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.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,688 posts, read 57,994,855 times
Reputation: 46166
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
I.... The sorry truth of the matter is that the data provided by the BLS is usually supporting for a lower number of unemployed because that's the expedient nature of political denial.
Rep for you...(tho I can't give you one). There is plenty of support showing the UI numbers are reported artificially low, especially as compared to previous methods. (Back when USA had an economy that actually produced something of tangible and measurable value)
I don't thnik that those not within 20% of previous employement would work since the 70's recessio mnay in certain areas were never again employed at the pay they got before the recession that put a end to their work. i know of at least 2000 at one refinery that were layed offf. these jobs never returned and refining never recovered to profitablity until 2003.basically you can't count employed this way as most are now employed in other areas;some higher and some lower. That would also mean that if people where now over emppoyed it would have to be counhtted that way too to show very low unemployemnt numbers. its uselesss really. Then fo course their are tose and I know some who only work like 6 months a year ;intentional.
Rep for you...(tho I can't give you one). There is plenty of support showing the UI numbers are reported artificially low, especially as compared to previous methods. (Back when USA had an economy that actually produced something of tangible and measurable value)
Can you imagine if Politicians said " OMG Unemployment is really between 22-25 % but we will feed you a bone every month and tell you it dropped from 9.7 to 9.6 % (oh wow ) and we hired 150,000 last month ( oh wow wow )But what we did not tell you is that it will take 15.3 million jobs to get unemployment rate BACK to 5 % and that will take 8 YEARS to accomplish.
Not at all. Just wanted an open discussion on the matter. Some claim its understated, some claim its overstated and others just plain complain about anything the government says claiming its all lies. Wanted some more depth on the possibilities out there. I think unemployment is merely a statistic subject to the rules set for it, but there probably are other issues buried in that count which should be better discussed and understood.
My opinion was based on your five points that led to the apparent conclusion that UE numbers are probably overstated. A lot of people are getting on board with the notion that we just need better statistical info to know the score in things economic. In the case of unemployment most can rely on the old saying that we don't need a weather man to tell us which way the wind blows, it's high, that should allow us to recognize the fact that the unemployment "problem" isn't the way it's casualties are counted but the fact that way too many people are out of work.
Even if we had no numbers on the amount of people who are unemployed we would surely know that a ton are out of work simply because the stats regarding business failures and retail revenue are also revealing the grim picture for workers. Poor economic realities are political liabilities and therefor the tendency to under report.
This is the first depression, recession, period of hard times (whatever you want to call it) where some Boomers were able to retire. Boomers were born during an 18-year period, and those born during the first three are able to get SS pension, though at a lower rate. Doing the math, 3/18 * 72 million = 12 million potential retirees. I don't know how many took retirement, but it is easily in the millions. If not for this, the unemployment rate would be even higher.
Why measure unemployment? Why not measure productivity? Why not measure poverty? And then use productivity to reduce poverty.
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.
). There is plenty of support showing the UI numbers are reported artificially low, especially as compared to previous methods. (Back when USA had an economy that actually produced something of tangible and measurable value)
