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.
We didn't shed too many jobs in all honesty. That would have jacked up the unemployment rate which generally went down. Well unless they just found part-time work and would like to be full-time or just went into hiding.
As for the whole "well part-time jobs" deal, we have to remember we do see lower wages and more part-time work because we see companies outsourcing and many politicians just don't care about fixing it or the fixes aren't good at all.
The unemployment rate is such an unreliable stat. It may have been useful at one point decades ago, but politicians have been allowed to tweak and twist the numbers for too long. It's usefulness as a stat is ages dead. If we're still down 3% LFPR in the 25-55 age demographic in LFPR, and your 16-24 year olds are still down over 11% LFPR ... then how in the bloody hell does your Unemployment rate drop from 10% to 5%???
You've got all the usual suspects: "They're in school" or whatever. The UR assumes that a huge chuck of people aren't working because they can't work, won't work or don't want to. Pretty ridiculous to make broad sweeping assumptions about anything, but the UR does exactly that. I think it the UR would be a helluva lot more meaningful if it simply reported the straight numbers. If a guy is unemployed because he's going to college, he's still unemployed. If a woman is unemployed because she's a stay at home mom, she's still unemployed. Etc. If a guy is unemployed because he's paralyzed, he's still unemployed.
That would be a lot more honest way to open the conversation, then by all means bring your high-minded statistical excuses or explanations, etc.
It seems particularly poignant as those remaining in the labor force are being saddled with the responsibility for supporting those who are not. Our burden for supporting them should be obvious and they shouldn't be statistically non-existent.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The unemployment rate is such an unreliable stat. It may have been useful at one point decades ago, but politicians have been allowed to tweak and twist the numbers for too long. It's usefulness as a stat is ages dead. If we're still down 3% LFPR in the 25-55 age demographic in LFPR, and your 16-24 year olds are still down over 11% LFPR ... then how in the bloody hell does your Unemployment rate drop from 10% to 5%???
You've got all the usual suspects: "They're in school" or whatever. The UR assumes that a huge chuck of people aren't working because they can't work, won't work or don't want to. Pretty ridiculous to make broad sweeping assumptions about anything, but the UR does exactly that. I think it the UR would be a helluva lot more meaningful if it simply reported the straight numbers. If a guy is unemployed because he's going to college, he's still unemployed. If a woman is unemployed because she's a stay at home mom, she's still unemployed. Etc. If a guy is unemployed because he's paralyzed, he's still unemployed.
That would be a lot more honest way to open the conversation, then by all means bring your high-minded statistical excuses or explanations, etc.
It seems particularly poignant as those remaining in the labor force are being saddled with the responsibility for supporting those who are not. Our burden for supporting them should be obvious and they shouldn't be statistically non-existent.
Its not an adequate representation of the unemployment rate to include people who could not work even if they wanted to.
to be unemployed , you have to have the ability to be employed.
The unemployment rate is such an unreliable stat. It may have been useful at one point decades ago, but politicians have been allowed to tweak and twist the numbers for too long. It's usefulness as a stat is ages dead. If we're still down 3% LFPR in the 25-55 age demographic in LFPR, and your 16-24 year olds are still down over 11% LFPR ... then how in the bloody hell does your Unemployment rate drop from 10% to 5%???
You've got all the usual suspects: "They're in school" or whatever. The UR assumes that a huge chuck of people aren't working because they can't work, won't work or don't want to. Pretty ridiculous to make broad sweeping assumptions about anything, but the UR does exactly that. I think it the UR would be a helluva lot more meaningful if it simply reported the straight numbers. If a guy is unemployed because he's going to college, he's still unemployed. If a woman is unemployed because she's a stay at home mom, she's still unemployed. Etc. If a guy is unemployed because he's paralyzed, he's still unemployed.
That would be a lot more honest way to open the conversation, then by all means bring your high-minded statistical excuses or explanations, etc.
It seems particularly poignant as those remaining in the labor force are being saddled with the responsibility for supporting those who are not. Our burden for supporting them should be obvious and they shouldn't be statistically non-existent.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if for a second if I thought Conservatives actually cared about the number, rather than raising the number under Obama. This has been the same measure we've used since Nixon. Why change it now?
I wouldn't have a problem with this if for a second if I thought Conservatives actually cared about the number, rather than raising the number under Obama. This has been the same measure we've used since Nixon. Why change it now?
To be fair, we do tweak it, which causes conspiracy theories....
Its not an adequate representation of the unemployment rate to include people who could not work even if they wanted to.
to be unemployed , you have to have the ability to be employed.
You didn't read my post in it's entirety then. What I'm saying is pretty simple:
1.) Report the raw number.
2.) Go ahead and explain the raw number. Go nuts breaking down the piece of the real UR that can't work, are housewives who don't want to, who are in college, etc.
Point is, start with a number that is the unfettered, untweaked, unmanipulated truth. Worry about explaining the number after that.
Are you seriously trying to pin off the worst year of the Bush crash (2009) on Obama? Get real. Bush handed Obama a bag of **** to deal with when he left the white house.
Obama just finished his 5th consecutive year of more than 2 million jobs being added to the economy annually. His private sector job growth is even better because 2010 saw a loss of 200,000 government jobs and 2011 saw a loss of 400,000 government jobs.
George Bush saw private sector job growth exceed 2 million for only ONE year, which was 2005. Obama has had private sector job growth exceed 2 million for five consecutive years. The only other president to pull this off was Clinton.
You can take nit picky glances of the labor force all you want. I just find it hilarious that you conservatives need to dig that hard to make your spins.
Sort of like trying to spin Obama's presidency as successful for simply ending up where we should have been the entire time. When you factor in the trillions and trillions of new debt to simply stay afloat the picture becomes significantly clearer to anyone that has even the slightest of moral standards.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if for a second if I thought Conservatives actually cared about the number, rather than raising the number under Obama. This has been the same measure we've used since Nixon. Why change it now?
The tweaking and fiddling with the number has increased steadily since Nixon. UR is now mangled beyond being a useful number at this point.
My distrust of the UR has nothing to do with Republican vs Democrat or Conservative vs Liberal. I count myself as neither and have equal contempt for both. Both parties know that they're cooking the books. Both parties seem to have an unspoken agreement that the Unemployment Rate matters and is a good stat for one simple reason: When you're the party in power, it makes you look good. It tells a tale better than reality. Politicians love that sort of thing. Since it works for both parties and seldom makes things look all that bad, neither is going to speak against the UR's validity. After all, at no point does one party hold every political office in the entire country. Both parties constantly benefit, so both are "in on it."
I've been waiting for the numbers behind the numbers to tell us, "the economy is healed and back to pre-recession levels!!" Hasn't happened yet, but I won't be complaining if/when it does.
Yes but the section of the LFPR wss up to 1991 this year which makes that a relevant cutoff.
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.
