do have an awakening. Just let the inevitable happen.
It goes down when jobs are added, or people give up looking
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.
