Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's all you got?
No wonder you guys are going to lose.
<sigh>
pingy's right, its closer to 15%.
I do stand by the 8.3% rate being the equivalent of the 8.9% number from the end of 2011. Between the new Census correction and the normal margin for error, no one can really dispute it.
The census adjustment ended up having no effect on the rate. And the margin if error is +- 0.2 percentage points. So clearly there was a statistically significant downward change.
The claim was unemployment, not underemployment.I'd love to see you try and supper that number. Even adding in everyone who says they want a job, regardless of ability to accept one, or not bothering to try to get a job in years doesn't even get close to 20%.
And your evidence for this is what?
UNDERemployment rate as of Feb 6 2012, is 18.70%. That's when people are forced to look to part-time work, or look to jobs where they are earning significantly less. Check the graph over the past year below, you will find it far above the 8.3% figure the media likes to simply throw around:
US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts
You need to dig a little deeper if you want to discover the overall picture of what this economy REALLY looks like.
I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.
No change of subject at all. Obama has destroyed jobs. They aren't counted any longer.Interesting change of subject. I don't even know what "destroying jobs" is supposed to mean. It's not a Econ term
Try again.
Sure it is. You can't support your made up number of 20% unemployment or the false claim that the govt changes the standards based on mood.
So yo ignore those and now you're talking about "destroyed jobs" without, of course, defining the term. You just like to assert things without backing them up, don't you?
The president also called for expanding the reach of a 1994 law that forbids banks from acquiring another bank if the deal would give it more than 10% of the nation's insured deposits. He would expand that limit to cover other types of funding—such as banks' short-term borrowing from financial markets—and perhaps put a cap on the share of assets any one firm could hold.
The Thursday announcement is the latest move by the White House to target Wall Street and banks. Earlier this month, the president proposed a new fee on large banks and insurance companies that would raise $90 billion over 10 years
Obama Proposes New Bank Regulations - WSJ.com
Nobody will be surprised to learn that the past few years have been tough for small business. They’ve been tough for everyone, after all. But interesting research finalized in December from economists Burcu Duygan-Bump, Alexey Levkov, and Judit Montoriol-Garriga published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston indicates that the interplay of small business and the banking crisis may have played a special role in the recession. In particular, a tightening of credit standards during the high point of the fiscal crunch seems to have disproportionately impacted small firms and is continuing to hold them back during the recession.
Politicians gushing over small businesses is such a cliché that it’s easy to tune out talk of the importance of small firms. According to the Census Bureau, as of 2008-09 about one-half of all jobs were with firms with fewer than 500 employees, and one-half of those were with firms with fewer than 100 workers. Fully 10 percent of workers were employed by tiny business with fewer than 10 employees. And small-scale operations are unusual in several respects. Most notably, they don’t have access to the conventional financial-market tools of a big company. For aggressively growing startups, that means gaining the financing they need from the special world of venture capital. But for the hum-drum small businesses that make up such a large share of American economic life—the kind of firms that are trying to get by and earn a profit, but don’t necessarily aspire to world domination—that means relying on bank loans for funding needs.
Small businesses in the economic recovery: The disproportionate impact of the credit crunch - Slate Magazine
There's no set definition for "underemployment." The definition Gallup uses for their measure isThe claim was unemployment, not underemployment.UNDERemployment rate as of Feb 6 2012, is 18.70%. That's when people are forced to look to part-time work, or look to jobs where they are earning significantly less. Check the graph over the past year below, you will find it far above the 8.3% figure the media likes to simply throw around:
US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts
You need to dig a little deeper if you want to discover the overall picture of what this economy REALLY looks like.
I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.
This is a joke right? Workers decided they don't need to be earning the income they once had because they no longer feel they want to have a full time job, or it's because they have decided they would much rather look after the kids? Are you being serious? Underemployment MEANS they are unable to find work at the income they once had and have to "settle" with earning less, perhaps even work two jobs to make up the loss of income under one (which would also make an increase in the job numbers deceptive and misleading). You are able to figure out what underemployment means with respect to a bad economy, aren't you?
So nothing to do with unable to find full time or having to settle. People working part time because they need to look after kids or elderly or share a car or juggle school will be classified as "underemployed" by Gallup's measure. I find it revealing that you just invented your own definition rather than try to find what was actually used for the measure you were discussing.Respondents who work either for an employer or for themselves, and do not work more than 30 hours per week at either job are categorized as employed part time. Additionally, when asked, these respondents indicated they do want to work more than 30 hours per week.
Gallup definitions
Poor attempt at spin Romney does not say any of those things in the video Extremist never that would be someone who says Statism exist nowhere in the world or that the Father of Fascism, Rousseau, had a greater impact on our country than Locke
I suspect this has been a pattern the entire primary season in open primaries and caucuses.If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.
Romney will win with real Republicans and the center voting for him. Those fair weather "conservatives" who sit home will gain nothing after he wins or they can start their own party. They don't get to tell us what to do.
Jake living proof of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Click here
Democratic crossovers will continue to vote for inSanitorium.If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.
Democratic crossovers will continue to vote for inSanitorium.If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.
