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.
321,000 people hired. BUT
92,450,000 are still not working. This is the lowest labor participation rate since 1978
11,900,000 have dropped out of the labor force since 2009 They are not counted as being 'unemployed'
How many of those 92,450,000 (and the 11,900,000) are retired, disabled or are in school? The categories I just listed are some of the largest segments of those numbers.
I never believe our government about inflation or unemployment statistics. Our politician's are great at tweaking the figures to make themselves (the incumbents) look better. President Reagan was one of the first, that I remember. He made some form of change that allowed government not to count discharged service veterans. But he was not the only one; nobody wants to look bad.
Last August in my state (PA) there was a directive that all unemployed had to apply for work three times each week to be eligible for benefits; otherwise they would be dropped. Supposedly this was always a federal directive - but was not going to be enforced? It was not too long after this mandate that the unemployment rates dropped. I believe that there are many that get dropped because they are either not good with a computer, applications take time, they are too lazy, or whatever. I have no idea how many other states also enforce the three application a week requirement - but I would be interested to find out? Here is the Department of Labor site on state unemployment benefits:State Unemployment Insurance Benefits, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor. They do not clearly state that the unemployed must file three claims a week. But they do state that: "Generally all determinations of whether or not a person is eligible for benefits are made by the appropriate State under its law or applicable federal laws." - a little ambiguous to say the least.
Jobs never return at the same pay wage as they left, so your argument doesnt make sense with in your context. If we were at4% and wages werent growing, then you would have a point.
The income disparity continues to grow wider as the people at the top of the pyramid make higher and higher salaries, as the people at the middle and bottom continue to loose ground.
Then people with less than honest ethics write posts based on statistics based on averages that do not reflect the disparity and try to make the logical fallacy that we are all now better off.
The truth is that the majority of Americans are much worse off than they were prior to 2008 and it appears as if that trend will continue in the future unless there is some kind of political public uprising.
I never believe our government about inflation or unemployment statistics. Our politician's are great at tweaking the figures to make themselves (the incumbents) look better. President Reagan was one of the first, that I remember. He made some form of change that allowed government not to count discharged service veterans. But he was not the only one; nobody wants to look bad.
Last August in my state (PA) there was a directive that all unemployed had to apply for work three times each week to be eligible for benefits; otherwise they would be dropped. Supposedly this was always a federal directive - but was not going to be enforced? It was not too long after this mandate that the unemployment rates dropped. I believe that there are many that get dropped because they are either not good with a computer, applications take time, they are too lazy, or whatever. I have no idea how many other states also enforce the three application a week requirement - but I would be interested to find out? Here is the Department of Labor site on state unemployment benefits:State Unemployment Insurance Benefits, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor. They do not clearly state that the unemployed must file three claims a week. But they do state that: "Generally all determinations of whether or not a person is eligible for benefits are made by the appropriate State under its law or applicable federal laws." - a little ambiguous to say the least.
Applying for benefits and or receiving benefits is not part of the formula for determining the unemployment rates.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
The income disparity continues to grow wider as the people at the top of the pyramid make higher and higher salaries, as the people at the middle and bottom continue to loose ground. Then people with less than honest ethics write posts based on statistics based on averages that do not reflect the disparity and try to make the logical fallacy that we are all now better off.
The truth is that the majority of Americans are much worse off than they were prior to 2008 and it appears as if that trend will continue in the future unless there is some kind of political public uprising.
But you are doing the same thing.
If income at the top grows by 1% and income at the bottom grows by 0.01% then the bottom still gains but they are losing ground(income did grow in this last jobs report).
And why are we comparing 2008 to 2014 ? the recession(jobs specifically) bottomed out in Oct 2009 . Should we not be comparing worst to current instead of 2008 since that seemed to be your point ?
I have personally found this thread to be very entertaining.
Just to watch the conservative Obama haters dance around the issue that the economy is improving under President Obama despite all the republican efforts to stop it.
It reminds me of that Korean guy and his dance, "Gangnam style".
If income at the top grows by 1% and income at the bottom grows by 0.01% then the bottom still gains but they are losing ground(income did grow in this last jobs report).
And why are we comparing 2008 to 2014 ? the recession(jobs specifically) bottomed out in Oct 2009 . Should we not be comparing worst to current instead of 2008 since that seemed to be your point ?
Because in reality, the top gains 4% and the middle and bottom loose .05% on top of a 2% inflation rate.
Average income grew..... the devil is in the details.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Because in reality, the top gains 4% and the middle and bottom loose .05% on top of a 2% inflation rate.
Average income grew..... the devil is in the details.
Do you have any thing to back that up ?
also, you do realize that someone who is unemployed(making 0 dollars) is not averaged into income numbers right? So when they do get employed, they will drag down the average.
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.
