Just another tick down on unemployment, ho hum

[danielpalos]

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

How useful is U3?

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

Sounds like the U-3. Certainly not the U-6, which includes people who are working.

There can be no form of, "unaccounting" for the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

when are we going to improve transparency in our unemployment statistics?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

How useful is U3?

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

 

[Faun]

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

How useful is U3?

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

Sounds like the U-3. Certainly not the U-6, which includes people who are working.

There can be no form of, "unaccounting" for the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

How useful is U3?

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

Sounds like the U-3. Certainly not the U-6, which includes people who are working.

There can be no form of, "unaccounting" for the unorganized militia.

Just clueless and Causeless? Even wo-men in the non-porn sector, can be as good, for pay purposes.

Why do you believe it would be worse for our economy, if Labor had recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

 

[Faun]

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

Sounds like the U-3. Certainly not the U-6, which includes people who are working.

There can be no form of, "unaccounting" for the unorganized militia.

Just clueless and Causeless? Even wo-men in the non-porn sector, can be as good, for pay purposes.

Why do you believe it would be worse for our economy, if Labor had recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

I get it, you're crazy.

I won't bother with you in the future.

 

[danielpalos]

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

Sounds like the U-3. Certainly not the U-6, which includes people who are working.

There can be no form of, "unaccounting" for the unorganized militia.

Just clueless and Causeless? Even wo-men in the non-porn sector, can be as good, for pay purposes.

Why do you believe it would be worse for our economy, if Labor had recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

I get it, you're crazy.

I won't bother with you in the future.

Why should I take you seriously in any political discourse, slacker.

 

[pinqy]

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

Handbook of Methods, chapter 1, labor force data derived from the Current Population Survey

Current Population Survey, design and methodology (Technical paper 66)

Current Population Survey Questionnaire.

Census documentation on CPS

BLS technical documentation

How much more transparency do you think there coul be without privacy violations?

How useful is U3?

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

 

[danielpalos]

How useful is U3?

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

 

[pinqy]

For measuring how much available labor is not being used? Very. For anything else? Not at all.

But what does that have to do with transparency? Or are you just going to ignore every rebuttal I make and just switch topics?

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

 

[danielpalos]

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

 

[Redfish]

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

so is your plan to give "unemployment compensation" to everyone who is working but does not make what they consider to be a non-poverty wage? You talk in riddles so its hard to figure out what you are trying to say.

 

[pinqy]

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

"Solving simple poverty" is not a metric. And again, simply dividing people into Employed and Not Employed does NOT give any indication of full employment of resources.

One more time: The official unemployment rate (U3) tells us what percent of those actively involved in working have failed to find work. In other words, the percent of those who could be working if there were enough jobs, but are not. It does not address poverty or quality of employment.

Your idea of simply Employed or Not Employed (which is already published as the "Employment-Population Ratio," currently at 60% of the adult civilian non-institutional population) doesn't tell us how many people could be or would be working if there were enough jobs. Nor does it address poverty or quality of jobs.

So how do you consider it more useful for measuring the labor market?

 

[danielpalos]

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

so is your plan to give "unemployment compensation" to everyone who is working but does not make what they consider to be a non-poverty wage? You talk in riddles so its hard to figure out what you are trying to say.

If they want to work. Most of the rest of the right wing, expect labor to just be lazy.

 

[danielpalos]

I am referring to solving simple poverty. Boom and bust cycles should only marginally impact Labor in a manner analogous to the corporate sector.

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

"Solving simple poverty" is not a metric. And again, simply dividing people into Employed and Not Employed does NOT give any indication of full employment of resources.

One more time: The official unemployment rate (U3) tells us what percent of those actively involved in working have failed to find work. In other words, the percent of those who could be working if there were enough jobs, but are not. It does not address poverty or quality of employment.

Yes, it does; it is that simple dichotomy. In any case, it is about solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[Redfish]

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

so is your plan to give "unemployment compensation" to everyone who is working but does not make what they consider to be a non-poverty wage? You talk in riddles so its hard to figure out what you are trying to say.

If they want to work. Most of the rest of the right wing, expect labor to just be lazy.

What? obviously English is not your first language. Please get someone to translate for you.

 

[Redfish]

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

"Solving simple poverty" is not a metric. And again, simply dividing people into Employed and Not Employed does NOT give any indication of full employment of resources.

One more time: The official unemployment rate (U3) tells us what percent of those actively involved in working have failed to find work. In other words, the percent of those who could be working if there were enough jobs, but are not. It does not address poverty or quality of employment.

Yes, it does; it is that simple dichotomy. In any case, it is about solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

what do you mean by "at will basis" ?

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

"Solving simple poverty" is not a metric. And again, simply dividing people into Employed and Not Employed does NOT give any indication of full employment of resources.

One more time: The official unemployment rate (U3) tells us what percent of those actively involved in working have failed to find work. In other words, the percent of those who could be working if there were enough jobs, but are not. It does not address poverty or quality of employment.

Yes, it does; it is that simple dichotomy. In any case, it is about solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

what do you mean by "at will basis" ?

Employment is at will in our at-will employment States.

 

[edthecynic]

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

According to Tramp, 96 million.

JAN. 11, 2017 press conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.

 

[danielpalos]

We should, "cut the red tape". Simplification is better. A person is either, employed or not, for unemployment purposes.

What red tape are you talking about?

But let's look at your suggestion: there are around 254,767,000 people in the adult civilian noninstitutional population. 152,923,000 are employed, and 101,844,000 are not.
Based just on that, approximately how many more jobs would we need so that everyone who wants a job has one?

According to Tramp, 96 million.

JAN. 11, 2017 press conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

Unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current, local statutory minimum wage; could solve simple poverty on an at-will basis and enable Labor to become employed.

 

[pinqy]

And how would simply classifying everyone as employed or not employed solve simple poverty? Unemployment statistics aren't very useful for measuring poverty...plenty of employed are poor, plenty of unemployed and not in the labor force are not poor.

But as I predicted you just keep changing topics.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, dear.

And could you please explain, in detail, using standardly acceptable economic language how that relates to measuring the labor market and assessing job shortages?

Full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Solving simple poverty is the metric.

"Solving simple poverty" is not a metric. And again, simply dividing people into Employed and Not Employed does NOT give any indication of full employment of resources.

One more time: The official unemployment rate (U3) tells us what percent of those actively involved in working have failed to find work. In other words, the percent of those who could be working if there were enough jobs, but are not. It does not address poverty or quality of employment.

Yes, it does; it is that simple dichotomy. .

Explain how you think that is true. Most not employed are not poor and some employed are. There is no direct correlation between employment and poverty. Please stop making unbacked assertions and try for an actual argument.