NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

[Faun]

... the BLS doesn't call people who are working, "unemployed."

No need to feel stupid!!:

"The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons."

BLS counts them as underutilized, not unemployed.

The conservative is too stupid to comprehend that.

Say's the retard.

"Say's?" Really??

Ya know, I never point out grammatical mistakes except for when some idiot makes one while insulting someone else, thereby proving they're not even as smart as the target of their insult.

 

[Moonglow]

Anyone not gainfully employed can be considered, unemployed for legal purposes.

I'll tell me 86 year old Mom-in-law...to get job...

 

[Moonglow]

... the BLS doesn't call people who are working, "unemployed."

No need to feel stupid!!:

"The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons."

BLS counts them as underutilized, not unemployed.

The conservative is too stupid to comprehend that.

Say's the retard.

 

[RKMBrown]

... the BLS doesn't call people who are working, "unemployed."

No need to feel stupid!!:

"The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons."

BLS counts them as underutilized, not unemployed.

The conservative is too stupid to comprehend that.

Say's the retard.

LOL'z

 

[danielpalos]

Anyone not gainfully employed can be considered, unemployed for legal purposes.

I'll tell me 86 year old Mom-in-law...to get job...

good luck, with any of capitalism's laissez-fair laziness with a couch potato inducing, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

BLS counts them as underutilized, not unemployed.

So the idiot thinks thinks the U in U1-6 stands for underulilized? So why we are sure a liberal will be slow?

 

[Faun]

BLS counts them as underutilized, not unemployed.

So the idiot thinks thinks the U in U1-6 stands for underulilized? So why we are sure a liberal will be slow?

Wow, you really are stupid enough to persist in your lunacy.

Here's a BLS page which defines U1 through U6 ... show me where they call any of them, "unemployment" measurements.....

Alternative measures of labor underutilization

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

show me where they call any of them, "unemployment" measurements.....

Alternative measures of labor underutilization

BLS:The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 in the U-1 to U-6 range of alternatives) includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks.

 

[Faun]

show me where they call any of them, "unemployment" measurements.....

Alternative measures of labor underutilization

BLS:The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 in the U-1 to U-6 range of alternatives) includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks.

Ok, well I will give you credit where credit is due .... the BLS does call the U-3 rate the officiate rate for unemployment and I did challenge you to show me where they called "any one of" the alternative measures a measure of unemployment.

That does not, however, extend to the U6 rate which includes people who work. Nowhere does the BLS call workers, "unemployed." They call the measurements of U-1 through U6, "Alternative measures of labor underutilization".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Nowhere does the BLS call workers, "unemployed."

dear, hopefully you would not bet your life on that aburd statement!

 

[Faun]

. Nowhere does the BLS call workers, "unemployed."

dear, hopefully you would not bet your life on that aburd statement!

Well I've shown you the BLS calls the U-6 rate a measurement of labor underutilization and you have failed miserably to show they call it a measure of unemployment.

 

[SteadyMercury]

So the idiot thinks thinks

and to be clear you were the one complaining about ad hominem?

 

[danielpalos]

BLS counts them as underutilized, not unemployed.

So the idiot thinks thinks the U in U1-6 stands for underulilized? So why we are sure a liberal will be slow?

Anything less than full employment, is underutilization.

 

[pinqy]

BLS counts them as underutilized, not unemployed.

So the idiot thinks thinks the U in U1-6 stands for underulilized? So why we are sure a liberal will be slow?

Anything less than full employment, is underutilization.

What are you defining as full employment?

 

[danielpalos]

Full employment of resources in any given market, but in this case, the market for labor. Underutilization in a specific market should not limit participation in other markets due to a simple lack of money, usually associated with employment.

Here is a social analogy for comparison and contrast:

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Aristotle, Politics
Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC)

 

[pinqy]

Full employment of resources in any given market, but in this case, the market for labor.

Yeah...you can't reallly define a word or phrase by using that word or phrase in the definition. So when I ask how you are defining "full employment," a response of "full employment" is meaningless. Does full employment mean every single person is employed? Assuming not, what are the exceptions? Are you allowing a certain amount of frictional and structural unemployment for full employment?

 

[danielpalos]

Full employment of resources in any given market, but in this case, the market for labor.

Yeah...you can't reallly define a word or phrase by using that word or phrase in the definition. So when I ask how you are defining "full employment," a response of "full employment" is meaningless. Does full employment mean every single person is employed? Assuming not, what are the exceptions? Are you allowing a certain amount of frictional and structural unemployment for full employment?

It may be a simple lack of a clue and lack of a Cause, on your part. Full employment of resources should be simply that. However, since we have States and statism, I propose a "shell game" that solves simple poverty when due to a lack of income usually associated with employment, with a form of minimum wage that corrects for a Natural Rate of Unemployment, on an at-will basis utilizing existing legal and physical infrastructure regarding the concept of employment at will and unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines.

 

[pinqy]

Full employment of resources in any given market, but in this case, the market for labor.

Yeah...you can't reallly define a word or phrase by using that word or phrase in the definition. So when I ask how you are defining "full employment," a response of "full employment" is meaningless. Does full employment mean every single person is employed? Assuming not, what are the exceptions? Are you allowing a certain amount of frictional and structural unemployment for full employment?

Full employment of resources should be simply that. .

But you haven't defined what you think it is. I know what I would refer to as full employment, but I'm pretty sure you are using a different definitino. Why is it so difficult for you? You have this odd habit of using deliberately ambiguous terms and then refusing to define your terms or explain your concepts. That's just odd.

Let's try a simple Agree or Disagree. Full Employment means that there is no cyclical unemployment, and all unemployment is either frictional or structural.

 

[danielpalos]

Full employment of resources in any given market, but in this case, the market for labor.

Yeah...you can't reallly define a word or phrase by using that word or phrase in the definition. So when I ask how you are defining "full employment," a response of "full employment" is meaningless. Does full employment mean every single person is employed? Assuming not, what are the exceptions? Are you allowing a certain amount of frictional and structural unemployment for full employment?

Full employment of resources should be simply that. .

But you haven't defined what you think it is. I know what I would refer to as full employment, but I'm pretty sure you are using a different definitino. Why is it so difficult for you? You have this odd habit of using deliberately ambiguous terms and then refusing to define your terms or explain your concepts. That's just odd.

Let's try a simple Agree or Disagree. Full Employment means that there is no cyclical unemployment, and all unemployment is either frictional or structural.

Sure; that sounds good. I am hoping for anything less than one percent to be able to be played as zero unemployment for political gamesmanship purposes; Thus, 0.99 could still be zero unemployment.

The point is that we would be achieving gains from productivity by correcting for a Natural Rate of Unemployment by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

dear, can you give your best example of this or must you admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to defend what you assert.