10%?

[Si modo]

Will we hit 10% unemployment tomorrow?

It's very possible. Republicans did a pretty thorough job of trashing the economy. Not just the economy, but the entire country. Democrats aren't going to fix it overnight.

Exactly how much longer do you expect that excuse to work?

 

[pinqy]

Actually, I am sure that the unemployment total is already over 10% but most likely not officially because there is a large group of people who have run out of unemployment bennies that still don't have a job. I wager it's been over 10% for some months already... It's a shame so many people are out of work especially now that we're getting ready to move into the holiday season. Sucks, huh?

Real unemployment is between 21 and 22%.

He says this, but he has no objective, exclusive, definition of unemployment, includes people who do have jobs, and has no clear methodology of creating his estimate. Ask him for his support for his claim...he'll just claim the government lies and he knows what he sees but will never ever try to come up with reliable definitions or any kind of actual evidence.

 

[jillian]

He says this, but he has no objective, exclusive, definition of unemployment, includes people who do have jobs, and has no clear methodology of creating his estimate. Ask him for his support for his claim...he'll just claim the government lies and he knows what he sees but will never ever try to come up with reliable definitions or any kind of actual evidence.

you noticed that, too, huh?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Wow. 10% possibly. Very sad.

sad... but anticipated given the economic melt-down of a year ago.

the good news is that each week, new applications for unemployment have been dropping for the last three weeks for the first time in two years.

they expect the figures to start turning around toward early 2010.

Who is "they," the political hacks? Pray tell, how will the figures turn around when the government continues to spend as if money grew on federal trees, and taxes keep going up?

Is anyone truly surprised by the unemployment rate? Seriously, it stinks and it will keep on stinking, until people get rid of their stinkin' thinkin'.

 

[pinqy]

He says this, but he has no objective, exclusive, definition of unemployment, includes people who do have jobs, and has no clear methodology of creating his estimate. Ask him for his support for his claim...he'll just claim the government lies and he knows what he sees but will never ever try to come up with reliable definitions or any kind of actual evidence.

you noticed that, too, huh?

Retarded monkeys would notice.

 

[eagleseven]

Will we hit 10% unemployment tomorrow?

It's very possible. Republicans did a pretty thorough job of trashing the economy. Not just the economy, but the entire country. Democrats aren't going to fix it overnight.

Exactly how much longer do you expect that excuse to work?

Until 2012, it would seem.

 

[eagleseven]

He says this, but he has no objective, exclusive, definition of unemployment, includes people who do have jobs, and has no clear methodology of creating his estimate. Ask him for his support for his claim...he'll just claim the government lies and he knows what he sees but will never ever try to come up with reliable definitions or any kind of actual evidence.

you noticed that, too, huh?

It is an acknowledged fact that our current unemployment formula is self-limiting, in that it excludes dispirited workers. This has been a feature of the formula since 1994, as any student of labor economics will tell you.

Indeed, this is how unemployment went down by 0.2% last July when, in net, 200,000+ jobs were lost. It is obvious to anyone who understands algebra that the federal unemployment percentage is meaningless.


Forbes: Ignore July's Unemployment Numbers

 

[DiveCon]

It's very possible. Republicans did a pretty thorough job of trashing the economy. Not just the economy, but the entire country. Democrats aren't going to fix it overnight.

Exactly how much longer do you expect that excuse to work?

Until 2012, it would seem.

they better hope it works till at least 2013

 

[pinqy]

It is an acknowledged fact that our current unemployment formula is self-limiting, in that it excludes dispirited workers. This has been a feature of the formula since 1994, as any student of labor economics will tell you.

And they would be wrong. Discouraged workers have not been part of the definition since 1967, and even before then their inclusion was inconsistant, up to interviewer discretion, and was to be applied to areas of economic hardship rather than a general rule. The problem with discouraged workers (and worldwide they are generally not included) is that it is too subjective. The best way to tell if someone wants a job is if they're looking for one...actually participating in the market. Discouraged workers are important to look at and keep track of, but they're not part of the labor market.

Indeed, this is how unemployment went down by 0.2% last July when, in net, 200,000+ jobs were lost. It is obvious to anyone who understands algebra that the federal unemployment percentage is meaningless.

No it's not. I understand algebra well. The UI rate formula is U/(U+E) If E goes down, and U goes down, then the rate can also go down. That's what happened in July. Both Employment and Unemployment went down.

 

[eagleseven]

It is an acknowledged fact that our current unemployment formula is self-limiting, in that it excludes dispirited workers. This has been a feature of the formula since 1994, as any student of labor economics will tell you.

And they would be wrong. Discouraged workers have not been part of the definition since 1967, and even before then their inclusion was inconsistant, up to interviewer discretion, and was to be applied to areas of economic hardship rather than a general rule. The problem with discouraged workers (and worldwide they are generally not included) is that it is too subjective. The best way to tell if someone wants a job is if they're looking for one...actually participating in the market. Discouraged workers are important to look at and keep track of, but they're not part of the labor market.

Discouraged workers were never counted at all prior to 1967, and weren't used in any calculations until 1994. Since 1994, they are used in the U4+ calculation, but this is not the number the Feds choose to publicize.

The U4 is well above 10%.

The best way to tell if someone wants a job is if they're looking for one...actually participating in the market.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five reasons for discouragement are:

1. The worker thinks no work is available.
2. The worker could not find work.
3. The worker lacks schooling or training.
4. The worker is viewed as too young or old by the prospective employer.
5. The worker is the target of various types of discrimination.

Indeed, this is how unemployment went down by 0.2% last July when, in net, 200,000+ jobs were lost. It is obvious to anyone who understands algebra that the federal unemployment percentage is meaningless.

No it's not. I understand algebra well. The UI rate formula is U/(U+E) If E goes down, and U goes down, then the rate can also go down. That's what happened in July. Both Employment and Unemployment went down.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. To keep UI under 10%, the government needs only to re-define how E is estimated.

 

[Neubarth]

Discouraged workers were never counted at all prior to 1967, and weren't used in any calculations until 1994. Since 1994, they are used in the U4+ calculation, but this is not the number the Feds choose to publicize.


5. The worker is the target of various types of discrimination.


Thank you for demonstrating my point. To keep UI under 10%, the government needs only to re-define how E is estimated.

Your conclusion is one that many have come to since the Federal numbers for unemployment do not come close to the millions out walking the streets in need of work, Any Work!!! As regards discrimination, I know it as a reality. Though I am employed, I have been submitting thousands of applications for jobs as listed on USAJOBS. If I leak my age (62) I will never receive a request to interview, inspite of having 14 years of college education! The US government is the absolute worst when it comes to age discrimination.

Out of almost 40,000 applications in the past 7 years, I have received one interview request. ONE! I warn everybody, DO NOT quit a job when you are over 50 unless you have a confirmed job to go to! I am a "retired" data communications manager with AT&T, and a qualified Nuclear Reactor Plant Operator. If I was in my thirties, I would have no end of people interested in hiring me, but past my fifties, almost nobody will talk to you. Age discrimination in this country is almost as bad as race discrimination in the NineteenFifties. It is insanely oppressive. I personally know of three suicides of men in my age group because they could not find work to support their families. It is insane out there. And then we have the Federal Government lying like hell about the unemployment situation. Damn them to high holy hell!

 

[GHook93]

Will we hit 10% unemployment tomorrow?

I know the official number of 9.8%, but the official number is more around 19.8-20% close to Great Depression Numbers! Back during the depression they didn't just count people who were on unemployment, they counted everyone!

We try to make ourselves feel better by only counting people on unemployment!

 

[GHook93]

republicans are praying for it

Good way to spin it! Politicians maybe, but not the people! Is that any different than Spike Lee saying that God brought on the market collapse so that Barak Obama would be elected?

 

[GHook93]

Actually, I am sure that the unemployment total is already over 10% but most likely not officially because there is a large group of people who have run out of unemployment bennies that still don't have a job. I wager it's been over 10% for some months already... It's a shame so many people are out of work especially now that we're getting ready to move into the holiday season. Sucks, huh?

Real unemployment is between 21 and 22%.

He says this, but he has no objective, exclusive, definition of unemployment, includes people who do have jobs, and has no clear methodology of creating his estimate. Ask him for his support for his claim...he'll just claim the government lies and he knows what he sees but will never ever try to come up with reliable definitions or any kind of actual evidence.

You do realize there are people who are unemployed and not unemployment? You do realize there have been many many people that have exhausted their unemployment and are now off it, specially factor workers. You do realize that when a person exhaust their unemployment the OFFICIAL number toss them in the employed category (even though they are not) and for statistically numbers they are considered unemployment goes down.

So Neu is right!

 

[rdean]

Will we hit 10% unemployment tomorrow?

It's very possible. Republicans did a pretty thorough job of trashing the economy. Not just the economy, but the entire country. Democrats aren't going to fix it overnight.

Exactly how much longer do you expect that excuse to work?

Republicans had 8 years. Democrats should get at least that much.

At least you didn't deny the damage Republicans caused. That's a good first step.

 

[GHook93]

It's very possible. Republicans did a pretty thorough job of trashing the economy. Not just the economy, but the entire country. Democrats aren't going to fix it overnight.

Exactly how much longer do you expect that excuse to work?

Republicans had 8 years. Democrats should get at least that much.

At least you didn't deny the damage Republicans caused. That's a good first step.

I love how a partisan man like you doesn't take in the account the Effects of the Community Reinvestment Act, in which Democrats enacted to "encourage" (meaning force) banks to lend to all segments of the community regardless of income. This was the prerequiste to the liar loans (stated loans).

But the 1995 amendments under your hero Bill Clinton (who I personally think was a good President), required even more investment to low income families. This lead to banks lending to people who couldn't pay the loans back!

The 1999 amendments lead by Chris "Da Crook" Dodds strong armed the banks even more and lead to even more stupid loans!

The republicans are not off the hook though. The 1992 amendments gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the power to purchase mortgages, hence created the secondary market in which careless lender did loans and then sold off the risk! Who Barney Frank still believes are 2 financial sound organizations!

By 2000 many many many anaylists and experts were SCREAMING about the bubble bursting! That banks were doing way too many risky loans. That risky and stated loans should be the exception not the norm. I remember reading an article back in 2001 in a doctors office about when the bubble burst (which the author predicted in 2002) we are going to head to a depression! Yet after baby Bush took office with a Republican Congress he did nothing and ignored the calls.

So YES the Republicans need to take a lion share of the blame, but don't be so partisan to not see the Democrats are culprits also!

Lastly the fucking banks should have known that maybe just maybe lending to people who make up their income is well STUPID!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

 

[pinqy]

Discouraged workers were never counted at all prior to 1967, and weren't used in any calculations until 1994. Since 1994, they are used in the U4+ calculation, but this is not the number the Feds choose to publicize.

They weren't called "discouraged workers", however prior to 1967 the definition of Unemployed included people who weren't looking because they did not think they could find work, though the definition stated that that was mostly for economically depressed areas (definition can be found at FRASER » Publications » Employment and Earnings pick a year before 1967 download the whole issue and look in the appendix. It's not working for me right now). And discouraged workers were included in the old U-7 "Total full-time jobseekers plus 1/2 part-time jobseekers plus 10.2 1/2 total on part-time for economic reasons plus discouraged workers as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers less 1/2 of the part-time labor force."

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five reasons for discouragement are:

1. The worker thinks no work is available.
2. The worker could not find work.
3. The worker lacks schooling or training.
4. The worker is viewed as too young or old by the prospective employer.
5. The worker is the target of various types of discrimination.

Right. And the reason Discouragement is not included is that it is too subjective. There's no way of telling if those reasons are actual, perceived, or what. A good recent article on the subject of alternative measures is Measures of Labor Underutilization from the Current Population Survey

Indeed, this is how unemployment went down by 0.2% last July when, in net, 200,000+ jobs were lost. It is obvious to anyone who understands algebra that the federal unemployment percentage is meaningless.

No it's not. I understand algebra well. The UI rate formula is U/(U+E) If E goes down, and U goes down, then the rate can also go down. That's what happened in July. Both Employment and Unemployment went down.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. To keep UI under 10%, the government needs only to re-define how E is estimated.

[/quote] But they haven't redefined E since 1967, if then. The rate is the rate. There's more to be looked at, such as the July drop when the decrease in the rate was due to people leaving the workforce rather than gaining employment, but there was no government manipulation or redefinition or anything of the sort.

 

[pinqy]

I know the official number of 9.8%, but the official number is more around 19.8-20% close to Great Depression Numbers! Back during the depression they didn't just count people who were on unemployment, they counted everyone!

We try to make ourselves feel better by only counting people on unemployment!

For your benefit, one more time the definition used for the unemployment rate is

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be
looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

bolding is mine, source is BLS Additionally, except for the 1930 census and a 1936 postcard census, there was NO calculation of Unemployment during the Depression. The "official" numbers come from a 1948 study.

Real unemployment is between 21 and 22%.

He says this, but he has no objective, exclusive, definition of unemployment, includes people who do have jobs, and has no clear methodology of creating his estimate. Ask him for his support for his claim...he'll just claim the government lies and he knows what he sees but will never ever try to come up with reliable definitions or any kind of actual evidence.

You do realize there are people who are unemployed and not unemployment? You do realize there have been many many people that have exhausted their unemployment and are now off it, specially factor workers. You do realize that when a person exhaust their unemployment the OFFICIAL number toss them in the employed category (even though they are not) and for statistically numbers they are considered unemployment goes down.

I've shown you the definition. You're completely wrong. I'd be amused to see your source (unless you post a xerox of your ass, which is where you possibly got your info from). Wait, and you really think that people without a job are counted as employed if they're no longer receiving benefits? That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in forever.