Jobless rate is worse than you think

[Rshermr]

So, your numbers are solid. Your argument is completely persuasive. And your adversary is trying to prove something quite obvious. For agenda reasons. Because it is important for her to show that whatever is being said about what has happened under a democratic president WORKING to whatever degree is UNTRUE. Conservative dogma.

Problem is not whether or not what has happened is working or not, but what should happen to make things better. And Tania could care less. She is simply interested in proving with deceptive arguments that doing nothing is what will work. That any economist, any agency, and any research that suggests that gov intervention in the economy has or will help is wrong.

And that is the damage that her type of argument is meant to do. It is intended to cut off discussion of possible helpful government actions, and to agree with the non action plans of the far right, including libertarian sources. Amazon is strangely perfectly aligned with libertarians such as the Koch brothers, of libertarian economists such as thomas sowell, and with the far right bat shit conservative web sites that are supported by their ilk.

So, the best you can hope from those such as tania is that they do no damage. Their intent is whatever the hell it is, but honesty is not at all of concern. So the con tools, tania included, simply want to derail any discussion of what to do. Why they are willing to go to the extent that some do to disprove fact is not quantifiable. It is a strong agenda well documented, however, by study after study. A group that is aligned with conservative dogma that is described in study after study. The point is that they are a minority, and need to be ignored. And instead, we in the reasoning world need to consider what alternatives to support. And to explain. All else is simply a major waste of time.

What you have accomplished in this thread is important. You have proven that amazon's arguments are invalid. As they almost always are, those arguments were simply arguments with the intent of pushing agenda. That argument having been disposed of, perhaps we can discuss what needs to be done. Because truth is, regardless of what politics say, we have a problem. It is an EMPLOYMENT problem, and one that will be persistent for the future of our country, regardless of whom owns our politics. The nonsense of agenda needs to be pushed aside, or else we are simply wasting time. Agenda wants no solution, she and others pushing these ideas simply want their agenda. Because, we all understand that the agenda is written by those who have something to gain.

The article that started this discussion, if you look at it in it's whole, is not a bad starting point. As long as you do not try to distort it's statement. As long as it is not taken in part to support agenda. Then you can indeed get something of the value from this thread. Otherwise, it is just a food fight.

 

[Joe Steel]

You should not consider such an opinion absolute. At varying levels you may or may not have a duty to support the community. Secondly, the choice is not yours to make. The rule of the majority will govern your behavior.

My individual rights supersede your majority rule.

Your individual rights are what the community say they are. You have no more or no fewer than they give you. The community may compel you to do whatever they wish regardless of what you believe your rights to be. That's the way democracies and rights work.

 

[ipaps]

Why do we always want to create jobs when there's not much to be done? Shouldn't we be be working shorter and shorter hours after all the technological advancements?

On the other hand, when global competition comes down to how much everything else people would sacrifice for it. There's probably not much to be done. How do you compete with engineers who work 14 hours a day? They took jobs away, but do they have time to create jobs?

The only way I can think of is boy cut companies who don't care for their employee's working condition and the environment. So that companies can compete on a healthier ground, by real efficiency.

 

[Rshermr]

Why do we always want to create jobs when there's not much to be done? Shouldn't we be be working shorter and shorter hours after all the technological advancements?

On the other hand, when global competition comes down to how much everything else people would sacrifice for it. There's probably not much to be done. How do you compete with engineers who work 14 hours a day? They took jobs away, but do they have time to create jobs?

The only way I can think of is boy cut companies who don't care for their employee's working condition and the environment. So that companies can compete on a healthier ground, by real efficiency.

Shorter hours is an interesting thought. From the standpoint of keeping workers employed and the economy cooking, that was exactly what was done in Germany during the great recession of 2007. And the net result of that was to see Germany do very well compared to other countries during that recession.
Longer term, it may be that we need to decouple, in some way, some of the things done by highly skilled workers where that skill is not required. We have seen that, to a large degree, among the medical profession. Where doctors used to give shots routinely, today those types of duties have been passed down to workers in positions requiting less education.

 

[pinqy]

Both A and B ARE known. A, the total of part-time workers 65 and older for both economic and noneconomic reasons for 2012 is 3,025,000. B, the number who work part-time for economic reasons is 272,000. X, the number who work part-time for noneconomic reasons is 2,753,000, A - B.

Ummm......No. "Part time for economic reasons" includes those who usually work full time but worked fewer than 35 hours during the reference week. It even says so right in your graphic. Also note the full breakdown in Table A-25
So what you're doing is subtracting a n unknown number of usually work full time from the part time category.

 

[edthecynic]

Both A and B ARE known. A, the total of part-time workers 65 and older for both economic and noneconomic reasons for 2012 is 3,025,000. B, the number who work part-time for economic reasons is 272,000. X, the number who work part-time for noneconomic reasons is 2,753,000, A - B.

Ummm......No. "Part time for economic reasons" includes those who usually work full time but worked fewer than 35 hours during the reference week. It even says so right in your graphic. Also note the full breakdown in Table A-25
So what you're doing is subtracting a n unknown number of usually work full time from the part time category.

So, are you saying that the 3,025,000 is the total over 65 working part-time for noneconomic reasons? Is there some other source of the data for the over 65 workers other than the persons with disability?

 

[pinqy]

Both A and B ARE known. A, the total of part-time workers 65 and older for both economic and noneconomic reasons for 2012 is 3,025,000. B, the number who work part-time for economic reasons is 272,000. X, the number who work part-time for noneconomic reasons is 2,753,000, A - B.

Ummm......No. "Part time for economic reasons" includes those who usually work full time but worked fewer than 35 hours during the reference week. It even says so right in your graphic. Also note the full breakdown in Table A-25
So what you're doing is subtracting a n unknown number of usually work full time from the part time category.

So, are you saying that the 3,025,000 is the total over 65 working part-time for noneconomic reasons? Is there some other source of the data for the over 65 workers other than the persons with disability?

No, what I'm saying is that "usually works" means more than 50% or most frequent schedule in the last 5 months. Many part time for economic reasons usually work full time but during the reference week had their hours cut.
There's no way to really tell the breakdown at such a low level...the error is huge for categories that small..over 10%

 

[edthecynic]

Both A and B ARE known. A, the total of part-time workers 65 and older for both economic and noneconomic reasons for 2012 is 3,025,000. B, the number who work part-time for economic reasons is 272,000. X, the number who work part-time for noneconomic reasons is 2,753,000, A - B.

Ummm......No. "Part time for economic reasons" includes those who usually work full time but worked fewer than 35 hours during the reference week. It even says so right in your graphic. Also note the full breakdown in Table A-25
So what you're doing is subtracting a n unknown number of usually work full time from the part time category.

Nope, it looks like I had it right all along. If you look at the total of over 65 working on Table 2 you get 7,245,000. Then it breaks down that total to usually works full time 4,220,000 and usually works part time 3,025,000. Those 2 added together equals the total given earlier. Then Table 2 breaks out the part-timers who are working part-time for economic reasons 272,000. So subtracting the known working part-time for economic reasons in Table 2 from the total part-time workers gives you the workers 65 and over working part-time for noneconomic reasons 2,753,000.

PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY: LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS?2012

 

[pinqy]

Both A and B ARE known. A, the total of part-time workers 65 and older for both economic and noneconomic reasons for 2012 is 3,025,000. B, the number who work part-time for economic reasons is 272,000. X, the number who work part-time for noneconomic reasons is 2,753,000, A - B.

Ummm......No. "Part time for economic reasons" includes those who usually work full time but worked fewer than 35 hours during the reference week. It even says so right in your graphic. Also note the full breakdown in Table A-25
So what you're doing is subtracting a n unknown number of usually work full time from the part time category.

Nope, it looks like I had it right all along. If you look at the total of over 65 working on Table 2 you get 7,245,000. Then it breaks down that total to usually works full time 4,220,000 and usually works part time 3,025,000. Those 2 added together equals the total given earlier.

Correct.

Then Table 2 breaks out the part-timers who are working part-time for economic reasons 272,000.

Incorrect. Part time for economic reasons is NOT a subset of "usually works part time," but is made up of both usually works full time and usually works part time.

 

[edthecynic]

Ummm......No. "Part time for economic reasons" includes those who usually work full time but worked fewer than 35 hours during the reference week. It even says so right in your graphic. Also note the full breakdown in Table A-25
So what you're doing is subtracting a n unknown number of usually work full time from the part time category.

Nope, it looks like I had it right all along. If you look at the total of over 65 working on Table 2 you get 7,245,000. Then it breaks down that total to usually works full time 4,220,000 and usually works part time 3,025,000. Those 2 added together equals the total given earlier.

Correct.
Then Table 2 breaks out the part-timers who are working part-time for economic reasons 272,000.

Incorrect. Part time for economic reasons is NOT a subset of "usually works part time," but is made up of both usually works full time and usually works part time.[/QUOTE]So then the 65 and older working part-time for noneconomic reasons would be larger than 2,753,000.

 

[Amari001]

Jobless rate is growing rapidly is not only the problem of Europe as it is world wide problem. Most of countries have it. But the way Europe is suffering from it is matter of worthy and problematic. As Under developed countries are going in this way but the Europe should'n be like this. They should re-consider their policy..

 

[Zona]

According to this article... if job growth stays the same, it will still take us 6 years to get back to a healthy job market. Not good.

*****************************************************************


Editor's note: Heidi Shierholz is a labor market economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. She is a co-author of "The State of Working America."

(CNN) -- On Labor Day, we celebrate the American worker. And more than four years since the Great Recession ended in June 2009, the unemployment rate is 7.4%, a big improvement from the high of 10% in the fall of 2009. Unfortunately, the rate is hugely misleading: Most of that improvement was for all the wrong reasons.

Remember, jobless workers are not counted as being part of the labor force unless they are actively looking for work, and the decline in the unemployment rate since its peak has mostly been the result of workers dropping out of -- or not entering -- the labor force.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, if the labor market were healthy, the labor force would number about 159.2 million. But the actual labor force numbers just 155.8 million. That means about 3.4 million "missing workers" are out there -- jobless people who would be in the labor force if job opportunities were strong.

Given the weak labor market, they're not actively looking for work and so aren't counted. If those missing workers were actively looking, the unemployment rate would be 9.4%.

We need 8.3 million jobs to get back to the prerecession unemployment rate, considering the 2 million jobs we are still down from the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 plus the 6.3 million jobs we should have added since just to keep up with normal growth in the potential labor force.

Opinion: Jobless rate is worse than you think - CNN.com

yup. no matter what the numbers are under obama, it is bad. righty.

 

[ipaps]

Why do we always want to create jobs when there's not much to be done? Shouldn't we be be working shorter and shorter hours after all the technological advancements?

On the other hand, when global competition comes down to how much everything else people would sacrifice for it. There's probably not much to be done. How do you compete with engineers who work 14 hours a day? They took jobs away, but do they have time to create jobs?

The only way I can think of is boy cut companies who don't care for their employee's working condition and the environment. So that companies can compete on a healthier ground, by real efficiency.

Shorter hours is an interesting thought. From the standpoint of keeping workers employed and the economy cooking, that was exactly what was done in Germany during the great recession of 2007. And the net result of that was to see Germany do very well compared to other countries during that recession.
Longer term, it may be that we need to decouple, in some way, some of the things done by highly skilled workers where that skill is not required. We have seen that, to a large degree, among the medical profession. Where doctors used to give shots routinely, today those types of duties have been passed down to workers in positions requiting less education.

I was thinking about a pollution produced during production index stamped on products and a no workers over-worked or endangered certificate. Just wild thoughts.

But your point about solving the demand for highly skilled workers is very interesting.

 

[Rebelitarian]

According to this article... if job growth stays the same, it will still take us 6 years to get back to a healthy job market. Not good.

*****************************************************************


Editor's note: Heidi Shierholz is a labor market economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. She is a co-author of "The State of Working America."

(CNN) -- On Labor Day, we celebrate the American worker. And more than four years since the Great Recession ended in June 2009, the unemployment rate is 7.4%, a big improvement from the high of 10% in the fall of 2009. Unfortunately, the rate is hugely misleading: Most of that improvement was for all the wrong reasons.

Remember, jobless workers are not counted as being part of the labor force unless they are actively looking for work, and the decline in the unemployment rate since its peak has mostly been the result of workers dropping out of -- or not entering -- the labor force.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, if the labor market were healthy, the labor force would number about 159.2 million. But the actual labor force numbers just 155.8 million. That means about 3.4 million "missing workers" are out there -- jobless people who would be in the labor force if job opportunities were strong.

Given the weak labor market, they're not actively looking for work and so aren't counted. If those missing workers were actively looking, the unemployment rate would be 9.4%.

We need 8.3 million jobs to get back to the prerecession unemployment rate, considering the 2 million jobs we are still down from the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 plus the 6.3 million jobs we should have added since just to keep up with normal growth in the potential labor force.

Opinion: Jobless rate is worse than you think - CNN.com

Next time elect more Constitution Party candidates to office instead of globalist traitor ones in the 2 main parties.

Quit voting for bankster enablers and America will see a recovery just like Iceland.

"Iceland Did it Right...and Everyone Else is Doing it Wrong"
Iceland Did it Right...and Everyone Else is Doing it Wrong | NationofChange
Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz notes:
What Iceland did was right. It would have been wrong to burden future generations with the mistakes of the financial system.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes:
What [Iceland's recovery] demonstrated was the … case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses.
Krugman also says:
A funny thing happened on the way to economic Armageddon: Iceland’s very desperation made conventional behavior impossible, freeing the nation to break the rules. Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net. Where everyone else was fixated on trying to placate international investors, Iceland imposed temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to maneuver.
Krugman is right. Letting the banks go bust – instead of perpetually bailing them out – is the right way to go.
We’ve previously noted:
Iceland told the banks to pound sand. And Iceland’s economy is doing much better than virtually all of the countries which have let the banks push them around.
Bloomberg reports:
Iceland holds some key lessons for nations trying to survive bailouts after the island’s approach to its rescue led to a “surprisingly” strong recovery, the International Monetary Fund’s mission chief to the country said.
Iceland’s commitment to its program, a decision to push losses on to bondholders instead of taxpayers and the safeguarding of a welfare system that shielded the unemployed from penury helped propel the nation from collapse toward recovery, according to the Washington-based fund.
***
NationofChange fights back with one simple but powerful weapon: the truth. Can you donate $5 to help us?
Iceland refused to protect creditors in its banks, which failed in 2008 after their debts bloated to 10 times the size of the economy.
The IMF’s point about bondholders is an important one: the failure to force a haircut on the bondholders is dooming the U.S. and Europe to economic doldrums.
The IMF notes:
[The] decision not to make taxpayers liable for bank losses was right, economists say.
In other words, as IMF put it:
Key to Iceland’s recovery was [a] program [which] sought to ensure that the restructuring of the banks would not require Icelandic taxpayers to shoulder excessive private sector losses.
Icenews points out:
Experts continue to praise Iceland’s recovery success after the country’s bank bailouts of 2008.
Unlike the US and several countries in the eurozone, Iceland allowed its banking system to fail in the global economic downturn and put the burden on the industry’s creditors rather than taxpayers.
***
The rebound continues to wow officials, including International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, who recently referred to the Icelandic recovery as “impressive”. And experts continue to reiterate that European officials should look to Iceland for lessons regarding austerity measures and similar issues.
Barry Ritholtz noted last year:
Rather than bailout the banks — Iceland could not have done so even if they wanted to — they guaranteed deposits (the way our FDIC does), and let the normal capitalistic process of failure run its course.
They are now much much better for it than the countries like the US and Ireland who did not.
Bloomberg pointed out February 2011:
Unlike other nations, including the U.S. and Ireland, which injected billions of dollars of capital into their financial institutions to keep them afloat, Iceland placed its biggest lenders in receivership. It chose not to protect creditors of the country’s banks, whose assets had ballooned to $209 billion, 11 times gross domestic product.
***
“Iceland did the right thing … creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks,” says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University in New York. “Ireland’s done all the wrong things, on the other hand. That’s probably the worst model.”
Ireland guaranteed all the liabilities of its banks when they ran into trouble and has been injecting capital — 46 billion euros ($64 billion) so far — to prop them up. That brought the country to the brink of ruin, forcing it to accept a rescue package from the European Union in December.
***
Countries with larger banking systems can follow Iceland’s example, says Adriaan van der Knaap, a managing director at UBS AG.
“It wouldn’t upset the financial system,” says Van der Knaap, who has advised Iceland’s bank resolution committees.
***
Arni Pall Arnason, 44, Iceland’s minister of economic affairs, says the decision to make debt holders share the pain saved the country’s future.
“If we’d guaranteed all the banks’ liabilities, we’d be in the same situation as Ireland,” says Arnason, whose Social Democratic Alliance was a junior coalition partner in the Haarde government.
***
“In the beginning, banks and other financial institutions in Europe were telling us, ‘Never again will we lend to you,’” Einarsdottir says. “Then it was 10 years, then 5. Now they say they might soon be ready to lend again.”
And Iceland’s prosecution of white collar fraud played a big part in its recovery:
[The U.S. and Europe have thwarted white collar fraud investigations ... let alone prosecutions.] On the other hand, Iceland has prosecuted the fraudster bank heads (andhere and here) and their former prime minister, and their economy is recovering nicely… because trust is being restored in the financial system.
"Iceland Did it Right...and Everyone Else is Doing it Wrong"