Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2015, 06:57 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,226,365 times
Reputation: 2536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlbenator View Post
But that won't stop the libs from running WITH it!
Obama will lie and mask any fact or any truth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2015, 06:57 AM
 
13,966 posts, read 5,630,295 times
Reputation: 8621
The problem with the published unemployment rate is that it makes the populace believe something about employment in the US that simply is not true. Look at the Labor Force Participation Rate since WW II, and you'll see that in the last 70 years, the highest percentage of people able to work and actually working is ~67%. Got that...at the peak of our employment glory, 33% of the "able to work" population did not have a job.

The published unemployment number makes people think that 94.4% of the working population has a job. That's why the government uses that number. Sure, political/economic junkies like us know the truth behind the number, but the vast majority of voters think Obama inherited 91% of the people employed, and got another 3.4% of the entire country jobs!!!

Here's the plain fact - in 2000, the LFPR was 67%, and in 2014, it hit 62.7% of a larger population no less.

There are a lot of people who do not have jobs, and it's more than 5.6%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,847,443 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
The problem with the published unemployment rate is that it makes the populace believe something about employment in the US that simply is not true. Look at the Labor Force Participation Rate since WW II, and you'll see that in the last 70 years, the highest percentage of people able to work and actually working is ~67%. Got that...at the peak of our employment glory, 33% of the "able to work" population did not have a job.

The published unemployment number makes people think that 94.4% of the working population has a job. That's why the government uses that number. Sure, political/economic junkies like us know the truth behind the number, but the vast majority of voters think Obama inherited 91% of the people employed, and got another 3.4% of the entire country jobs!!!

Here's the plain fact - in 2000, the LFPR was 67%, and in 2014, it hit 62.7% of a larger population no less.

There are a lot of people who do not have jobs, and it's more than 5.6%.
What are the largest percentages of groups that don't have jobs? Is it even reasonable that they would be employed or looking for employment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 07:17 AM
 
549 posts, read 457,177 times
Reputation: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
What are the largest percentages of groups that don't have jobs? Is it even reasonable that they would be employed or looking for employment?
This is a good point: some working age people do not need jobs because they have other sources of income. IMHO, the best indicator of government's economic performance is the percentage of working age people getting any kind of government assistance. The lower the number, the better. Unfortunately, the left will never agree to this, because to stay in power they need to keep this number as high as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
4,439 posts, read 5,521,720 times
Reputation: 3395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Good......then you have absolutely no objections whatsoever of returning to the methodology used pre-1994.

Proof Surrogate
Substituting a distracting comment for a real proof.

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.

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
It's crap like this is the reason why I'm disgusted with BOTH political parties. The people that get elected to be President and Congress are in it for themselves, not for "the people." The sooner the American people realize that, the sooner we can begin to turn this ship around.

It's a real wonder this country has managed to survive this long...but one thing's for sure - if things aren't turned around (like very, very soon) with our FUBAR educational system and our heavy-handed government which stifles growth and innovation - our "goose is cooked" - regardless of who wins the 2016 election.

Time to wake up and smell the roses, people - it ain't just about the "Republicans" and "Democrats"...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,292 posts, read 20,749,540 times
Reputation: 9330
Quote:
Originally Posted by FBJ View Post
No one knows what the real unemployment numbers are but I do know lots of people who found jobs in 2014 with good pay and benefits. It does seem like the economy is getting a lot better since so many people are finding employment.
Without government interference, it would have recovered a few years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,759 posts, read 8,218,912 times
Reputation: 8537
You all need to remember, Mr steal your pension and load you with debt Romney knew the GOP needed to win in 2012.He knew that the UE would be dropping and that higher paying jobs would be opening as the Boomers (like myself) took the retirement option and left the stats.

Now the GOP and others are trying to prove the Rates as false since they have done nothing to help them improve. Demographic's are a fun way to watch the needs of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 08:34 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,682,360 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Since the unemployment calculation methodology has not changed since 1994, what difference does it make? It's all relatively the same.
The point is that our politicians point to the U3 as if it accurately depicts the state of the economy and our overall employment situation. It's like the Wizard of Oz, trying to redirect people's attention away from what's behind the curtain so they cannot see the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,193,867 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvega View Post
And if you can explain how the next Democratic president will pay back $20,000,000,000,000, she'll get my vote. Or she'll stay Obama's course of improving economy by enslaving the next generations?
Depends on how Congress wishes to reduce the deficit in hopes of creating a surplus to help pay down the debt. The realistic thing to do is cut spending and raise taxes to help pay down the debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,193,867 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
The point is that our politicians point to the U3 as if it accurately depicts the state of the economy and our overall employment situation. It's like the Wizard of Oz, trying to redirect people's attention away from what's behind the curtain so they cannot see the truth.
That is the number we have used for a long time, if that number doesn't satisfy you, then use another. We are only about 3 points higher than Bush during his best economy years before the bubble burst and should hit his numbers by the next year or two.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top