U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-21-2019, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,655 posts, read 3,067,747 times
Reputation: 12950

Advertisements

So, two interesting new injections, here.

This guy's an author who just wrote a whole book on why people don't trust or believe our current economic miracle. Good insight; I need to grab a copy. What's most interesting in the article is this passage:
Even with unemployment at a 50-year low, the job market is failing to reach millions of potential workers. Thatís because those who arenít working or looking for work are left out of the unemployment statistics. And the number of such workers has been growing: When unemployment was last down near 3.5 percent, in 1969, virtually all men ages 25 to 54 were in the work force. Today, the proportion is below 90 percent, the result of a long-term decline in work force participation that has hit men most severely, but has recently affected women, too.
Go ahead, argue my long-running point that the number of "good" jobs is in the early stages of permanent decline. I'm pretty sure this guy wouldn't.


And, some interesting analysis of how the "working class" is fleeing high-COL areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2019, 11:51 AM
 
35,324 posts, read 25,206,287 times
Reputation: 32414
I'm not sure that is so interesting. That's been the case for decades. Not new news. A huge and growing prison population, addiction issues, etc.


But people who aren't looking for work shouldn't be counted among unemployed. How many people find work when not looking? Only the cream of the top get offered positions without looking.


Also, the "aren't looking for work" folks include the grey economy, which is fairly robust.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2019, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,655 posts, read 3,067,747 times
Reputation: 12950
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
I'm not sure that is so interesting.
It's fairly solid commentary, if not data, on the trend this whole thread has been discussing - and which some participants completely dismiss.

Quote:
But people who aren't looking for work shouldn't be counted among unemployed. How many people find work when not looking? Only the cream of the top get offered positions without looking.

Also, the "aren't looking for work" folks include the grey economy, which is fairly robust.
But that, too, is what this thread has covered - that the official numbers, while all soberly and carefully calculated, are no longer representing the changing reality of employment. That we have the same nominal unemployment rate as 1969, while it's recognized that over 10% of men are not in the labor force, should be a red flag on this point.

Also: I am certain I am not included in unemployment stats, although I've been searching for a job for almost two years. From discussion here and several other places - admittedly anecdotal and selective - I am far from alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2019, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,614 posts, read 17,598,460 times
Reputation: 27693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
So, two interesting new injections, here.

This guy's an author who just wrote a whole book on why people don't trust or believe our current economic miracle. Good insight; I need to grab a copy. What's most interesting in the article is this passage:
Even with unemployment at a 50-year low, the job market is failing to reach millions of potential workers. Thatís because those who arenít working or looking for work are left out of the unemployment statistics. And the number of such workers has been growing: When unemployment was last down near 3.5 percent, in 1969, virtually all men ages 25 to 54 were in the work force. Today, the proportion is below 90 percent, the result of a long-term decline in work force participation that has hit men most severely, but has recently affected women, too.
Go ahead, argue my long-running point that the number of "good" jobs is in the early stages of permanent decline. I'm pretty sure this guy wouldn't.


And, some interesting analysis of how the "working class" is fleeing high-COL areas.
IMO, there's a two-pronged answer to this.

The first part of the answer is that yes, lower skilled workers (men disproportionately) have had their jobs automated or mechanized away, or the sector has greatly contracted.

I'm from a place very close to Appalachian coal country. Coal hasn't been economical relative to natural gas and other energy sources for years. The easy to get coal is already gone. Coal has been in and out of favor politically. The coal mining that remains is higher skilled and requires fewer workers.

There really hasn't been much in the way of retraining, relocating, or anything else done for those kinds of guys to maintain a livelihood.

The flip side of that is there is somewhat of a cultural acceptability for not working. I know a couple of guys in their early 30s who have never held full-time regular work. They're supported by family or by drugs. That wasn't culturally acceptable years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2019, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,655 posts, read 3,067,747 times
Reputation: 12950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
There really hasn't been much in the way of retraining, relocating, or anything else done for those kinds of guys to maintain a livelihood.
So... good jobs are diminishing, both regionally and nationally.

Quote:
The flip side of that is there is somewhat of a cultural acceptability for not working. I know a couple of guys in their early 30s who have never held full-time regular work. They're supported by family or by drugs. That wasn't culturally acceptable years ago.
Separate the chicken and the egg, here.

Both very good points, but evolutionary, not conclusive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2019, 12:02 PM
 
35,324 posts, read 25,206,287 times
Reputation: 32414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
But that, too, is what this thread has covered - that the official numbers, while all soberly and carefully calculated, are no longer representing the changing reality of employment. That we have the same nominal unemployment rate as 1969, while it's recognized that over 10% of men are not in the labor force, should be a red flag on this point..

Not really. The unemployment rate in an index. It's value is in that it is computed similarly YOY. It's not meant to be used as a single indicator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Also: I am certain I am not included in unemployment stats, although I've been searching for a job for almost two years. From discussion here and several other places - admittedly anecdotal and selective - I am far from alone.



Then you would be included.


No, I haven't read the entire thread, but often when I see these statements people believe National unemployment rates are compiled through unemployment insurance payments (I stopped getting unemployment checks, so they stopped counting me! -> eh, false) or that if a person isn't personally surveyed then they aren't counted (ignorance of statistics and sampling).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2019, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,655 posts, read 3,067,747 times
Reputation: 12950
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
Not really. The unemployment rate in an index. It's value is in that it is computed similarly YOY. It's not meant to be used as a single indicator.
It's a set of indices, some of which may represent the real situation a little better than the most widely publicized one (the Really Good News/Really Bad News one). It's the overall picture that seems to be drifting away from the reality of loss of jobs, long-term unemployed and gig workers.

Quote:
Then you would be included.
On what basis? I've never collected unemployment (well, not for well over 30 years) and as far as all the official types know, I am self-employed and thus not considered un-employed.

I started saying this a couple of years ago... and the rising tide of better-known experts and observers is behind the idea of this break between old-school numbers and street reality.

A summary of the thread, BTW, is that a good number of us believe in this dichotomy, and quite a number take your position - that we'se just too stoopid to understand statisticates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2019, 12:21 PM
 
35,324 posts, read 25,206,287 times
Reputation: 32414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post

On what basis? I've never collected unemployment (well, not for well over 30 years) and as far as all the official types know, I am self-employed and thus not considered un-employed.

I started saying this a couple of years ago... and the rising tide of better-known experts and observers is behind the idea of this break between old-school numbers and street reality.

A summary of the thread, BTW, is that a good number of us believe in this dichotomy, and quite a number take your position - that we'se just too stoopid to understand statisticates.


Collecting unemployment or not has not bearing on the National unemployment rate. That is a myth widely perpetuated.


If you are self employed, then you are employed.


If you are unemployed and looking for work, then you are unemployed and would be counted.


Who is counted as employed, unemployed, and who is not eligible to be counted is made public and clearly defined.


The "on what basis" would be the how the National unemployment rate is calculated, primarily through the CPS. It's not a secret. It's made public. You can read it if you want to look for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2019, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,655 posts, read 3,067,747 times
Reputation: 12950
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
If you are unemployed and looking for work, then you are unemployed and would be counted.
By whom, and how? My 'self-employment' is functionally moribund for a variety of reasons; I'm just a guy past prime hiring age who can't get a phone interview for love, money or lying through my teeth. Who's tapping me with the counting pencil?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2019, 12:24 PM
 
35,324 posts, read 25,206,287 times
Reputation: 32414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
By whom, and how? My 'self-employment' is functionally moribund for a variety of reasons; I'm just a guy past prime hiring age who can't get a phone interview for love, money or lying through my teeth. Who's tapping me with the counting pencil?


I explained that, and how to find out more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top