- Sep 27, 2012
- 92,409
- 54,206
- 2,605
liar
May be true. I know of 2 people whos unemployment run out. Sure there are more. Weird thing is, I know 9 that lost their job...
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.
liar
Gallup is not a government agency.And trending down!
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
10/28/2012 7.1%
10/27/2012 7.2%
10/26/2012 7.3%
10/25/2012 7.3%
10/24/2012 7.3%
There is a substantial number of people who are no longer in the "work force", people that are no longer being counted when we figure the unemployment number. When our population is steadily growing yet the number of people working declines...that ISN'T a sign that things are getting better.
There is a substantial number of people who are no longer in the "work force", people that are no longer being counted when we figure the unemployment number. When our population is steadily growing yet the number of people working declines...that ISN'T a sign that things are getting better.
The only legitimate employment statistic is U-6...This counts ALL unemployed people.
Not just the ones the government wants people to know about.
In fact, I have no clue as to why the BLS uses U-3...It's a fake number.
And that applies to whomever occupies the White House.
And trending down!
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
10/28/2012 7.1%
10/27/2012 7.2%
10/26/2012 7.3%
10/25/2012 7.3%
10/24/2012 7.3%
You're right! Gallup just updated it to 7.0%liar
Oh..I get it..Since U-6 is the most indicative of the several counting methods, you demand I Identify all of the others. Sure, that makes sense in THIS argument. Anything else I can do for your Highness?There is a substantial number of people who are no longer in the "work force", people that are no longer being counted when we figure the unemployment number. When our population is steadily growing yet the number of people working declines...that ISN'T a sign that things are getting better.
The only legitimate employment statistic is U-6...This counts ALL unemployed people.
Not just the ones the government wants people to know about.
In fact, I have no clue as to why the BLS uses U-3...It's a fake number.
And that applies to whomever occupies the White House.
This should be fun: Please give explanations for all 6 alternative measures, including definitions, and then why you prefer the U6. I'm especially interested in why you think the U3 is fake, and why you think the U6 includes more unemployed than the U5.
I'm reallllly curious as to what you consider the proper definition of unemployed.
Note to everyone else: No I don't expect him to give any definitions, but there's always hope....and stranger things have happened.
You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.Oh..I get it..Since U-6 is the most indicative of the several counting methods, you demand I Identify all of the others. Sure, that makes sense in THIS argument. Anything else I can do for your Highness?The only legitimate employment statistic is U-6...This counts ALL unemployed people.
Not just the ones the government wants people to know about.
In fact, I have no clue as to why the BLS uses U-3...It's a fake number.
And that applies to whomever occupies the White House.
This should be fun: Please give explanations for all 6 alternative measures, including definitions, and then why you prefer the U6. I'm especially interested in why you think the U3 is fake, and why you think the U6 includes more unemployed than the U5.
I'm reallllly curious as to what you consider the proper definition of unemployed.
Note to everyone else: No I don't expect him to give any definitions, but there's always hope....and stranger things have happened.
So I went to the BLS.gov website..Just to make YOU happy.
Here...Fucking read it for yourself.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Too bad for you, the inescapable truth is that there are over 23 million people who would like to work, are eligible to work but cannot find a fucking job in this Obama economy.
I highlighted why U-3 is a fake number.
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." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over..
An HOUR per week?...That is no employed. And while the Obama campaign would call that a "job", you know one of the 5 million he claims to have created all by himself, anyone with a couple brain cells bashing together knows that is not a job.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of politicians who claim they created jobs. Government DOES NOT create jobs. The only time when government action results in the number of full time jobs going up is when government gets the hell out of the way of the private sector.
Oh, it's not worthless...it's a good look at underutilization..people who either could be working or aren't working as much as they could be. It's just not a measure of Unemployment.You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.
They shouldn't and they aren't. The U6 doesn't include them as part of the Labor Force or as unemployed.Why should people who are not even looking for work be counted as both part of the workforce and as unemployed?
You are mistaken. Marginally attached is defined as wants to work, could have started work in the reference week if offered, and looked in the last year but not the last month. While the reason for stopping looking are as you say, and many of the cases atre stopped looking because couldn't work; at the time of classification as Marginally Attached they are now able to work, though possibly the conditions required are too narrow to be practical (only a job withing walking distance, only a job with discounted chldcare, only a job with certain hours, etc).Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.
No, since there are 6, I was curious as to why exactly you consider the U6 to be the best. Arguments could be made for the U4 or U5 as better indicators than the U6 or the U3.Oh..I get it..Since U-6 is the most indicative of the several counting methods, you demand I Identify all of the others.
Oh, I'm very familiar with that....though usually I read the more technical papers, not the simplified for people who don't understand statistics versions.Sure, that makes sense in THIS argument. Anything else I can do for your Highness?
So I went to the BLS.gov website..Just to make YOU happy.
Here...Fucking read it for yourself.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
You're not being accurate. Out of that 23 million, about 8 million are part time for economic reasons, meaning they did find a job, just not working as many hours as they like, most of whom are working less due to slow business, not inability to find full time work.Too bad for you, the inescapable truth is that there are over 23 million people who would like to work, are eligible to work but cannot find a fucking job in this Obama economy.
Where'd you get the "seeking full tiem work" qualification from? About 1.7 million people are classified as unemployed seeking part time work.I highlighted why U-3 is a fake number.
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate),
The definition of Employed is the same in the U6...minimum of 1 hour work for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business/farm. The U6 pays attention to those working less than 35 hours involuntarily (due to slow business or inability to find full time work) but that still leaves people voluntarily working as little as an hour a week. I've had 2 jobs in my life where I voluntarily worked less than 5 hours a week when I was a student who just needed some extra cash.but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week.
But not limited to that. Most of the Marginally Attached stopped working for personal reasons.And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sexOh, it's not worthless...it's a good look at underutilization..people who either could be working or aren't working as much as they could be. It's just not a measure of Unemployment.You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.
They shouldn't and they aren't. The U6 doesn't include them as part of the Labor Force or as unemployed.Why should people who are not even looking for work be counted as both part of the workforce and as unemployed?
You are mistaken. Marginally attached is defined as wants to work, could have started work in the reference week if offered, and looked in the last year but not the last month. While the reason for stopping looking are as you say, and many of the cases do preclude working, at the time of classification as Marginally Attached they are now able to work, though possibly the conditions required are too narrow to be practical (only a job withing walking distance, only a job with discounted chldcare, only a job with certain hours, etc).Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.
You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.Oh..I get it..Since U-6 is the most indicative of the several counting methods, you demand I Identify all of the others. Sure, that makes sense in THIS argument. Anything else I can do for your Highness?This should be fun: Please give explanations for all 6 alternative measures, including definitions, and then why you prefer the U6. I'm especially interested in why you think the U3 is fake, and why you think the U6 includes more unemployed than the U5.
I'm reallllly curious as to what you consider the proper definition of unemployed.
Note to everyone else: No I don't expect him to give any definitions, but there's always hope....and stranger things have happened.
So I went to the BLS.gov website..Just to make YOU happy.
Here...Fucking read it for yourself.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Too bad for you, the inescapable truth is that there are over 23 million people who would like to work, are eligible to work but cannot find a fucking job in this Obama economy.
I highlighted why U-3 is a fake number.
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." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over..
An HOUR per week?...That is no employed. And while the Obama campaign would call that a "job", you know one of the 5 million he claims to have created all by himself, anyone with a couple brain cells bashing together knows that is not a job.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of politicians who claim they created jobs. Government DOES NOT create jobs. The only time when government action results in the number of full time jobs going up is when government gets the hell out of the way of the private sector.
Why should people who are not even looking for work be counted as both part of the workforce and as unemployed? Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sexOh, it's not worthless...it's a good look at underutilization..people who either could be working or aren't working as much as they could be. It's just not a measure of Unemployment.You have actually given the very reason the U-6 rate is worthless! Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor LOOKING FOR WORK.
They shouldn't and they aren't. The U6 doesn't include them as part of the Labor Force or as unemployed.
You are mistaken. Marginally attached is defined as wants to work, could have started work in the reference week if offered, and looked in the last year but not the last month. While the reason for stopping looking are as you say, and many of the cases do preclude working, at the time of classification as Marginally Attached they are now able to work, though possibly the conditions required are too narrow to be practical (only a job withing walking distance, only a job with discounted chldcare, only a job with certain hours, etc).Many won't take a job even if offered because of such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, attending school, sickness, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained! The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work.
(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.
Why? Give an actual Economic reason, not some idiotic emotional rant.Simple..They are eligible and SHOULD BE a part of the workforce.
Most of the Marginally Attached did NOT "give up." They stopped looking because of personal reasons...had to look after a family member etc.And because of their circumstances have given up.
Who is saying they don't exist? They're just not unemployed.That DOES NOT mean they suddenly do not exist. These are viable, functioning people capable of full time work who have become disillusioned and simply given up.
Marginally Attached certainly are not working...that's the whole point. And part time for economic reasons are working, which makes them NOT unemployed.THEY ARE WORKING PEOPLE,
God dammit....They DO COUNT.
I am not willing to write people off just to make some politician look good. I don't give a fuck what letter he/has after their name. That isn't the point.
This is not political. This is about PEOPLE!
Well then that begs the question, what week was the reference week?A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sexOh, it's not worthless...it's a good look at underutilization..people who either could be working or aren't working as much as they could be. It's just not a measure of Unemployment.
They shouldn't and they aren't. The U6 doesn't include them as part of the Labor Force or as unemployed.
You are mistaken. Marginally attached is defined as wants to work, could have started work in the reference week if offered, and looked in the last year but not the last month. While the reason for stopping looking are as you say, and many of the cases do preclude working, at the time of classification as Marginally Attached they are now able to work, though possibly the conditions required are too narrow to be practical (only a job withing walking distance, only a job with discounted chldcare, only a job with certain hours, etc).
(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.
You wrote: "The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work"
Now compare that with the definition you just quoted: "Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks."
If someone could not accept a job, they are NOT Marginally Attached.
I have no idea why you thought I was arguing about search. Read the definition again....Marginally Attached is Wants To Work, Could Take a job if offered, Did Not look in previous 4 weeks, Looked in previous 12 months.
Well then that begs the question, what week was the reference week?A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.
You wrote: "The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work"
Now compare that with the definition you just quoted: "Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks."
If someone could not accept a job, they are NOT Marginally Attached.
I have no idea why you thought I was arguing about search. Read the definition again....Marginally Attached is Wants To Work, Could Take a job if offered, Did Not look in previous 4 weeks, Looked in previous 12 months.
For example, if they had transportation problems the last 4 weeks they wouldn't be able to accept a job if offered over those 4 weeks, so those 4 weeks could not be the reference week.
So what am I missing?
Why? Give an actual Economic reason, not some idiotic emotional rant.Simple..They are eligible and SHOULD BE a part of the workforce.
Most of the Marginally Attached did NOT "give up." They stopped looking because of personal reasons...had to look after a family member etc.And because of their circumstances have given up.
Who is saying they don't exist? They're just not unemployed.
Marginally Attached certainly are not working...that's the whole point. And part time for economic reasons are working, which makes them NOT unemployed.THEY ARE WORKING PEOPLE,
God dammit....They DO COUNT.
I am not willing to write people off just to make some politician look good. I don't give a fuck what letter he/has after their name. That isn't the point.
This is not political. This is about PEOPLE!
Who is "writing people off?" What effect do you think it has on a person that they're classified as Marginally Attached or Not in the Labor Force instead of Unemployed? What possible difference do you think it makes to a person????
It's NOT about people, it's about measuring the job market.
What you are saying is kind of misleading people to think Obama's economic numbers are awesome when in fact Obama's economic numbers are nothing to brag about!FACT-
The annualized real GDP growth rate in the first quarter of 2009 was -5.3%
FACT-
The annualized real GDP growth rate in third quarter of 2012 was +2.0%.
FACT-
The difference under Obama is %7.3.
FACT-
The annualized real GDP growth rate in the first quarter of 2009 was -5.3%
FACT-
The annualized real GDP growth rate in third quarter of 2012 was +2.0%.
FACT-
The difference under Obama is %7.3.
Well then that begs the question, what week was the reference week?A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
(3) Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(4) Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(5) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.
You wrote: "The number of marginally attached who don't look for work because they couldn't accept a job even if offered are more than double the discouraged, who just don't bother looking for work"
Now compare that with the definition you just quoted: "Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks."
If someone could not accept a job, they are NOT Marginally Attached.
I have no idea why you thought I was arguing about search. Read the definition again....Marginally Attached is Wants To Work, Could Take a job if offered, Did Not look in previous 4 weeks, Looked in previous 12 months.
For example, if they had transportation problems the last 4 weeks they wouldn't be able to accept a job if offered over those 4 weeks, so those 4 weeks could not be the reference week.
So what am I missing?