Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm sorry, you're seriously saying that even though it's been shown that the Unemployment figures come from a survey and that eligibility or receipt of benefits is not a consideration at all you still hold the view that the unemployment figures come solely from people collecting benefits? Basically you're saying you don't care what BLS says they're doing, they're really doing something completely different. I'd love to see your source for this info that gives you this view.this debate only highlights the nuance by which the survey can moderate the gravity of the published rate. it is possible that in a recession, everyone comes up with brilliant reasons to be discouraged, or more comically, brilliant resolve to join the ranks of the more marginally attached -- or maybe, the rates are reflective of a flexible interpretation which says, 'enough is enough' about the discouraging cloud of gloom an earnest published rate would cast on the employment market. i like the plausibility of the latter perspective.
This is interesting coming from someone who not that many posts ago claimed that "the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now."
I take it you no longer hold that view?
It IS important to look at the Discouraged and marginally attached and part-time for economic reasons. Also the long term unemployed of the U1 and the people who lost their jobs rather than quit of the U2. But it is inappropriate to put them in the official measure when the purpose of the official measure is to look at the actual Labor Market, rather than opinion of people and/or people who could potentially be part of the Market but are not participating in it.
A Discourage worker is no more part of the labor market or labor force than a full time student, or retiree, or stay at home spouse. None are working (for pay) or looking for work. The effect is the same.
i still hold that view; it is a characterization of the U-3 index, and of the persons who fall off it.
And why do you believe that over the actual reason, which is an attempt to us objective measures (rather than the subjectivity of what people think especially when those people have motivation to be less than truthful)?however you define them, marginally employed workers shoot up in recessions, and particularly deep, long-term contractions. i believe that this is based on how the government defines them (or subjectively classes them) for the purposes of shining up the show rate.
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama acclaimed a government report on Friday that showed the economy expanded at a 3.2 percent rate in the first quarter, saying it was an "important milepost on the road to recovery."
Obama hails economy's 3.2% growth rate - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com
Good news for a change.
Looking ahead, analysts believe consumers will be wary of stepping up spending much further. The unemployment rate is high at 9.7 percent and is expected to stay elevated in the months ahead. Sluggish income growth and problems getting loans could restrain shoppers' appetite to spend, they say.
why is it that people believe the government lies to them about how the economy is doing? do they not know what the stock market is? Are the results somehow not observable to dumb people? Cuz I can google the stock market trends and see economic growth for myself pretty easily.
One who has taken every penny out of his/her 401K to survive this recession. Also the stock market--aka--the private sector--unlike the federal government---will cut back to bare bone minimum--on expenses to show a "profit"--therefore driving stock prices higher.
Antagon engages in static pie thinking. If capital makes labor more efficient, then labor can produce more - causing economic growth.
What good does it do a capitalist to produce products if there are not enough buyers to purchase them?
We don't have a capitalist system, btw. We have a cronyist Big Government version, which is due to the infiltration of the socialist/communist principles you apparently favor (given your belief that Labor and Capital are enemies).
so let me get this straight. even though you admit that the economy is on the rise, you somehow define it as not growing because people aren't as employed as you like. Well as much as I like people making up definitions to suit their own needs, the large scale acquisition of profits by the private sector is not somehow invalidated just because you say so. Profits are profits, even if they don't benefit you directly, they're benefiting someone else. The point of business is not to employee people, which is a desirable side effect, surely, but the goal is to make profit for the business and investors.
i dont believe that unemployment figures come solely from UI beneficiaries. i acknowledge that the criteria for being attached to the labor force are in line with those for receiving benefits (with respect to efforts to gain employment), and as those benefits expire due to long-term unemployment, that unemployed are likely to take on characteristics of marginally attached groups not accounted for in the u-3. that is because they are not beholden to the regimen of collecting UI with its reporting and search criteria. if the near-doubling of the population so affected in the last year or two cant convince, unfortunately, i believe the inaction on extending UI will vindicate my stance further in into the summer.I'm sorry, you're seriously saying that even though it's been shown that the Unemployment figures come from a survey and that eligibility or receipt of benefits is not a consideration at all you still hold the view that the unemployment figures come solely from people collecting benefits? Basically you're saying you don't care what BLS says they're doing, they're really doing something completely different. I'd love to see your source for this info that gives you this view.This is interesting...
i still hold that view; it is a characterization of the U-3 index, and of the persons who fall off it.
so let me get this straight. even though you admit that the economy is on the rise, you somehow define it as not growing because people aren't as employed as you like. Well as much as I like people making up definitions to suit their own needs, the large scale acquisition of profits by the private sector is not somehow invalidated just because you say so. Profits are profits, even if they don't benefit you directly, they're benefiting someone else. The point of business is not to employee people, which is a desirable side effect, surely, but the goal is to make profit for the business and investors.
How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.
How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.
why is it that people believe the government lies to them about how the economy is doing? do they not know what the stock market is? Are the results somehow not observable to dumb people? Cuz I can google the stock market trends and see economic growth for myself pretty easily.
How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.
You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.
What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.
I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.
the grandstands are reserved for the home team; the visitors usually kick it in the taliban section.Where are the jobs, bub?
A healthy recovery generates jobs. This one hasn't so far.
A little global and historical perspective wouldn't hurt:
- Earnings last year were dismal; stocks are up on better earnings (largely from cutting labor costs)
- The Eurozone is in turmoil; US instruments are "safe havens"
- Obama is engaged in Cronyism which will dole out taxpayer money to mega corps.
How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.
You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.
What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.
I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.
I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.
Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?
i'd say shits been like that since summer 2008. i ramped up sales efforts and the advertising outlay, went after seniors with discounted services, then got on bid-lists for the air force base. that worked fine until january. sales outside the military have fallen off, chiefly because i hurt myself and cant make 4-5 sales calls per day. a month or so from now, when i can engage my clutch, i'm hoping that i could pick back up where i left off.How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.
You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.
What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.
I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.
I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.
Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?
You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.
What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.
I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.
I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.
Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?
perhaps you should be posing that question to the business sector which grew despite high unemployment.
I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.
Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?
perhaps you should be posing that question to the business sector which grew despite high unemployment.
Perhaps you should think about how robust growth would be if we actually were creating jobs.
The current growth is anemic at best.
