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.
I'm confused by your response to my question. You seem to have responded with goals, not with how you would measure whether or not you are achieving your goals.
Perhaps your prior issue with the other survey's is not with their process, but with how they report their results.
In the current BLS measurements many, if not most, of those who would fall within your bottom 2 brackets do not want a job or are otherwise prevented from employment (disabled).
There are also many people in the middle 3 brackets who have no desire for full time jobs.
In Gallup's measurement they don't count the self employed, which I think explains one of the reasons their P2P numbers are so low.
I think one of the issues is in determining what is a good number. Take how the BLS LFPR number is calculated. Because of the demographic trends for the next 20 or so years we are unlikely to an LFPR much higher than it is now and it will likely go lower.
You claim 75% is paltry, but what if an increasing number of people start falling into the bottom bracket because they not want or need a job, or only need or desire a part time job. 75% could be the best that could be expected given the demographic mix.
Goals? I responded with a method for labor participation rate vs the current faux-unemployment rate.
The current method completely BS's people into thinking UE is lower then it actually it. It discounts many bits and pieces like under-employment, those who need to work but don't have jobs after a certain time frame, etc.
Disabled folks would not be counted under current methods unless they are newly disabled.
My example shown was also for active labor participants, it shouldn't include people who do not need a job due to spousal income, independent wealth, etc. It should include the people on welfare or government subsidy living. If people do not need a job then we should see a stark decrease in food stamps/ebt/.gov housing/welfare/etc. We have seen increases in these areas despite "positive" job growth. People who do not "want" a job, better marry a super-daddy/momma. I know for damned sure I don't want to be coughed/puked/peed on but I still wake up and get my butt to work.
My example shown was also for active labor participants, it shouldn't include people who do not need a job due to spousal income, independent wealth, etc. It should include the people on welfare or government subsidy living. If people do not need a job then we should see a stark decrease in food stamps/ebt/.gov housing/welfare/etc.
The problem with this idea is that most people on welfare by far are either elderly, children, disabled, or already have jobs.
Having said that, the recovery is still pretty anemic so I wouldn't expect giant drop-offs in welfare spending. There are probably still more people being time-limited off of welfare than leaving due to improving finances.
Goals? I responded with a method for labor participation rate vs the current faux-unemployment rate.
The current method completely BS's people into thinking UE is lower then it actually it. It discounts many bits and pieces like under-employment, those who need to work but don't have jobs after a certain time frame, etc.
Disabled folks would not be counted under current methods unless they are newly disabled.
My example shown was also for active labor participants, it shouldn't include people who do not need a job due to spousal income, independent wealth, etc. It should include the people on welfare or government subsidy living. If people do not need a job then we should see a stark decrease in food stamps/ebt/.gov housing/welfare/etc. We have seen increases in these areas despite "positive" job growth. People who do not "want" a job, better marry a super-daddy/momma. I know for damned sure I don't want to be coughed/puked/peed on but I still wake up and get my butt to work.
How are you (or whoever is doing the survey) going to determine who should be included in "active labor participants?"
b. Includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, family support, child nutrition, and foster care.
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.
