Why do you want to call people not trying to work "unemployed?"

[pinqy]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.

Huh?
Anybody who isn't working is unemployed.

You're welcome.

children, retirees, stayhome spouses, those unable to work, prisoners, people in mental institutes...all Unemployed?


Unemployed has never been a complete synonym for "not working."

Oh, and by your definition, someone on vacation, or sick leave, is unemployed.

But you avoided the actual point of the OP.....WHY is that your definition?

YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

 

[pinqy]

That is how people use the word, and it is the correct usage of the word.

You are going to say that you have heard retirees, housewives, and children referred to as unemployed if asked what they do? That would be the first response?

It has to do with the left because the SOLE reason you people give a shit about how the word "unemployed" is used is because the UNEMPLOYMENT numbers in this country belie your myths about how your insane policies put everybody to work and make everybody happy.

If someone doesn't want to work or can't work, how does that tell us anything about ability to put people to work or effectiveness of policy?

You're sitting there saying that if we called all the women who don't want to work because they would prefer to raise their children...all the people in their 70's enjoying their retirement,.....high school students who don't need to work becuase their families can afford to raise them......if we called all these "unemployed" that would show a failure of policy? How exactly does that work?

 

[koshergrl]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.

children, retirees, stayhome spouses, those unable to work, prisoners, people in mental institutes...all Unemployed?


Unemployed has never been a complete synonym for "not working."

Oh, and by your definition, someone on vacation, or sick leave, is unemployed.

But you avoided the actual point of the OP.....WHY is that your definition?

YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

If you aren't working, you are unemployed.

That tells us exactly what we need to know.

 

[pinqy]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.
YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

If you aren't working, you are unemployed.

That tells us exactly what we need to know.

Really? The Employment/Population ratio...the percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population that is employed.... is higher now than anytime before May 1978,
Your contention then would be that the employment rate is better now than any time before May 1978? You sure you want to stick with that?

 

[Hossfly]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.

children, retirees, stayhome spouses, those unable to work, prisoners, people in mental institutes...all Unemployed?


Unemployed has never been a complete synonym for "not working."

Oh, and by your definition, someone on vacation, or sick leave, is unemployed.

But you avoided the actual point of the OP.....WHY is that your definition?

YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

Wow! Good thing preachers are considered employed. After they get their sermon wrote up and rehearsed, they're not considered "unemployed and looking for work" but "idle and in the labor force but not looking for work." Then if someone dies and he has to conduct a funeral he is "working part-time and not looking for work" until Sunday when he is "employed and not looking for work." Then on Monday he repeats the cycle. Whew! No wonder so many preachers are alcoholic! Glad I'm retired and "not willing to work" and "not eligible for un-employment."

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, I'm fine with that. Because in 1978, they used the same definition of employment that I do.

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.

children, retirees, stayhome spouses, those unable to work, prisoners, people in mental institutes...all Unemployed?


Unemployed has never been a complete synonym for "not working."

Oh, and by your definition, someone on vacation, or sick leave, is unemployed.

But you avoided the actual point of the OP.....WHY is that your definition?

YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

Sure, that makes sense.

Only thing is -- nobody ever asks me if I'm looking for work. Unless they have some for me. So they don't know.

 

[Hossfly]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.
YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

If you aren't working, you are unemployed.

That tells us exactly what we need to know.

KG, you should sign up for a course in Common Core Math. That is if you are "unemployed and looking for work." Then you will be fluent in "Employment Speak."

 

[pinqy]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.
YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

Sure, that makes sense.

Only thing is -- nobody ever asks me if I'm looking for work. Unless they have some for me. So they don't know.

Well, you're represented in the survey....some other guy is in your same situation and is in the survey.

 

[pinqy]

Yes, I'm fine with that. Because in 1978, they used the same definition of employment that I do.

No, they didn't
Employment Situation January 1978 (page 7)

To be classified in the household survey as unemployed an individual must: (1) Have been without a job during the survey week; (2) have made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the prior 4 weeks; and (3) be presently available for work. In addition, persons on layoff and those waiting to begin a new job (within 30 days), neither of whom must meet the jobseeking requirements, are also classified as unemployed. The unemployed total includes all persons who satisfactorily meet the above criteria, regardless of their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits or any kind of public assistance. The unemployment rate represents the unemployed as a proportion of the civilian labor force (the employed and unemployed combined).[/qutoe]

 

[Moonglow]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.
YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

If you aren't working, you are unemployed.

That tells us exactly what we need to know.

I'll tell my 86 year old Mother in Law to get off her lazy ass and get a job...

 

[G.T.]

Yes, I'm fine with that. Because in 1978, they used the same definition of employment that I do.

Uhhh...no they didnt.

Because in regard to determining the state of the economy, your definition wouldnt tell us dick because the bulk of the people youre reporting as unemployed arent SUPPOSED to be working, numbnut. (Elderly, minors, disabled).

 

[pinqy]

Bullshit!

You're employed as a freelance artist. That means you make your own hours.

But unemployed means you aren't working. At all.

I love to watch you lunatics try to think of ways to make it look like your idiotic policies lead to anything except unemployment, broken homes, depression, economic destruction, criminality, and death.
YES.

Here we go with the left changing definitions again.

Unemployed means they aren't employed. Yup, that's what it means. It's my definition because that's what the word means. I see no reason to change it, and I resent the fact that idiots like you think we should change the meaning so that the unemployment numbers look better so you can get away with pretending that your stupid policies WORK when everybody knows they don't.

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

Wow! Good thing preachers are considered employed. After they get their sermon wrote up and rehearsed, they're not considered "unemployed and looking for work" but "idle and in the labor force but not looking for work." Then if someone dies and he has to conduct a funeral he is "working part-time and not looking for work" until Sunday when he is "employed and not looking for work." Then on Monday he repeats the cycle. Whew! No wonder so many preachers are alcoholic! Glad I'm retired and "not willing to work" and "not eligible for un-employment."

How on earth did you get that idea? They work, so they are employed.

 

[High_Gravity]

If your not working your unemployed, its not rocket science.

 

[Moonglow]

If your not working your unemployed, its not rocket science.

Fine, I'll do the dishes...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Every month, sometimes more frequently, when the topic of unemployment comes up, someone will say "but they don't count those who gave up looking for work as unemployed...if they did, the real unemployment rate would be 1,000%!!!!!!!"

But no one ever anwers WHY you would want to count people not trying to work...or more precisely, some of the people not trying to work...as unemployed.

So which people not doing anything about work would you consider unemployed and why?

dear, there are many measures of unemployment some of which include those too discouraged to look for work and others that don't include that group.

It very very important to be aware of that too discouraged to look group since when they do start to look they add to unemployment (U3) preventing unemployment numbers from going down even when the economy is improving and many new jobs are being created.

 

[pinqy]

Every month, sometimes more frequently, when the topic of unemployment comes up, someone will say "but they don't count those who gave up looking for work as unemployed...if they did, the real unemployment rate would be 1,000%!!!!!!!"

But no one ever anwers WHY you would want to count people not trying to work...or more precisely, some of the people not trying to work...as unemployed.

So which people not doing anything about work would you consider unemployed and why?

dear, there are many measures of unemployment some of which include those too discouraged to look for work and others that don't include that group.

It very very important to be aware of that too discouraged to look group since when they do start to look they add to unemployment (U3) preventing unemployment numbers from going down even when the economy is improving and many new jobs are being created.

I don't disagree at all

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Every month, sometimes more frequently, when the topic of unemployment comes up, someone will say "but they don't count those who gave up looking for work as unemployed...if they did, the real unemployment rate would be 1,000%!!!!!!!"

But no one ever anwers WHY you would want to count people not trying to work...or more precisely, some of the people not trying to work...as unemployed.

So which people not doing anything about work would you consider unemployed and why?

dear, there are many measures of unemployment some of which include those too discouraged to look for work and others that don't include that group.

It very very important to be aware of that too discouraged to look group since when they do start to look they add to unemployment (U3) preventing unemployment numbers from going down even when the economy is improving and many new jobs are being created.

I don't disagree at all

great so I guess my disagreement is with whoever op person is

 

[koshergrl]

See what I mean? Employment mentality makes you angry.

Who are you talking to above anyway KG about the "artist" bit? You ah, failed to employ the quote button.

Nope, what makes me angry is the continual push to change definitions in order to justify a failed dogma.

If I'm not working right now --- and I'm not booked to work at any definite time in the future (a state I exist in very frequently) -- am I "employed" or "unemployed"?

If something does then come up in the future, do I become retroactively "had been employed" while I was waiting for that to happen?

By the official definition, since you don't have a contractural employment or own a business, you do not have a job. If you work during the week of the month that contains the 12th (the reference week) then you would be classified as Employed for that month. If you did not work that week, but actively looked for or solicited work in any way in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week then you would be Unemployed for that month. If you didn't work and didn't look for work, then you would be "Not in the Labor Force" that month.

The reasoning is that if you are looking for work, you are in competition for jobs and that you failed to get one tells us what the market conditions are. If you're not looking, then of course you didin't work and that tells us nothing about how easy or hard it is to get work.

If you aren't working, you are unemployed.

That tells us exactly what we need to know.

KG, you should sign up for a course in Common Core Math. That is if you are "unemployed and looking for work." Then you will be fluent in "Employment Speak."

I'm not unemployed.

And I'm quite proficient at math, thanks. I use a lot of it every single day.

 

[pinqy]

Every month, sometimes more frequently, when the topic of unemployment comes up, someone will say "but they don't count those who gave up looking for work as unemployed...if they did, the real unemployment rate would be 1,000%!!!!!!!"

But no one ever anwers WHY you would want to count people not trying to work...or more precisely, some of the people not trying to work...as unemployed.

So which people not doing anything about work would you consider unemployed and why?

dear, there are many measures of unemployment some of which include those too discouraged to look for work and others that don't include that group.

It very very important to be aware of that too discouraged to look group since when they do start to look they add to unemployment (U3) preventing unemployment numbers from going down even when the economy is improving and many new jobs are being created.

I don't disagree at all

great so I guess my disagreement is with whoever op person is

No, you're

Every month, sometimes more frequently, when the topic of unemployment comes up, someone will say "but they don't count those who gave up looking for work as unemployed...if they did, the real unemployment rate would be 1,000%!!!!!!!"

But no one ever anwers WHY you would want to count people not trying to work...or more precisely, some of the people not trying to work...as unemployed.

So which people not doing anything about work would you consider unemployed and why?

dear, there are many measures of unemployment some of which include those too discouraged to look for work and others that don't include that group.

It very very important to be aware of that too discouraged to look group since when they do start to look they add to unemployment (U3) preventing unemployment numbers from going down even when the economy is improving and many new jobs are being created.

I don't disagree at all

great so I guess my disagreement is with whoever op person is

nope, I asked in the OP why to include those not looking. You explained your reason for wanting to look at the discouraged as an altrnate measure. So no dispute with the OP