9.8 ...Unemployment

[The T]

It's really sad to see an utter moron C&P quotes from the Founders in a way which reflects a complete and utter lack of understanding of the underlying philosophical basis.

Context is everything.

 

[The T]

It's even worse than that.

The real # is more like 22% un and under employment when adjusted for long term discouraged workers that the Feds do not count as unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

I'd like to see one that includes underemployed... I'd argue that's as big a problem as unemployed, if not bigger.

Underemployed Gracie?

 

[The T]

So what's your point? If I'm misreading, maybe you can clarify for me. Why mention Germany?

Because it shows that moving in a direction of lower taxes and less Government spending and involvement leads to economic success... While compared to the US Germany seems still very socialist or whatever you want to call it, for their own country these are HUGE moves in a opposite direction. While we take leaps and bounds towards socialism, or whatever you want to call it, we seem to hurt worse and worse...

The concept is not hard to understand.

Okay... I don't agree that we're moving left in any significant way, but for the sake of argument lets say we were.

So is the proposal that an economy is determined not by the actual practices, but by which direction the practices are shifting? In other words, LEFT IS BAD, we know that, socialism is an utter failure by any measure with no redeeming qualities - But even if you're MORE socialist than the other guy, your economy would be better than the other guy, so long as your gradually moving in the other direction?

Or maybe he just didn't think through what he was about to say before he said it? Just a guess, what the hell do I know.

You just shot yourself in the foot. Fact is? We are.

 

[pinqy]

It's even worse than that.

The real # is more like 22% un and under employment when adjusted for long term discouraged workers that the Feds do not count as unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

BLS publishes their methodology. Shadowstats' John Williams does not collect his own data (they use BLS data) and doesn't publish his methodology. To get his 22 percent he would have to include more people as unemployed than people who say they want to work (regardless of other factors/classifications). And that makes no sense at all.

 

[loosecannon]

They aren't even seated yet asswipe.

those petty details hardly kept the teatards from blaming Obama for an economy in ruins he inherited.

No the rise in unemployment is clearly the fault of the teatards assault on the house and senate.

The people that Blame Obama for the economy and UE blame him after he was seated. They blame the Dem congress for having 4 years to work things out and failing and usually these same people blame Bush and the Republican congress as well... Find direct quotes proving otherwise or stfu.

Your games are childish, stop while you are just slightly behind.

epic FAIL!!! YOUR games are childish, I am just mocking your idiocy. Thanks for letting me under your skin.

 

[Cuyo]

Because it shows that moving in a direction of lower taxes and less Government spending and involvement leads to economic success... While compared to the US Germany seems still very socialist or whatever you want to call it, for their own country these are HUGE moves in a opposite direction. While we take leaps and bounds towards socialism, or whatever you want to call it, we seem to hurt worse and worse...

The concept is not hard to understand.

Okay... I don't agree that we're moving left in any significant way, but for the sake of argument lets say we were.

So is the proposal that an economy is determined not by the actual practices, but by which direction the practices are shifting? In other words, LEFT IS BAD, we know that, socialism is an utter failure by any measure with no redeeming qualities - But even if you're MORE socialist than the other guy, your economy would be better than the other guy, so long as your gradually moving in the other direction?

Or maybe he just didn't think through what he was about to say before he said it? Just a guess, what the hell do I know.

You just shot yourself in the foot. Fact is? We are.

Nah, not really. Keep sayin it though. Sure it's popular in your circles.

 

[Cuyo]

If we're moving left, it's only so relative to the new right that cropped up around here in the last 30 years. Nowhere near as left as we were in the war era.

 

[Trajan]

Oh brother....I just listened to this from the Obama camp. Now it's the talking points from the left. When a president is in over his head with managing his position....it becomes the "new standard" then becomes a talking point. All it really is, is a deflection of blame from Barry (Mr. Teflon).

whenever they cannot manage the system, its is because its 'broken'....they are setting up for 2012, as they know after reports from the fed etc. and the fact that forecasting appears to be all over the map vis a vis jobs etc. they are in real danger of a an unemployment above 9.0, damn I hope not but......if it is? good night nurse.

So, by 2012, unemployment is still over 9% and the deficit is still over a trillion dollars and interest rates are still around zero and the Republicans take over...

...what will they do?

beats me, I am not sure what I am going to have for dinner tomorrow. seriously? If you expect me to answer that I would have to know what they or that is has been done by obama and the congress and where we are at the time based on whats been done or not.....

Balance the budget like they keep promising? Shrink the size of government? And that will bring on the jobs, eh?

Seriously, what will the GOP do? I mean, besides sit around with their fingers crossed hoping they caught the economy at a turning point...

turning point? humm so turning points come when they come absent stimuli (pun not intended)?

 

[boedicca]

It's even worse than that.

The real # is more like 22% un and under employment when adjusted for long term discouraged workers that the Feds do not count as unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

I'd like to see one that includes underemployed... I'd argue that's as big a problem as unemployed, if not bigger.

Underemployed Gracie?

It does include underemployed if you are referring to people who take a temp or low wage job just to get by.

 

[The T]

If we're moving left, it's only so relative to the new right that cropped up around here in the last 30 years. Nowhere near as left as we were in the war era.

New right Gracie? They've always been a factor but less vocal until NOW.

 

[pinqy]

Sorry to say but things are actually much worse than they're saying. Their Unemployment Numbers are lies. The real Unemployment Rate is well up into double figures. I don't buy their numbers anymore. If they're saying 9.8% than just think something like 18%. It's likely to be double what they're saying. They've been known to cook the books. It's very sad.

You and Neubarth keep saying this, and yet have never shown any evidence of lying or manipulation and no alternate surveys that show different answers. Well, except for the sooper-seekrit surveys Neubarth claims exist but can't produce.

And why do the Gallup Unemployment numbers always match up with BLS numbers? Why is Gallup lying?

 

[boedicca]

It's even worse than that.

The real # is more like 22% un and under employment when adjusted for long term discouraged workers that the Feds do not count as unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

BLS publishes their methodology. Shadowstats' John Williams does not collect his own data (they use BLS data) and doesn't publish his methodology. To get his 22 percent he would have to include more people as unemployed than people who say they want to work (regardless of other factors/classifications). And that makes no sense at all.

Williams takes BLS data and corrects it for the methodology change that excludes Long Term Discouraged Workers Who Have Given Up Looking For Jobs.

It makes perfect sense to anyone with a knowledge of statistics and economics.

 

[The T]

I'd like to see one that includes underemployed... I'd argue that's as big a problem as unemployed, if not bigger.

Underemployed Gracie?

It does include underemployed if you are referring to people who take a temp or low wage job just to get by.

Understood. Thanks.

 

[boedicca]

Sorry to say but things are actually much worse than they're saying. Their Unemployment Numbers are lies. The real Unemployment Rate is well up into double figures. I don't buy their numbers anymore. If they're saying 9.8% than just think something like 18%. It's likely to be double what they're saying. They've been known to cook the books. It's very sad.

You and Neubarth keep saying this, and yet have never shown any evidence of lying or manipulation and no alternate surveys that show different answers. Well, except for the sooper-seekrit surveys Neubarth claims exist but can't produce.

And why do the Gallup Unemployment numbers always match up with BLS numbers? Why is Gallup lying?

Moron. Trying learning about how unemployment is measured. There are 6 different levels in the BLS stats.

U6, the broadest measure of labor force under utilization is 17% (although this is not fully reflective of such as it excludes long term discouraged workers).

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

 

[Cuyo]

If we're moving left, it's only so relative to the new right that cropped up around here in the last 30 years. Nowhere near as left as we were in the war era.

New right Gracie? They've always been a factor but less vocal until NOW.

Is it your goal in every post you make to prove what a stupid, ignorant asshole you are?

 

[Cuyo]

I'd like to see one that includes underemployed... I'd argue that's as big a problem as unemployed, if not bigger.

Underemployed Gracie?

It does include underemployed if you are referring to people who take a temp or low wage job just to get by.

Gotcha. I don't mean just temp though, I mean chronically underemployed as well. Paycheck-to-paycheck is not a boon to an economy.

 

[boedicca]

That's not how I would classify underemployed. Underemployed is working materially below one's skill and knowledge level. If someone is unskilled and only able to earn a low wage, then that's the value of his abilities.

 

[Avorysuds]

So what's your point? If I'm misreading, maybe you can clarify for me. Why mention Germany?

Because it shows that moving in a direction of lower taxes and less Government spending and involvement leads to economic success... While compared to the US Germany seems still very socialist or whatever you want to call it, for their own country these are HUGE moves in a opposite direction. While we take leaps and bounds towards socialism, or whatever you want to call it, we seem to hurt worse and worse...

The concept is not hard to understand.

Okay... I don't agree that we're moving left in any significant way, but for the sake of argument lets say we were.

So is the proposal that an economy is determined not by the actual practices, but by which direction the practices are shifting? In other words, LEFT IS BAD, we know that, socialism is an utter failure by any measure with no redeeming qualities - But even if you're MORE socialist than the other guy, your economy would be better than the other guy, so long as your gradually moving in the other direction?

Or maybe he just didn't think through what he was about to say before he said it? Just a guess, what the hell do I know.

You don't think we have moved to the left? What direction did we move with trillions spent?
Bail-outs, Homeland security, the wars and stimulus... All expanded upon under the Dem congress and under Obama. No repeal of the Bush policies...

I point all of that out because how do you define the "left" and "right" these days? When I and many others say we have moved to the left we usually mean through Government spending with welfare and entitlement spending. Many on the left still very much accept that sort of spending despite it not even being constitutional. Defense is constitutional, not how we have done it though.


So, my point is Small Government through constitutional spending and limitations of Government power would be considered "right" while "left" is Government Growth in almost any direction. What direction has the US moved to over the last 80 years? Smaller, or Bigger?

Now, to the other part, you are correct... Even though Germany is more socialist than us it's the shift in a certain direction that helped them. The fact is Germany moved in the direction they did, “right,” with the idea that it would help, and it did... We moved to the "left" with the idea of MORE Government intrusion despite warnings that it wouldn’t solve the problems, only prolong our recession and BAM... Here we are... as predicted the left now claim we didn't spend enough while Germany cut general spending to achieve measurable results...

For Germany, they look to the future with more capital to invest and therefore their economy grows.

For the US we look to the future with less capital to invest therefore our economy shrinks.

You don't compare the US to Germany, you compare Germanys history to their current economic structure to predict a business cycle.

You don't compare Germany to the US, you compare the US's history to our current economic structure to predict the future.

Investors and business people don’t care what another country is doing when they are investing locally in their country. They look at permits, regulations and taxes that affect them where they are opening shop… So yes, if a country is used to high taxes and then taxes are lowered dramatically you will most likely see growth because capital that was not there in the past is now there. If taxes and regulations and so on go up, or are more strict, you see a tightening like we have in the US.

 

[Toro]

It's even worse than that.

The real # is more like 22% un and under employment when adjusted for long term discouraged workers that the Feds do not count as unemployed.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

BLS publishes their methodology. Shadowstats' John Williams does not collect his own data (they use BLS data) and doesn't publish his methodology. To get his 22 percent he would have to include more people as unemployed than people who say they want to work (regardless of other factors/classifications). And that makes no sense at all.

Williams takes BLS data and corrects it for the methodology change that excludes Long Term Discouraged Workers Who Have Given Up Looking For Jobs.

It makes perfect sense to anyone with a knowledge of statistics and economics.

pinqy is a statistician and, I believe, an economist, with decades of experience. He knows more about this than everyone here combined, me included.

 

[The T]

That's not how I would classify underemployed. Underemployed is working materially below one's skill and knowledge level. If someone is unskilled and only able to earn a low wage, then that's the value of his abilities.

In other words? Surviving on their own on their own accord instead of being a ward of the State.