Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777
Since the unemployment calculation methodology has not changed since 1994, what difference does it make? It's all relatively the same.
|
Good......then you have
absolutely no objections whatsoever of returning to the methodology used pre-1994.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
This is a thread for raw emotion, not facts or figures.
|
Proof Surrogate
Substituting a distracting comment for a real proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
The current method has always been fine,...
|
No,
it has never been fine.
The methodology is grotesquely misleading.
Apparently, some of you aren't capable of understanding that had the methodology
not been changed, the issues of structural unemployment would have surfaced far sooner....during the Clinton Administration.
That allows for the possibility of taking remedial actions to correct or mitigate the impact, possibly negating or mitigating the Clinton Recession and the Bush Recession.
For the Obamabots, have you people ever considered the possibility that seeing structural unemployment looming 20 years ago would have allowed the government to change its policies regarding education...
...so that you don't have Millions of moron dumbtards indebted with Guaranteed Student Loans for worthless college degrees that will never lead to gainful employment?
And what about "mismatch?"
You have Millions of unfilled jobs, but no one to work them, because no one is trained or educated to work them, because your unemployment methodology is FUBAR. While it might look pretty on paper and make you feel good and warm and tingly, it doesn't do squat for your employment troubles.
You cannot make good decisions with bad information.
In combat that leads to troops getting killed; battles lost; and wars lost.
In the civilian world it leads to economic turmoil and civil and social strife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
What is the percentage of people not looking for work are poor black people that have been disenfranchised? They would be considered unemployed in the U-6 numbers.
|
Wrong.
You've posted for how many years, and you're
still clueless about unemployment?
I'll explained this so people aren't poisoned by ignorance.
You are "unemployed" if,
and only if,
all of the following statements are true:
1]
Are you available to work? Yes;
and
2]
Do you desire to work? Yes;
and
3]
Have you applied for a job in the last 4 weeks? Yes.
If all statements are true, then the government considers you to be a Real Person and you are listed as "unemployed."
Get it? Let's move on....
1]
Are you available to work? Yes;
and
2]
Do you desire to work? Yes;
and
3]
Have you applied for a job in the last 4 weeks? No;
then...
4]
Have you applied for a job in the last 11 months? Yes.
The government considers you to be an Unreal Person (
because you are an embarrassment to the government) and you are listed under the appropriate U-6 sub-category.
Get it? Let's move on....
1]
Are you available to work? Yes;
and
2]
Do you desire to work? Yes;
and
3]
Have you applied for a job in the last 4 weeks? No;
then...
4]
Have you applied for a job in the last 11 months? No;
then...
The government considers you to be
persona non gratis.
You are officially NLF --- Not in Labor Force.
To simply for those who might not yet understand:
You can be classified as a "
discouraged worker" for only 11 months.....after that....you're NLF.
The same is true for "
marginal workers." You can only hold that designation for 11 months, after which you are NLF.
Beware:......If you are employed part-time, because no full-time work is available, you can only hold that status for 11 months. After that....you are employed....period.
Once you are NLF, you can never be labeled as a "
discouraged worker" until you get a job, lose that job, and then seek employment.
Why?
Um, because once NLF, if you start job-hunting, you are reclassified as a "
Returning Entrant."
New Entrants and Returning Entrants to the Work Force cannot ---
by definition -- be classified as "
discouraged workers".
Something I've been meaning to do, but haven't done yet, is review the latest revisions in the General Population Survey. Two issues that have surfaced in discussions in the last couple of months are:
1] When does the government ask you if you are discouraged?
2] How does the government frame the question?
I believe you must be unemployed for a minimum of 26 weeks, before the government will ask you if you are "discouraged" over job prospects.
The question used to be framed as:
Are you discouraged over job prospects?
Yes.
No.
Someone has suggested that the question has been modified to:
Are you discouraged over job prospects?
Not at all discouraged
Somewhat discouraged
Discouraged
Highly discouraged
If so, then obviously that would allow the government to manipulate that and under-report the number of discouraged workers.
I hope everyone gets it now....
Mircea
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.
