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.
The numbers do not account for people who have become dejected and stopped looking for work...
Yes, they do. If one has not looked for a job within the past four weeks, but has done so at least once within the past year, one is classified as being marginally attached to the labor force. Such people are not included in either the employed or unemployed numbers because they don't belong there. The marginally attached who give labor market-related reasons for having not looked for work more often are included as discouraged workers, the numbers of which are reported right along with everything else. There were about 467,000 of them as of this morning, all but unchanged from a year ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
...women (and in some cases men) who would like to work but cannot find jobs that would make it worthwhile to pay for childcare, and people who have been forced into early retirement.
Look at the actual numbers. Those not in the labor force numbered 78,792K last month. Of those, 4,857K wanted a job but didn't have one, as against 4,633K in that category a year ago. The rest aren't currently interested in having a job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
The unemployment numbers also fail to account for the issue of job quality.
Why would you expect them to? That said, employment levels are reported across a broad spectrum of establishment classifications. The numbers for those in the non-metallic mineral products industry, for example, were down by just about 1,000 in January. Meanwhile, employment in the field of performing arts and spectator sports was up by about 1,000. Make up a spreadsheet. Assign quality-values to jobs in each classification. Compute an overall job-quality index and send press releases about it to all the local papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
Part timers who would like to work full time are counted as being employed.
Because they are employed. But again, look at the numbers...they are there. Last month, there were 24,382K part-time workers. Of those, 3,247K were working part-time because of a business slowdown, and 1,163K were in a part-time job because that's all they could find. The rest are working part-time for non-economic reasons, such as that they prefer to work only on a part-time basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
If we had an employment misery index that could take all of that into account, I'm sure that the percentage of people who are either actually unemployed, underemployed, and/or working for poverty wages would be far, far higher than 10 or even 20%.
Why not 40 or even 50%? If just guessing at something, why not guess big?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
The reported unemployment figures might serve us as being a vague reflection of the relative state of the job market, but they really aren't that informative when other important factors are considered.
They are particularly not informative to those who don't read them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn
I think people are mistaken to look at the unemployment numbers and conclude that the job market is necessarily healthy merely because the reported numbers are low.
People who have a serious interest in assessing the state of employment markets should review and assess them in some depth. Reacting merely to some sound-bite in the MSM doesn't qualify as depth.
No matter how good you are, you are not going to outcompete a bunch of connected frat boys. Just how many of the "Blood and Bone" guys are in undeservedly great financial shape compared to folks that cannot stand fraternity life.
I once got some advice that amounted to "learn the right asses to kiss and then lick away". Maybe I am not doing really well because I cannot kiss ass under any condition.
Well, aren't you just the lonely pillar of self-sufficiency? Must be lonely there, stewing in your own righteousness. However, I'd offer that the more likely reason why you're not doing really well is because of your condescending, Working Man Hero snobbery. Evidently, you have this bizarre belief that anybody who succeeds in life has gotten there by honking someone's bobo.
Typically, the marketplace rewards two things: Ability and Diligence. Yeah, there are people who use their connections to get to the next tier. But if networking is the only thing they have, then they don't last. But if you have basic ability, bust it everyday, and have basic social skills above that of a Tatar, then you make it in life.
Well, aren't you just the lonely pillar of self-sufficiency? Must be lonely there, stewing in your own righteousness. However, I'd offer that the more likely reason why you're not doing really well is because of your condescending, Working Man Hero snobbery. Evidently, you have this bizarre belief that anybody who succeeds in life has gotten there by honking someone's bobo.
Typically, the marketplace rewards two things: Ability and Diligence. Yeah, there are people who use their connections to get to the next tier. But if networking is the only thing they have, then they don't last. But if you have basic ability, bust it everyday, and have basic social skills above that of a Tatar, then you make it in life.
I disagree entirely. There are a lot of fields where you can work hard and never make ends meet.
For example EMTs and Paramedics. They can save your life but waitresses can make more than them even if they work 72 hours a week.
Teachers. Here in Arizona Teachers will work their whole lives and stay in the 30K range. This is in areas where the houses cost 200K unless you live in a ghetto. In the meantime you have to pay off those student loans and cover expenses for classrooms. My fiance is a student council advisor and has put in 1000 hours,none of which the district will reimburse. In the meantime all the kids that show up once a week and are borderline dropouts are driving the test scores down and the school will be closed due to NCLB. Work hard, no reward.
Both of these jobs require people good at their work and like what they do. There is little reward though. I think what people want is to be able to make ends meet without breaking themselves to do it.
I disagree entirely. There are a lot of fields where you can work hard and never make ends meet.
For example EMTs and Paramedics. They can save your life but waitresses can make more than them even if they work 72 hours a week.
Teachers. Here in Arizona Teachers will work their whole lives and stay in the 30K range. This is in areas where the houses cost 200K unless you live in a ghetto. In the meantime you have to pay off those student loans and cover expenses for classrooms. My fiance is a student council advisor and has put in 1000 hours,none of which the district will reimburse. In the meantime all the kids that show up once a week and are borderline dropouts are driving the test scores down and the school will be closed due to NCLB. Work hard, no reward.
Both of these jobs require people good at their work and like what they do. There is little reward though. I think what people want is to be able to make ends meet without breaking themselves to do it.
Actually your point has nothing to do with my point. When in the history of the world has anybody told a prospective EMT or Teacher that they will make tons of money?
Yet, I would offer that the reasons teachers don't make money has zero to do with private enterprise. It has everything to do with the fact that they labor away in a vast, bloated government bureaucracy where accountability has no place. Want teachers to get paid more? Fine. Strip away the layers upon layers of administrators and pay the teachers with the savings. Yet nobody has the political will within the system or outside it to change anything.
Meanwhile, EMTs and Paramedics are important and vital people in our community. No question. But, again, they have chosen to work in a field where low pay and long working hours are part of the territory. If they want to make more, then they really need to make their appeal to the community around them.
So again, it circles back around to my central point, the question of personal choice. If you want to make money, then work in a field that makes you money. If you earning money is not high on your list of priorities then choose a career where earning money doesn't matter. But don't blame the system when you're in your mid 40s barely making ends meet.
I disagree entirely. There are a lot of fields where you can work hard and never make ends meet.
For example EMTs and Paramedics. They can save your life but waitresses can make more than them even if they work 72 hours a week.
Teachers. Here in Arizona Teachers will work their whole lives and stay in the 30K range. This is in areas where the houses cost 200K unless you live in a ghetto. In the meantime you have to pay off those student loans and cover expenses for classrooms. My fiance is a student council advisor and has put in 1000 hours,none of which the district will reimburse. In the meantime all the kids that show up once a week and are borderline dropouts are driving the test scores down and the school will be closed due to NCLB. Work hard, no reward.
First off, everyone chooses their own professions. Prior to doing so, they should think, long and hard, as to what they want, personally and financially, in the future.
Your comments about teachers however is flat out wrong. Depending upon the number of years in, and the subsequent degrees, teachers can get into the 60's / 70's - not a fortune to be sure but, not what you describe.
It is really satisfying to be able to irritate the really self righteous around here. I stand by my comment that who you know is more important than how much you know or how hard you work. You can work smart and hard and still be ignored unless you are lucky enough to be noticed by someone that is able and willing to help.
BTW - I learned some of my "social skills" on the mud of the Mekong Delta 40 years ago. I learned to protect my friends and destroy my enemies. The rest is window dressing.
I stand by my comment that who you know is more important than how much you know or how hard you work.
AND, I stand by my comment - a) you are a very negative person and b) just about ANYONE - ANYONE can be whatever they want - they simply have to want it bad enough.
It is really satisfying to be able to irritate the really self righteous around here. I stand by my comment that who you know is more important than how much you know or how hard you work. You can work smart and hard and still be ignored unless you are lucky enough to be noticed by someone that is able and willing to help.
BTW - I learned some of my "social skills" on the mud of the Mekong Delta 40 years ago. I learned to protect my friends and destroy my enemies. The rest is window dressing.
Let's see...you find it satisfying that you have no social skills and so have been passed over for promotion? Okay. If that gets you through the night.
My ability to irritate you shows that I have well developed social and decent writing stills. I am trying to irritate you. Just for grins. My grins.
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.
