Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,200
- 2,635
Called out on what? Despite me asking multiple times, I still can't get you to say if it's better or worse for people to be staying at their jobs longer. Are you avoiding answering because you don't know?It's not that I'm being silent on this .... it's that you're refusing to answer my questions. Who knows why?That didn't answer my question. All you did was repeat a previous post. How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? Are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?In terms of the health of the job market, what do you think it means when people stay at their jobs longer? What does long term employment mean to you?
What does it mean when you work full time but the company only has need of you for 3 months? What about the company that overhired because they experience a high turn around and anticipate that those they employ will either will not work out or quit? Relying on only one set of figures does not equate to an overall picture of the strength of the economy. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to you for you to understand. How many economists actually rely on job numbers alone and think they know enough to accurately determine how this country is doing? I just sat and explained how those numbers can be misleading, as well as what unemployment numbers don't account for .... get a clue.
People don't often have a choice if they can't remain employed for longer than three months. They also don't have the option to receive unemployment benefits if they don't qualify for a new claim. No ability to provide their family with health care through their employer. Maybe that individual is able to find another full-time job after two months of searching.
However, you can't provide me a breakdown on how those numbers you quoted are obtained, can you? All you can prove is that a full-time job was provided and recorded. You could have the same individual obtain two different full-time jobs because long term employment wasn't available in their profession, and it's simply recorded as just another full-time job. Your graph can't distinguish the difference, can it? I ask again, show me a breakdown of how those numbers were recorded and obtained. Your silence on the issue explains a lot.
Again.....
How does long-term employment indicate the health of the job market? In terms of the health of the job market, are you saying it's better for people to remain at their jobs longer or is it worse?
What your not educated enough to understand is the EMPLOYER often determines how long you are to be employed. If the job market doesn't reflect a "need" for you to be employed for more than a few months, then you get laid off for a lack of work and the need for you to be employed. You response is based on this assumption, that if an individual can find full-time employment but it's not long term that somehow it's still a strong economic indicator because he can always try and seek out other work? I can't sit down an explain to you terms like "job market", if you don't have a grasp of the basics on how the economy works.
At least I will sit and explain a graph or a set of figures, like unemployment, breaking it down to what it means.. what it covers and what's not included. Perhaps this is why you consistently avoid doing the same when you are called out on it, because perhaps you aren't as knowledge on economic issues as you'd like everyone else to think you are. I'm not going to waist my time conversing with someone who posts figures they can't explain, with a breakdown source of how those numbers are derived that you can't produce.