NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

[pinqy]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment. Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

and what should the "actual" rate of unemployment be.. do we count people who don't want to work as unemployed? Do we count homemakers? Do we count drug dealers and other workers who work under the table? Do we count students? What if they don't want to work because we decided to give them disability or other forms of welfare? What if they don't want to work because we off-shored their work? What if they don't want to work because they are retiring early? What if they want to work but their unemployment benefits have run out and there are no jobs for their skill where they are looking? What if they want to work but are temporarily disabled and do not qualify for disability?

dude, are you on the right? unemployed is unemployed, in any at-will employment State. underemployment is a different Thing.

For example, you might say unemployment is the number of adults who do not have full time jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of employable adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have full time jobs. OR.... or ... or...

Exactly, and this is why we have different measures. We can use the measure that best fits what we are trying to define.

Or alternately we can do like Special EdBaiamonte and use whatever one we think will score points in a political argument instead of what is logical.

True. However trying to make logic out of unemployment is not an easy task. This is mostly because the act of being un-employed is itself illogical.

Huh? How is it illogical to be unemployed?

One starts to make excuses / explanations for why someone is unemployed and then extrapolate that because of this or that excuse there must be millions like that person. For example, went back to school, is working under the table, is under employed, is "discouraged," is laid off, is a homemaker now, ...

How are you defining unemployed? None of those you mention are usually considered unemployed.

The assumptions we make for "why" people are unemployed, lead to assumptions on what unemployment means. But they are just assumptions.

Why do you think anyone is making assumptions about why people are underemployed. I'm not getting your point. Can you give a specific example?

 

[danielpalos]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment.

That's how it was until the 1970's. But there was a demand for different aspects: narrower and broader, so the alternate measures were created.

Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

Who is calling them employed? They are neither employed nor unemployed.

There is a difference between establishing weights and measures and merely playing "shell games" with Statism.

 

[danielpalos]

So now you think employed people are counted as unemployed???

yes dear idiot liberal a Ph.d flipping burgers for 5 hours a week would be considered employed under U3 but not under u6.

See why we say a liberal will be stupid?

No, he's employed in both. The U6 does not redefine any terms. He'll be in the numerator of the U6 but not the U-1 through U-5, but that doesn't mean he's considered unemployed.

Feel like an idiot liberal now?
"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" - See more at: U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

Yes, I'm aware of the definitions. The U-6 is unemployed plus marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons divided by employed plus unemployed plus marginally attached.
What category do part time for economic reason fall under in the denominator? Well, since they're not under unemployed or marginally attached in the numerator, that leaves employed.

dear, are you saying that a person who works part time for economic reasons is counted as employed in both u3 and u6?

it should be in the "underemployment" (of resources in the market for labor), category.

 

[danielpalos]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment. Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

and what should the "actual" rate of unemployment be.. do we count people who don't want to work as unemployed? Do we count homemakers? Do we count drug dealers and other workers who work under the table? Do we count students? What if they don't want to work because we decided to give them disability or other forms of welfare? What if they don't want to work because we off-shored their work? What if they don't want to work because they are retiring early? What if they want to work but their unemployment benefits have run out and there are no jobs for their skill where they are looking? What if they want to work but are temporarily disabled and do not qualify for disability?

dude, are you on the right? unemployed is unemployed, in any at-will employment State. underemployment is a different Thing.

I'm classic conservative, aka. libertarian conservative.

The definition of a word is not the word.

You can't say unemployment is unemployment.

For example, you might say unemployment is the number of adults who do not have full time jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of employable adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have full time jobs. OR.... or ... or...

I would state, that we must define our market for labor, first; then, we can determine participation rate and any underemployment or unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, are you on the right?

I'm baffled as to how this has anything to do with what is being argued.

usually, only the right is that cognitively dissonant of the law, in favor of the subjective value Their morals.

 

[danielpalos]

For example, you might say unemployment is the number of adults who do not have full time jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of employable adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have full time jobs. OR.... or ... or...

Exactly, and this is why we have different measures. We can use the measure that best fits what we are trying to define.

Or alternately we can do like Special EdBaiamonte and use whatever one we think will score points in a political argument instead of what is logical.

My point is that is should be fixed a form of Standard regarding the absolutism of the weights and measures involved.

 

[pinqy]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment.

That's how it was until the 1970's. But there was a demand for different aspects: narrower and broader, so the alternate measures were created.

Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

Who is calling them employed? They are neither employed nor unemployed.

There is a difference between establishing weights and measures and merely playing "shell games" with Statism.

Let's try again: who are you claiming calls discouraged employed?

 

[Synthaholic]

NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

 

[danielpalos]

For example, you might say unemployment is the number of adults who do not have full time jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of employable adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have full time jobs. OR.... or ... or...

Exactly, and this is why we have different measures. We can use the measure that best fits what we are trying to define.

Or alternately we can do like Special EdBaiamonte and use whatever one we think will score points in a political argument instead of what is logical.

True. However trying to make logic out of unemployment is not an easy task. This is mostly because the act of being un-employed is itself illogical. One starts to make excuses / explanations for why someone is unemployed and then extrapolate that because of this or that excuse there must be millions like that person. For example, went back to school, is working under the table, is under employed, is "discouraged," is laid off, is a homemaker now, ...

The assumptions we make for "why" people are unemployed, lead to assumptions on what unemployment means. But they are just assumptions.

High unemployment might be a good thing when pay goes through the roof and more people switch back to being homemakers, or go back to school... Or it might be a bad thing when more people are claiming dependency and collecting welfare. Or it also might be a bad thing if the people who are unemployed don't meet the needs of the employers and are unwilling to re-train or create their own jobs, thus become dead beats or homeless.

There is no excuse or appeal to ignorance of any laws or public policies that have the effect and result, of lowering our tax burden while improving the efficiency of our economy. Collecting metrics regarding unemployment and underemployment can be more cost effectively obtained on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, than through our never ending, War on Poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment.

That's how it was until the 1970's. But there was a demand for different aspects: narrower and broader, so the alternate measures were created.

Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

Who is calling them employed? They are neither employed nor unemployed.

There is a difference between establishing weights and measures and merely playing "shell games" with Statism.

Let's try again: who are you claiming calls discouraged employed?

I am only claiming that anyone who can claim to be unemployed in our at-will employment States, should have recourse to unemployment compensation, not only to comply with the intent and modern spirit of the law, but also to lower our tax burden through more efficient collection of metrics regarding that phenomena in our market for labor--a promotion of the general welfare.

 

[pinqy]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment.

That's how it was until the 1970's. But there was a demand for different aspects: narrower and broader, so the alternate measures were created.

Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

Who is calling them employed? They are neither employed nor unemployed.

There is a difference between establishing weights and measures and merely playing "shell games" with Statism.

Let's try again: who are you claiming calls discouraged employed?

I am only claiming that anyone who can claim to be unemployed in our at-will employment States, should have recourse to unemployment compensation,

]
But you refuse to define the term unemployed as you use it.

not only to comply with the intent and modern spirit of the law, but also to lower our tax burden through more efficient collection of metrics regarding that phenomena in our market for labor--a promotion of the general welfare.

What exact method of collection are you proposing that would be more efficient?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

should have recourse to unemployment compensation,.

dear, we found out in last recession that unemployment compensation merely prolongs the time a person is unemployed.

Does the liberal understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The U in U-6 stands for "UnderUTILIZATION!!!!!

dear, does the U in U3 stand for underutilization too?

 

[SteadyMercury]

dude, are you on the right?

I'm baffled as to how this has anything to do with what is being argued.

usually, only the right is that cognitively dissonant of the law, in favor of the subjective value Their morals.

So you are attempting to add weight to your argument by pigeon holing someone else into a certain political ideology that you can then associate with whatever negative properties you wish?

You're clearly a smart guy who can make your case without this sad shit, come on man.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and down is up, and up is down....

Actually, that was a line out of Palin's speech that she forgot because her teleprompter broke.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...and down is up, and up is down....

dear, do you have an example or do you lack the IQ to be here?

 

[RKMBrown]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment. Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

and what should the "actual" rate of unemployment be.. do we count people who don't want to work as unemployed? Do we count homemakers? Do we count drug dealers and other workers who work under the table? Do we count students? What if they don't want to work because we decided to give them disability or other forms of welfare? What if they don't want to work because we off-shored their work? What if they don't want to work because they are retiring early? What if they want to work but their unemployment benefits have run out and there are no jobs for their skill where they are looking? What if they want to work but are temporarily disabled and do not qualify for disability?

dude, are you on the right? unemployed is unemployed, in any at-will employment State. underemployment is a different Thing.

For example, you might say unemployment is the number of adults who do not have full time jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of employable adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have full time jobs. OR.... or ... or...

Exactly, and this is why we have different measures. We can use the measure that best fits what we are trying to define.

Or alternately we can do like Special EdBaiamonte and use whatever one we think will score points in a political argument instead of what is logical.

True. However trying to make logic out of unemployment is not an easy task. This is mostly because the act of being un-employed is itself illogical.

Huh? How is it illogical to be unemployed?

One starts to make excuses / explanations for why someone is unemployed and then extrapolate that because of this or that excuse there must be millions like that person. For example, went back to school, is working under the table, is under employed, is "discouraged," is laid off, is a homemaker now, ...

How are you defining unemployed? None of those you mention are usually considered unemployed.

The assumptions we make for "why" people are unemployed, lead to assumptions on what unemployment means. But they are just assumptions.

Why do you think anyone is making assumptions about why people are underemployed. I'm not getting your point. Can you give a specific example?

It is illogical to be unemployed, because only through the use of liberal logic, which is completely illogical, does one have a society in which people are allowed to be unemployed dependents of the state.

For example, in a logical society anyone not currently employed in a job of their choice could be assigned a lower tier job that would be managed by some government and/or private organization. You won't like these lower tier jobs but they will give you something useful to do while you pontificate on what it is that you want to do to make your way in life. Lower tier jobs for disabled folk would be harder to find but are still doable.

Anyone that has willing guardian or sufficient assets so as not to need a job would be exempted from said requirements of course.

The alternative would be being placed on a chain gang or death if you so choose.

No one should be paid with taxpayer funds to sit on their ass, not for any reason. Thus to be unemployed is completely illogical.

 

[RKMBrown]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment. Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

and what should the "actual" rate of unemployment be.. do we count people who don't want to work as unemployed? Do we count homemakers? Do we count drug dealers and other workers who work under the table? Do we count students? What if they don't want to work because we decided to give them disability or other forms of welfare? What if they don't want to work because we off-shored their work? What if they don't want to work because they are retiring early? What if they want to work but their unemployment benefits have run out and there are no jobs for their skill where they are looking? What if they want to work but are temporarily disabled and do not qualify for disability?

dude, are you on the right? unemployed is unemployed, in any at-will employment State. underemployment is a different Thing.

For example, you might say unemployment is the number of adults who do not have full time jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of employable adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have full time jobs. OR.... or ... or...

Exactly, and this is why we have different measures. We can use the measure that best fits what we are trying to define.

Or alternately we can do like Special EdBaiamonte and use whatever one we think will score points in a political argument instead of what is logical.

True. However trying to make logic out of unemployment is not an easy task. This is mostly because the act of being un-employed is itself illogical.

Huh? How is it illogical to be unemployed?

One starts to make excuses / explanations for why someone is unemployed and then extrapolate that because of this or that excuse there must be millions like that person. For example, went back to school, is working under the table, is under employed, is "discouraged," is laid off, is a homemaker now, ...

How are you defining unemployed? None of those you mention are usually considered unemployed.

The assumptions we make for "why" people are unemployed, lead to assumptions on what unemployment means. But they are just assumptions.

Why do you think anyone is making assumptions about why people are underemployed. I'm not getting your point. Can you give a specific example?

I define unemployed, as a person enrolled in the illogical government program that pays people to go on an extended holiday between actual jobs.

 

[RKMBrown]

There should only be one unemployment rate; the actual rate of unemployment. Discouraged workers are not employed or they would be counted as employed labor.

and what should the "actual" rate of unemployment be.. do we count people who don't want to work as unemployed? Do we count homemakers? Do we count drug dealers and other workers who work under the table? Do we count students? What if they don't want to work because we decided to give them disability or other forms of welfare? What if they don't want to work because we off-shored their work? What if they don't want to work because they are retiring early? What if they want to work but their unemployment benefits have run out and there are no jobs for their skill where they are looking? What if they want to work but are temporarily disabled and do not qualify for disability?

dude, are you on the right? unemployed is unemployed, in any at-will employment State. underemployment is a different Thing.

For example, you might say unemployment is the number of adults who do not have full time jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have jobs. Or you could say unemployment is the number of employable adults between the age of 25 and 65 who do not have full time jobs. OR.... or ... or...

Exactly, and this is why we have different measures. We can use the measure that best fits what we are trying to define.

Or alternately we can do like Special EdBaiamonte and use whatever one we think will score points in a political argument instead of what is logical.

True. However trying to make logic out of unemployment is not an easy task. This is mostly because the act of being un-employed is itself illogical.

Huh? How is it illogical to be unemployed?

One starts to make excuses / explanations for why someone is unemployed and then extrapolate that because of this or that excuse there must be millions like that person. For example, went back to school, is working under the table, is under employed, is "discouraged," is laid off, is a homemaker now, ...

How are you defining unemployed? None of those you mention are usually considered unemployed.

The assumptions we make for "why" people are unemployed, lead to assumptions on what unemployment means. But they are just assumptions.

Why do you think anyone is making assumptions about why people are underemployed. I'm not getting your point. Can you give a specific example?

You asked me why I think "someone is making assumptions about why people are underemployed." I don't think I said anything about being underemployed. Assumptions are made about that because that's what people do.. they analyze situations and then pontificate what the higher meaning is.

 

[edthecynic]

The U in U-6 stands for "UnderUTILIZATION!!!!!

dear, does the U in U3 stand for underutilization too?

Sweetie, you are obviously too stupid to click on the link I provided or you would know the answer to your stupid question.

Since you deleted the link in your reply, I will supply it again.
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Sweetie, you lack the IQ to be here!