Democrats caused recession in 2007

[owebo]

No, I didn't vote democrat in 2006.......but for well over 20 trillion dollars spent by your Obama, I would expect a better chart....

Kinda gives meaning to my Big Mac chart under Obama though, doesn't it......

Did you cast two votes for Scrub?

I knew you were an obaba voter....


I voted against Kerry and the algore....

Meaning that you voted FOR this guy...

238 presidential scholars: Bush worst president of modern era, fifth worst in US history


take a bow...

And you voted Obama...so....

This?

Yeah.....I'm good....

Yeah...we know.....

 

[owebo]

View attachment 84135

Wow...you really are an idiot....

So,,we have foot and mouth under your Obama? A tomato famine? 50% black youth unemployment? Oh, well that one we so have under your Obama...

This is the type of "thought" that you insist is valued by the market at 400-1000/hr?

You've got Corvet in your sights.......

No child...entertaining myself with you on-line educated liberals is for entertainment only.....

So, since you're fucking grasping at straws, what do you think inflated the price of your Obama Big Mac?

To which "price" are you referring? If you rely on McDonald's for that bit of information, the price of a Big Mac has risen roughly in line with inflation at 1.6%......

Did you figure out how to use a TVM calculator?

Thank god there is a graph, huh?

Suggesting that you were unable to figure out how to work that calculator?

Have you come up with an explanation as to why your graph shows a different price of a Big Mac than.......uh.......McDonald's?

Not sure if serious....

 

[kaz]

Again...your rambling.....pretend I am paying you 2000 an hour, and try again....

Offer to split your sterno with Kaz........it would be much more cost effective to have him explain what you claim to be your "favorite" chart....

But I do find it somewhat disquieting to see an alleged MBA allowing you to persist in the delusion that the "Big Mac Index" is intended to measure domestic inflation.....

Strawman. No one said it "measure(s)" inflation. It's just an indication it exists

Except that

a) it wasn't created for that purpose
b) it doesn't indicate that it exists - at least as measured by the actual price of a Big Mac.....between 2009 and now, the price of a Big Mac has increased at an annual rate of 1.6%, pretty close to the CPI.....

Thank you! A point on the discussion. There is no reason the price of a Big Mac should rise at all other than government stealing from the people. Inflation is pure government theft. They devalue the money to steal from you

Really?

What if the price of beef spikes due to an outbreak of Hoof&Mouth?

What if labor markets tighten and burger flippers and fryer tenders become relatively scarce?

Wasn't there an example recently of a precipitous rise in the price of tomatoes?

This MBA of yours, did it involve any distribution requirements?

That could explain the big mac if the price of the big mac went up but the CPI didn't.

You know, that chart seems to have a tongue in cheek factor too

 

[AntonToo]

That could explain the big mac if the price of the big mac went up but the CPI didn't.

You know, that chart seems to have a tongue in cheek factor too

Well when you are done tongue-in-cheeking and are ready to discuss SERIOUS inflation measures...

 

[kaz]

View attachment 84104

Again...your rambling.....pretend I am paying you 2000 an hour, and try again....

Offer to split your sterno with Kaz........it would be much more cost effective to have him explain what you claim to be your "favorite" chart....

But I do find it somewhat disquieting to see an alleged MBA allowing you to persist in the delusion that the "Big Mac Index" is intended to measure domestic inflation.....

Strawman. No one said it "measure(s)" inflation. It's just an indication it exists

Except that

a) it wasn't created for that purpose
b) it doesn't indicate that it exists - at least as measured by the actual price of a Big Mac.....between 2009 and now, the price of a Big Mac has increased at an annual rate of 1.6%, pretty close to the CPI.....

Seems it deviated from CPI quite a bit under your Obama .....

One more time.....what does McDonald's say about the price of a Big Mac?

And if the price is what McDonald's says it it, how far has it deviated from what the CPI suggests is should be?

(This will require that you understand how to perform a CAGR computation.....or, at the very least, be able to plug numbers into a TVM calculator)

What does it have to do with the time value of money or investment calculations? Big Mac components are bought, Big Macs are produced and sold. There is no long term investment in that so CAGR and TVM are irrelevant.

I like when people Google business terms and make shit like that up to try to sound smart. You failed ...

 

[kaz]

Offer to split your sterno with Kaz........it would be much more cost effective to have him explain what you claim to be your "favorite" chart....

But I do find it somewhat disquieting to see an alleged MBA allowing you to persist in the delusion that the "Big Mac Index" is intended to measure domestic inflation.....

Strawman. No one said it "measure(s)" inflation. It's just an indication it exists

Except that

a) it wasn't created for that purpose
b) it doesn't indicate that it exists - at least as measured by the actual price of a Big Mac.....between 2009 and now, the price of a Big Mac has increased at an annual rate of 1.6%, pretty close to the CPI.....

Thank you! A point on the discussion. There is no reason the price of a Big Mac should rise at all other than government stealing from the people. Inflation is pure government theft. They devalue the money to steal from you

Really?

What if the price of beef spikes due to an outbreak of Hoof&Mouth?

What if labor markets tighten and burger flippers and fryer tenders become relatively scarce?

Wasn't there an example recently of a precipitous rise in the price of tomatoes?

This MBA of yours, did it involve any distribution requirements?

Wow...you really are an idiot....

So,,we have foot and mouth under your Obama? A tomato famine? 50% black youth unemployment? Oh, well that one we so have under your Obama...

So, Slim, where's your links that those drove up the price of Big Macs? It's your standard that examples need to be defended as real data, you can't make things up even when you say you're making it up to demonstrate a point

 

[kaz]

That could explain the big mac if the price of the big mac went up but the CPI didn't.

You know, that chart seems to have a tongue in cheek factor too

Well when you are done tongue-in-cheeking and are ready to discuss SERIOUS inflation measures...

It's not my chart, Holmes

 

[kaz]

So this is "kazing"........

Volunteered for Gerald Ford.....went into exile when the Party decided to indulge Stupid in 1980....

Watch out. Kaz doesn't like it when folks call him a kazzer. He typically throws a hissy fit as he unsheaths his claws before throwing such posters on ignore.

With your double digit IQ, how'd you even push the button for Obama twice?

This?

Did you cast two votes for THIS?

No, I didn't vote democrat in 2006.......but for well over 20 trillion dollars spent by your Obama, I would expect a better chart....

Kinda gives meaning to my Big Mac chart under Obama though, doesn't it......

Did you cast two votes for Scrub?

I voted for W zero times. Voted Republican once in the last six elections. About to be one in seven. We need to vote third party in this country to break the rule of Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Do you care if we have the red liar or the blue liar who will do the same things? In about 1990 HW taught me a valuable lesson. I don't ...

 

[kaz]

Again...your rambling.....pretend I am paying you 2000 an hour, and try again....

Offer to split your sterno with Kaz........it would be much more cost effective to have him explain what you claim to be your "favorite" chart....

But I do find it somewhat disquieting to see an alleged MBA allowing you to persist in the delusion that the "Big Mac Index" is intended to measure domestic inflation.....

Strawman. No one said it "measure(s)" inflation. It's just an indication it exists

Except that

a) it wasn't created for that purpose
b) it doesn't indicate that it exists - at least as measured by the actual price of a Big Mac.....between 2009 and now, the price of a Big Mac has increased at an annual rate of 1.6%, pretty close to the CPI.....

Thank you! A point on the discussion. There is no reason the price of a Big Mac should rise at all other than government stealing from the people. Inflation is pure government theft. They devalue the money to steal from you

Geezus you are fucking ignorant in economics.

Zero inflation is considered unhealthy for economy and gets uncomfortably close to something even more disastrous - deflation.

Bull, the soundest economic policies are when we have the gold standard. That keeps government from stealing from us. Why is it good to have a $20 bill in your pocket that buys less and less over time? Ridiculous. You're just making shit up now. In our current paper based system, when bad things happen the currency can devalue, but that's an effect, not a cause of what is happening

 

[kaz]

Thank you! A point on the discussion. There is no reason the price of a Big Mac should rise at all other than government stealing from the people. Inflation is pure government theft. They devalue the money to steal from you

Really?

What if the price of beef spikes due to an outbreak of Hoof&Mouth?

What if labor markets tighten and burger flippers and fryer tenders become relatively scarce?

Wasn't there an example recently of a precipitous rise in the price of tomatoes?

This MBA of yours, did it involve any distribution requirements?

Wow...you really are an idiot....

So,,we have foot and mouth under your Obama? A tomato famine? 50% black youth unemployment? Oh, well that one we so have under your Obama...

This is the type of "thought" that you insist is valued by the market at 400-1000/hr?

You've got Corvet in your sights.......

No child...entertaining myself with you on-line educated liberals is for entertainment only.....

So, since you're fucking grasping at straws, what do you think inflated the price of your Obama Big Mac?

To which "price" are you referring? If you rely on McDonald's for that bit of information, the price of a Big Mac has risen roughly in line with inflation at 1.6%......

Did you figure out how to use a TVM calculator?

Again, what does "TVM" have to do with it? Big Mac components are bought and sold in relatively narrow time. What does the Time Value of Money have to do with a build and sell transaction? Does this even make sense to you? TVM is used when you are for example making an investment now that will pay off years down the line. It has nothing to do with buying beef and lettuce and tomatoes and selling them now

 

[kaz]

No shit, you are fucking serious......

And you are running.......

You could just google for it.......

At times you actually make good arguments about the recession. Unfortunately you have a visceral need to just disagree with anyone says who isn't a mind swilling Democrat. It's sad, really. You're not a brainiac or anything, but you do show occasional potential. Then you start with, no it isn't. Yes it is. No it wasn't. No, concrete isn't hard. No, water isn't wet.

At one point on the discussion of the 2007 recession you made me start to work. Then you started the just contradict anything I said crap. I say this in the faint and broadly contradicted hope there is some actual intelligence in there

I really don't think you are in a position to judge.......to paraphrase you, you should request a refund of whatever you paid the finishing academy which led you to believe that you earned an MBA....

The discussion onto which you have glommed offers a perfect example....

If the price of a Big Mac is not relevant to inflation AS MEASURED BY THE PRICE OF A BIG MAC, then what the fuck is?

What makes you think the cost of goods sold and accrued business expenses (such as labor costs and equipment upgrades) that is involved in providing you with that Big Mac remains at such a constant variable that government specifically uses it to accurately determine inflation? Perhaps you are getting confused with their little monopoly prize promotions?

I cannot make sense of this gibberish, but I will, in the spirit of Christian charity, inform you that labor is part of Cost of Goods sold......

Only direct labor. There is a lot more labor at McDonald's than direct labor

 

[owebo]

That could explain the big mac if the price of the big mac went up but the CPI didn't.

You know, that chart seems to have a tongue in cheek factor too

Well when you are done tongue-in-cheeking and are ready to discuss SERIOUS inflation measures...

Inflation measures? What the fuck are you talking about child? Inflation measures.....what a fucking joke....

 

[pinqy]

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

The article agrees with me that the drop in participation is primarily demographic and not evidence of a poor economy

 

[kaz]

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

The article agrees with me that the drop in participation is primarily demographic and not evidence of a poor economy

You keep using words like "primarily" that show where you're misleading

 

[pinqy]

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

And? Why is that bad, and what were the causes. You're not countering anything I've said

Long term lackluster economy has inflated underemployment and made a lot of workers give up and quit looking

How are you defining and measuring "underemployment," and how are you defining "a lot" when the number of discouraged (people who "gave up" has been steadily going down?

 

[pinqy]

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

The article agrees with me that the drop in participation is primarily demographic and not evidence of a poor economy

You keep using words like "primarily" that show where you're misleading

How is that misleading? Are you saying demographics are not the main cause? We Can not exactly measure all the reasons. Discouraged workers are absolutely not a reason, though.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

And? Why is that bad, and what were the causes. You're not countering anything I've said

Long term lackluster economy has inflated underemployment and made a lot of workers give up and quit looking

How are you defining and measuring "underemployment," and how are you defining "a lot" when the number of discouraged (people who "gave up" has been steadily going down?

Underemployment is a simple concept that is basic to economics and easily Googled. There is no reason I need to explain it to you. That said, I'll give you a short explanation. From there, Google will educate you.

It's when workers who are earning less than they reasonably should because of reasons such as:

1) They want full time or more hours than they can get. For example, workers who are limited to under 30 hours by employers so they don't have to pay for Obamacare

2) They have education/skills/training they are not utilizing because of limited job opportunities. For example, a lawyer who is working at a bank as a cashier because they can't find a job as a lawyer.

I don't understand the aversion you people have to looking things up yourself

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

The article agrees with me that the drop in participation is primarily demographic and not evidence of a poor economy

You keep using words like "primarily" that show where you're misleading

How is that misleading? Are you saying demographics are not the main cause? We Can not exactly measure all the reasons. Discouraged workers are absolutely not a reason, though.

You're analyzing Lake Superior and comparing it to the Pacific Ocean and saying it's a puddle. No, it's a big ass lake

 

[pinqy]

What's ridiculous is that you could possibly get that interpretation from anything I've said.

Here is what I am saying:

• The number of jobs has been going up
• The number of people employed has been boing up.
• The percent of the population employed has been going up.
• The Labor force has been going up.
• The percent of the population in the labor force has been going down since 1999.
• Some of that decline, during the recession, was due to economic factors.
• Most of it, especially in the last few years, has been due to demographic changes such as an aging population, more students, and more disabled. (mostly age)
• Discouragement (those "giving up") has been going steadily down in level and percentage.

Do you claim anything I have said is incorrect?

Are you saying I don't know real people? And employment in my area is around 3.6% I know one person involuntarily out of work, and she's retirement age and might choose not to return to work.

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

And? Why is that bad, and what were the causes. You're not countering anything I've said

Long term lackluster economy has inflated underemployment and made a lot of workers give up and quit looking

How are you defining and measuring "underemployment," and how are you defining "a lot" when the number of discouraged (people who "gave up" has been steadily going down?

Underemployment is a simple concept that is basic to economics and easily Googled.

It is also an extremely subjective measure. So I could not know specifically what you meant or how you would measure it.

It's when workers who are earning less than they reasonably should because of reasons such as:

Who decides reasonable?

1) They want full time or more hours than they can get. For example, workers who are limited to under 30 hours by employers so they don't have to pay for Obamacare

Is that including people who are unable to work full time due to personal reasons?

2) They have education/skills/training they are not utilizing because of limited job opportunities. For example, a lawyer who is working at a bank as a cashier because they can't find a job as a lawyer.

What if that reason was disbarment? And what about a theater major working in a restaurant? Underemployed or normal?

I don't understand the aversion you people have to looking things up yourself

I spent over a decade professionally dealing with just these kinds of topics. It is a complex topic and a general search would not tell me which specific definition you were using.

You made a specific claim about underemployment. You refuse to cite your source and the methodology used to reach the conclusion. I'll gladly walk you through th definitions and math for any of my statements

 

[kaz]

"The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent"

Where Are All the Workers?

Article was from July, 2015

And? Why is that bad, and what were the causes. You're not countering anything I've said

Long term lackluster economy has inflated underemployment and made a lot of workers give up and quit looking

How are you defining and measuring "underemployment," and how are you defining "a lot" when the number of discouraged (people who "gave up" has been steadily going down?

Underemployment is a simple concept that is basic to economics and easily Googled.

It is also an extremely subjective measure. So I could not know specifically what you meant or how you would measure it.

Bull shit. There is some subjectivity when you measure it. Any study should define how exactly they are measuring it. But the definition is very clear economically and any variation would be minor

It's when workers who are earning less than they reasonably should because of reasons such as:

Who decides reasonable?

As I said, it's a term from economics. And I also said I would give you one definition. From here, do your own research

1) They want full time or more hours than they can get. For example, workers who are limited to under 30 hours by employers so they don't have to pay for Obamacare

Is that including people who are unable to work full time due to personal reasons?

Not economically, no

2) They have education/skills/training they are not utilizing because of limited job opportunities. For example, a lawyer who is working at a bank as a cashier because they can't find a job as a lawyer.

What if that reason was disbarment? And what about a theater major working in a restaurant? Underemployed or normal?

If it's disbarment then no, it's not underemployment. How is that answer not already clear to you? That clearly didn't mean the parameter of the definition that jobs aren't available

As for a "theater major" based on the information you gave, no, they are not underemployed

I don't understand the aversion you people have to looking things up yourself

I spent over a decade professionally dealing with just these kinds of topics. It is a complex topic and a general search would not tell me which specific definition you were using

It's clear what it means. It's an economic term. This is bull, you just don't know what it means

You made a specific claim about underemployment. You refuse to cite your source and the methodology used to reach the conclusion. I'll gladly walk you through th definitions and math for any of my statements

I'm not Google and I'm not researching basic information and definitions for you. Note there is no question mark in that sentence