Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[The Rabbi]

Poor, ignorant, jester. It doesn't just have "bank" in the title, it calls itself a bank. It does so for the simple reason that it IS a bank. But stay stuck on stupid. At this point, all that remains is the pure entertainment value your ignorance provides.

The problem is that you're

Look at the forum jester ... he idiotically thinks a bank has to offer CDs to be a bank.

his point is that by dismissing their research because they're a bank you are equating the FRB with a consumer bank. Which is not a good comparison. The FED produces major economic indidicators and the fed reserve banks conduct serious research.
And again, there is no standard or official definition of underemployed.

No, no. Assclown is certain the Fed is "just a bank." Like the place where you go to cash a check or have your paycheck deposited. They couldn't possibly produce anything like, gasp, research.

While I'm not certain he's going that far, I do find it puzzling that he would dismiss the research of a FRB.

However....there is a problem with defining "underemployed." If someone with a Bachelors of Fine Arts is working as a waitress, is that really below their skills and abilities or is it more the norm? And many people choose not to work in the fields they studied in college. So are they really underemployed if the decision was voluntary? There are just too many non-economic factors for someone working outside their official education/skills to make that definition of underemployment meaningful. It's just too subjective and too unreliable for aggregation.

Typically "underemployed" refers to a situation where someone is in a job that does not require the degree he has. So yeah the BA in Fine Arts waitressing is underemployed. In a better world she/he would be working in an art gallery of museum and using the knowledge gained in the degree.

Yeah, but reality doesn't work that way. For many fields, you need at least a Masters degree to be competetive in the job market so not working in your field with only a Bachelors is the norm and not an overall labor market problem. For other fields, such as any of the performance arts, a degree is not a requirement and is may not help at all for a job. And many jobs want a degree but don't care what it's in, so the person is technically not working in a job that requires their degree. And again, many people choose not to work in the field they studied. A lot of computer experts I know have their degree in some other field entirely.

Yeah that doesnt really change things.
Underemployed refers to people doing jobs that don't require whatever degree they have.

 

[pinqy]

The problem is that you're
his point is that by dismissing their research because they're a bank you are equating the FRB with a consumer bank. Which is not a good comparison. The FED produces major economic indidicators and the fed reserve banks conduct serious research.
And again, there is no standard or official definition of underemployed.

No, no. Assclown is certain the Fed is "just a bank." Like the place where you go to cash a check or have your paycheck deposited. They couldn't possibly produce anything like, gasp, research.

While I'm not certain he's going that far, I do find it puzzling that he would dismiss the research of a FRB.

However....there is a problem with defining "underemployed." If someone with a Bachelors of Fine Arts is working as a waitress, is that really below their skills and abilities or is it more the norm? And many people choose not to work in the fields they studied in college. So are they really underemployed if the decision was voluntary? There are just too many non-economic factors for someone working outside their official education/skills to make that definition of underemployment meaningful. It's just too subjective and too unreliable for aggregation.

Typically "underemployed" refers to a situation where someone is in a job that does not require the degree he has. So yeah the BA in Fine Arts waitressing is underemployed. In a better world she/he would be working in an art gallery of museum and using the knowledge gained in the degree.

Yeah, but reality doesn't work that way. For many fields, you need at least a Masters degree to be competetive in the job market so not working in your field with only a Bachelors is the norm and not an overall labor market problem. For other fields, such as any of the performance arts, a degree is not a requirement and is may not help at all for a job. And many jobs want a degree but don't care what it's in, so the person is technically not working in a job that requires their degree. And again, many people choose not to work in the field they studied. A lot of computer experts I know have their degree in some other field entirely.

Yeah that doesnt really change things.
Underemployed refers to people doing jobs that don't require whatever degree they have.

It can. But Gallup's measure of Underemployment does not use that definition.
And it's very relevant to the question of "underemployment" if it can be objectively defined, if that definition has any relevancy to labor market conditions, and if it can be objectively measured. The answer is basically no to all three. While useful as a concept, it's not useful on any practical basis.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, no. Assclown is certain the Fed is "just a bank." Like the place where you go to cash a check or have your paycheck deposited. They couldn't possibly produce anything like, gasp, research.

While I'm not certain he's going that far, I do find it puzzling that he would dismiss the research of a FRB.

However....there is a problem with defining "underemployed." If someone with a Bachelors of Fine Arts is working as a waitress, is that really below their skills and abilities or is it more the norm? And many people choose not to work in the fields they studied in college. So are they really underemployed if the decision was voluntary? There are just too many non-economic factors for someone working outside their official education/skills to make that definition of underemployment meaningful. It's just too subjective and too unreliable for aggregation.

Typically "underemployed" refers to a situation where someone is in a job that does not require the degree he has. So yeah the BA in Fine Arts waitressing is underemployed. In a better world she/he would be working in an art gallery of museum and using the knowledge gained in the degree.

Yeah, but reality doesn't work that way. For many fields, you need at least a Masters degree to be competetive in the job market so not working in your field with only a Bachelors is the norm and not an overall labor market problem. For other fields, such as any of the performance arts, a degree is not a requirement and is may not help at all for a job. And many jobs want a degree but don't care what it's in, so the person is technically not working in a job that requires their degree. And again, many people choose not to work in the field they studied. A lot of computer experts I know have their degree in some other field entirely.

Yeah that doesnt really change things.
Underemployed refers to people doing jobs that don't require whatever degree they have.

It can. But Gallup's measure of Underemployment does not use that definition.
And it's very relevant to the question of "underemployment" if it can be objectively defined, if that definition has any relevancy to labor market conditions, and if it can be objectively measured. The answer is basically no to all three. While useful as a concept, it's not useful on any practical basis.

It certainly is indicative.
The BA who is making sandwiches because that is the only job he can find is underemployed. It is a measure of the health of the economy that we have so much of that.

 

[pinqy]

While I'm not certain he's going that far, I do find it puzzling that he would dismiss the research of a FRB.

However....there is a problem with defining "underemployed." If someone with a Bachelors of Fine Arts is working as a waitress, is that really below their skills and abilities or is it more the norm? And many people choose not to work in the fields they studied in college. So are they really underemployed if the decision was voluntary? There are just too many non-economic factors for someone working outside their official education/skills to make that definition of underemployment meaningful. It's just too subjective and too unreliable for aggregation.

Typically "underemployed" refers to a situation where someone is in a job that does not require the degree he has. So yeah the BA in Fine Arts waitressing is underemployed. In a better world she/he would be working in an art gallery of museum and using the knowledge gained in the degree.

Yeah, but reality doesn't work that way. For many fields, you need at least a Masters degree to be competetive in the job market so not working in your field with only a Bachelors is the norm and not an overall labor market problem. For other fields, such as any of the performance arts, a degree is not a requirement and is may not help at all for a job. And many jobs want a degree but don't care what it's in, so the person is technically not working in a job that requires their degree. And again, many people choose not to work in the field they studied. A lot of computer experts I know have their degree in some other field entirely.

Yeah that doesnt really change things.
Underemployed refers to people doing jobs that don't require whatever degree they have.

It can. But Gallup's measure of Underemployment does not use that definition.
And it's very relevant to the question of "underemployment" if it can be objectively defined, if that definition has any relevancy to labor market conditions, and if it can be objectively measured. The answer is basically no to all three. While useful as a concept, it's not useful on any practical basis.

It certainly is indicative.
The BA who is making sandwiches because that is the only job he can find is underemployed. It is a measure of the health of the economy that we have so much of that.

But what about the BA making sandwiches because s/he has family issues to take care of and only wants a part time schedule unavailable in his/her field? Not underemployed and not a measure of the health of the economy.
And what about someone with a Masters in English working as a computer programmer because they have self-learned skills there and can make more money as a programmer? Or an Anthropology major who works as a graphic artist?

While individual cases can show there's a problem you cannot use those people as representatives for all in their situation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Typically "underemployed" refers to a situation where someone is in a job that does not require the degree he has. So yeah the BA in Fine Arts waitressing is underemployed. In a better world she/he would be working in an art gallery of museum and using the knowledge gained in the degree.

Yeah, but reality doesn't work that way. For many fields, you need at least a Masters degree to be competetive in the job market so not working in your field with only a Bachelors is the norm and not an overall labor market problem. For other fields, such as any of the performance arts, a degree is not a requirement and is may not help at all for a job. And many jobs want a degree but don't care what it's in, so the person is technically not working in a job that requires their degree. And again, many people choose not to work in the field they studied. A lot of computer experts I know have their degree in some other field entirely.

Yeah that doesnt really change things.
Underemployed refers to people doing jobs that don't require whatever degree they have.

It can. But Gallup's measure of Underemployment does not use that definition.
And it's very relevant to the question of "underemployment" if it can be objectively defined, if that definition has any relevancy to labor market conditions, and if it can be objectively measured. The answer is basically no to all three. While useful as a concept, it's not useful on any practical basis.

It certainly is indicative.
The BA who is making sandwiches because that is the only job he can find is underemployed. It is a measure of the health of the economy that we have so much of that.

But what about the BA making sandwiches because s/he has family issues to take care of and only wants a part time schedule unavailable in his/her field? Not underemployed and not a measure of the health of the economy.
And what about someone with a Masters in English working as a computer programmer because they have self-learned skills there and can make more money as a programmer? Or an Anthropology major who works as a graphic artist?

While individual cases can show there's a problem you cannot use those people as representatives for all in their situation.

Yes because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues.
Sometimes I marvel at the stupidity around here.

 

[pinqy]

Yeah, but reality doesn't work that way. For many fields, you need at least a Masters degree to be competetive in the job market so not working in your field with only a Bachelors is the norm and not an overall labor market problem. For other fields, such as any of the performance arts, a degree is not a requirement and is may not help at all for a job. And many jobs want a degree but don't care what it's in, so the person is technically not working in a job that requires their degree. And again, many people choose not to work in the field they studied. A lot of computer experts I know have their degree in some other field entirely.

Yeah that doesnt really change things.
Underemployed refers to people doing jobs that don't require whatever degree they have.

It can. But Gallup's measure of Underemployment does not use that definition.
And it's very relevant to the question of "underemployment" if it can be objectively defined, if that definition has any relevancy to labor market conditions, and if it can be objectively measured. The answer is basically no to all three. While useful as a concept, it's not useful on any practical basis.

It certainly is indicative.
The BA who is making sandwiches because that is the only job he can find is underemployed. It is a measure of the health of the economy that we have so much of that.

But what about the BA making sandwiches because s/he has family issues to take care of and only wants a part time schedule unavailable in his/her field? Not underemployed and not a measure of the health of the economy.
And what about someone with a Masters in English working as a computer programmer because they have self-learned skills there and can make more money as a programmer? Or an Anthropology major who works as a graphic artist?

While individual cases can show there's a problem you cannot use those people as representatives for all in their situation.

Yes because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues.
Sometimes I marvel at the stupidity around here.

I'm not claiming that. Are you claiming that the ONLY reason for anyone working outside of their degree field is lack of opportunity and a poor economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah that doesnt really change things.
Underemployed refers to people doing jobs that don't require whatever degree they have.

It can. But Gallup's measure of Underemployment does not use that definition.
And it's very relevant to the question of "underemployment" if it can be objectively defined, if that definition has any relevancy to labor market conditions, and if it can be objectively measured. The answer is basically no to all three. While useful as a concept, it's not useful on any practical basis.

It certainly is indicative.
The BA who is making sandwiches because that is the only job he can find is underemployed. It is a measure of the health of the economy that we have so much of that.

But what about the BA making sandwiches because s/he has family issues to take care of and only wants a part time schedule unavailable in his/her field? Not underemployed and not a measure of the health of the economy.
And what about someone with a Masters in English working as a computer programmer because they have self-learned skills there and can make more money as a programmer? Or an Anthropology major who works as a graphic artist?

While individual cases can show there's a problem you cannot use those people as representatives for all in their situation.

Yes because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues.
Sometimes I marvel at the stupidity around here.

I'm not claiming that. Are you claiming that the ONLY reason for anyone working outside of their degree field is lack of opportunity and a poor economy.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[pinqy]

It can. But Gallup's measure of Underemployment does not use that definition.
And it's very relevant to the question of "underemployment" if it can be objectively defined, if that definition has any relevancy to labor market conditions, and if it can be objectively measured. The answer is basically no to all three. While useful as a concept, it's not useful on any practical basis.

It certainly is indicative.
The BA who is making sandwiches because that is the only job he can find is underemployed. It is a measure of the health of the economy that we have so much of that.

But what about the BA making sandwiches because s/he has family issues to take care of and only wants a part time schedule unavailable in his/her field? Not underemployed and not a measure of the health of the economy.
And what about someone with a Masters in English working as a computer programmer because they have self-learned skills there and can make more money as a programmer? Or an Anthropology major who works as a graphic artist?

While individual cases can show there's a problem you cannot use those people as representatives for all in their situation.

Yes because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues.
Sometimes I marvel at the stupidity around here.

I'm not claiming that. Are you claiming that the ONLY reason for anyone working outside of their degree field is lack of opportunity and a poor economy.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Nope. Not a reductio ad absurdum or any other fallacy. First you falsely claimed that my view was that all BA holders who work at sandwich shops do so for family reasons, which bears no resemblance to anything I wrote. Then I asked a question if your claim is that there are no non-economic reasons for not working in one's field. That's a yes or no.

The concept of underemployment meaning working "below" one's formal education/training is far too subjective to measure with any meaning.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I said it is a bank, which it is.

dear, its not a bank in the normal sense of the word so you would not refer to it as just a bank if you were trying to communicate accurately and meaningfully. Keep in mind that as a liberal you will not be able to understand how this bank functions si I understand your need to speak in very vague general categories. You need to stick with basics.

 

[The Rabbi]

It certainly is indicative.
The BA who is making sandwiches because that is the only job he can find is underemployed. It is a measure of the health of the economy that we have so much of that.

But what about the BA making sandwiches because s/he has family issues to take care of and only wants a part time schedule unavailable in his/her field? Not underemployed and not a measure of the health of the economy.
And what about someone with a Masters in English working as a computer programmer because they have self-learned skills there and can make more money as a programmer? Or an Anthropology major who works as a graphic artist?

While individual cases can show there's a problem you cannot use those people as representatives for all in their situation.

Yes because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues.
Sometimes I marvel at the stupidity around here.

I'm not claiming that. Are you claiming that the ONLY reason for anyone working outside of their degree field is lack of opportunity and a poor economy.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Nope. Not a reductio ad absurdum or any other fallacy. First you falsely claimed that my view was that all BA holders who work at sandwich shops do so for family reasons, which bears no resemblance to anything I wrote. Then I asked a question if your claim is that there are no non-economic reasons for not working in one's field. That's a yes or no.

The concept of underemployment meaning working "below" one's formal education/training is far too subjective to measure with any meaning.

I claimed no such thing. Now you're simply dishonest.
You are taking a few outlyers and claiming that they are representative. Which is dishonest and not fact based. While there might be some people who take jobs below them for family or other reasons, the biggest reason people take such jobs is because they can't find anything in their field. Which is where we are now.
Again, the unemployment/underemployment rate is nearly 50% for recent grads. That isnt a record to be proud of. OTOH since those assholes voted overwhelmingly for Obama this is what they deserve.

 

[The Rabbi]

. I said it is a bank, which it is.

dear, its not a bank in the normal sense of the word so you would not refer to it as just a bank if you were trying to communicate accurately and meaningfully. Keep in mind that as a liberal you will not be able to understand how this bank functions si I understand your need to speak in very vague general categories. You need to stick with basics.

Forget it. FauxFaun, the biggest goat-bag on this board, invents meanings for words and then calls you stupid if you disagree.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But what about the BA making sandwiches because s/he has family issues to take care of and only wants a part time schedule unavailable in his/her field? Not underemployed and not a measure of the health of the economy.
And what about someone with a Masters in English working as a computer programmer because they have self-learned skills there and can make more money as a programmer? Or an Anthropology major who works as a graphic artist?

While individual cases can show there's a problem you cannot use those people as representatives for all in their situation.

Yes because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues.
Sometimes I marvel at the stupidity around here.

I'm not claiming that. Are you claiming that the ONLY reason for anyone working outside of their degree field is lack of opportunity and a poor economy.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Nope. Not a reductio ad absurdum or any other fallacy. First you falsely claimed that my view was that all BA holders who work at sandwich shops do so for family reasons, which bears no resemblance to anything I wrote. Then I asked a question if your claim is that there are no non-economic reasons for not working in one's field. That's a yes or no.

The concept of underemployment meaning working "below" one's formal education/training is far too subjective to measure with any meaning.

I claimed no such thing. Now you're simply dishonest.
You are taking a few outlyers and claiming that they are representative. Which is dishonest and not fact based. While there might be some people who take jobs below them for family or other reasons, the biggest reason people take such jobs is because they can't find anything in their field. Which is where we are now.
Again, the unemployment/underemployment rate is nearly 50% for recent grads. That isnt a record to be proud of. OTOH since those assholes voted overwhelmingly for Obama this is what they deserve.

a liberal does not mind open lies. U6 is 12% and income is down 5%. Thats why Obama is hiding out in the White House rather than campaigning on his economy!!

 

[pinqy]

But what about the BA making sandwiches because s/he has family issues to take care of and only wants a part time schedule unavailable in his/her field? Not underemployed and not a measure of the health of the economy.
And what about someone with a Masters in English working as a computer programmer because they have self-learned skills there and can make more money as a programmer? Or an Anthropology major who works as a graphic artist?

While individual cases can show there's a problem you cannot use those people as representatives for all in their situation.

Yes because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues.
Sometimes I marvel at the stupidity around here.

I'm not claiming that. Are you claiming that the ONLY reason for anyone working outside of their degree field is lack of opportunity and a poor economy.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Nope. Not a reductio ad absurdum or any other fallacy. First you falsely claimed that my view was that all BA holders who work at sandwich shops do so for family reasons, which bears no resemblance to anything I wrote. Then I asked a question if your claim is that there are no non-economic reasons for not working in one's field. That's a yes or no.

The concept of underemployment meaning working "below" one's formal education/training is far too subjective to measure with any meaning.

I claimed no such thing. Now you're simply dishonest.

I don't know any other way to take your comment of "es because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues." except for you claiming that I was saying all were like that.

You are taking a few outlyers and claiming that they are representative.

No, I'm not. First I don't believe they are outliers...I believe there are many many people who work outside the field of their degree for personal reasons. And second, I don't think any circumstances can be said to be representative.

Which is dishonest and not fact based. While there might be some people who take jobs below them for family or other reasons, the biggest reason people take such jobs is because they can't find anything in their field.

What is your source for that claim? And even if it is true (and it might be the single biggest reason but still not the majority reason), you'd have to show it's dominant enough to classify EVERYONE working outside their field as underemployed. I don't think that would be at all accurate to do.

Again, the unemployment/underemployment rate is nearly 50% for recent grads. That isnt a record to be proud of. OTOH since those assholes voted overwhelmingly for Obama this is what they deserve.

Here's a more recent study (done in 2014) from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Are Recent College Graduates Finding Good Jobs?

Conclusion
While stories about recent college graduates’ struggles to find a good job have become increasingly common over the past few
years, we show that this experience is not a new phenomenon, nor one that can be ascribed simply to the Great Recession
and the ensuing weakness in the labor market. Our analysis demonstrates that new college graduates typically take some
time to transition into the labor market and find jobs that utilize their education. In fact, during both good and bad economic times, relatively high rates of unemployment and underemployment are not uncommon among college graduates just beginning their careers, and those rates can be expected to drop considerably by the time the graduates reach their late twenties. Moreover, while it appears that the labor market has become more challenging for recent college graduates, it is much worse for young people who do not have a college degree.
That said, both unemployment and underemployment have followed a clear upward trend for recent college graduates over the past two decades, and particularly since the 2001 recession. In addition, it has become more common for underemployed
college graduates to find themselves in low-wage jobs or to be working part-time. It is not clear whether these trends
represent a structural change in the labor market, or if they are a consequence of the two recessions and jobless recoveries
in the first decade of the 2000s. Either way, young college graduates entering the labor market since the 2001 recession
face more challenges in finding a good job.

An interesting part, which backs up what I've said, is in Chart 5, which shows that, while the percent has has fallen significantly, a large percent of college graduates (36%) working in jobs that do not require a degree were working in "good jobs" averaging $45,000/year.

 

[pinqy]

Yes because every BA working a sandwhich counter is there because of family issues.
Sometimes I marvel at the stupidity around here.

I'm not claiming that. Are you claiming that the ONLY reason for anyone working outside of their degree field is lack of opportunity and a poor economy.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Nope. Not a reductio ad absurdum or any other fallacy. First you falsely claimed that my view was that all BA holders who work at sandwich shops do so for family reasons, which bears no resemblance to anything I wrote. Then I asked a question if your claim is that there are no non-economic reasons for not working in one's field. That's a yes or no.

The concept of underemployment meaning working "below" one's formal education/training is far too subjective to measure with any meaning.

I claimed no such thing. Now you're simply dishonest.
You are taking a few outlyers and claiming that they are representative. Which is dishonest and not fact based. While there might be some people who take jobs below them for family or other reasons, the biggest reason people take such jobs is because they can't find anything in their field. Which is where we are now.
Again, the unemployment/underemployment rate is nearly 50% for recent grads. That isnt a record to be proud of. OTOH since those assholes voted overwhelmingly for Obama this is what they deserve.

a liberal does not mind open lies. U6 is 12% and income is down 5%. Thats why Obama is hiding out in the White House rather than campaigning on his economy!!

The U6 is 11.8%.