Lowest jobless claims since Clinton

Originally posted by deciophobic
well because most people have been looking for jobs, and not finding one have simply given up. That doesn't mean they haven't been trying.

If they gave up - they aren't looking for employment

If they're trying - they are activiely seeking employment - they are on list

Makes complete sense to me.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
If they gave up - they aren't looking for employment

If they're trying - they are activiely seeking employment - they are on list

Makes complete sense to me.

so lemme get this straight: someone is desperatly seeking work for 6 months and can't find any, so now just because they can't find any shouldn't be counted as unemployed?
 
Originally posted by deciophobic
so lemme get this straight: someone is desperatly seeking work for 6 months and can't find any, so now just because they can't find any shouldn't be counted as unemployed?

Are they currently seeking employment?
 
Originally posted by deciophobic
so lemme get this straight: someone is desperatly seeking work for 6 months and can't find any, so now just because they can't find any shouldn't be counted as unemployed?

If you give up looking for work then you're not unemployed. unemployed is defined as willing and able to work but unable to find work on an active basis
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
If you give up looking for work then you're not unemployed. unemployed is defined as willing and able to work but unable to find work on an active basis

well unemployed should be defined as not having a job, whether you're looking or not. unemployed equals unemployed.
 
then every millionaire out there would be considered unemployed. that would really raise the unemployment figures then and make the stats useless
 
For all intents and purposes, the statisics for unemployment are kept to guage the economic climate.

Counting people that aren't seeking work, housewives/husbands, people that go back to school and those who've chosen to start their own business makes about as much sense as counting dead people as unemployed because they, technically, aren't working.
 
Originally posted by Moi
For all intents and purposes, the statisics for unemployment are kept to guage the economic climate.

True...but when Republican's say that unemployment is down, it's misleading cuz the people who aren't actively looking aren't counted. They use that to their advantage to make the economy look better.

In fact I hardly ever hear democrats point that out, cept maybe colmes. f'n wimps, when are they gonna get a backbone and stand up to the smearers on the right. The best the dems have is Michael Moore, c'mon!!
 
Originally posted by deciophobic
True...but when Republican's say that unemployment is down, it's misleading cuz the people who aren't actively looking aren't counted. They use that to their advantage to make the economy look better.

That's a bunch of crap. These 'non-active unemployed' people weren't counted previously either. So it's 100% correct to say jobless claims have been reduced. It's not that hard to understand.
 
Let me add, every president that ever existed has made claims of a reduction in jobless claims, not just republicans. As long as the factors used to gather the numbers remain the same, then it's quite fair and accurate to state they have went down.
 
Originally posted by deciophobic
True...but when Republican's say that unemployment is down, it's misleading cuz the people who aren't actively looking aren't counted. They use that to their advantage to make the economy look better.

In fact I hardly ever hear democrats point that out, cept maybe colmes. f'n wimps, when are they gonna get a backbone and stand up to the smearers on the right. The best the dems have is Michael Moore, c'mon!!
Excuse me, but you are desperately in need of education. The formula is used from year to year just like each and every other economic indicator. Only those statistics which are calculated consistently, on a comparative basis, are meaningful. It is completely prejudicial to just decide, now the republicans are in power, to redefine the word unemployment when used in this context.

Someone who is currenty unemployed but seeking employment is counted- regardless of how long they remain unemployed. That's a quantifiable, distinct indicator of economic health.

Counting someone who just isn't looking isn't quantifiable nor distinct because there are many reasons they are not looking- are they self-employed? housewife? going back to school? lazy? injured?

Get a tissue to mop up your crocodile tears for the maligned libs....no one with a brain is cryin' with ya.
 
Originally posted by deciophobic
well because most people have been looking for jobs, and not finding one have simply given up. That doesn't mean they haven't been trying.

Who on earth can afford not looking for work?
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...Dubbyuh wanted jobs in the fast food industry to be reclassified as "manufacturing" jobs. Uhh...yeah.

Does that change whether or not those employees are listed as employed/unemployed?
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...Dubbyuh wanted jobs in the fast food industry to be reclassified as "manufacturing" jobs. Uhh...yeah.

Bully, I don't agree with the reclassification issue you just brought up, but what does that have to do with who counts as unemployed?
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Bully, I don't agree with the reclassification issue you just brought up, but what does that have to do with who counts as unemployed?

It's called bashing Bush at every opportunity.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top