NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

[Faun]

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

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

Yes, it does. Did you not see the chart I posted?

I know you think people who work are unemployed ... but do you also think people who don't work are not underutilized?

 

[SteadyMercury]

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

Irony. The babbling monkey again questions someone else's IQ.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Irony. The babbling monkey again questions someone else's IQ.

are you the idiot who said U stands for underutilization and that U6 did not include employed people?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible??

 

[SteadyMercury]

are you the idiot who said U stands for underutilization and that U6 did not include employed people?

More irony, the guy who can't keep even keep straight who was making claims about what a "U" stands for, and got repeatedly humiliated in the thread making false claims, is now calling others idiot.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible??

Nothing to do with liberalism, and I suspect deep down you are quite aware people of all political persuasions think you're an idiot on this forum, some yapping dog who brings absolutely zero substance.

Funny = google your usename, you're a well known internet doofus.

 

[Faun]

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

Irony. The babbling monkey again questions someone else's IQ.

are you the idiot who said U stands for underutilization and that U6 did not include employed people?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible??

Let's review some of that superior conservative thinking, shall we .....

• "U6 which is the broadest measure of unemployment has now gone down to 11.2%( 40% more than before recession so still not good)."

• "A Ph.D flipping burgers 3 hours a work will not show up as u3 unemployed but will show up in U6 as unemployed."

• "The BLS calls them unemployed under the U6 designation."

• "I didn't create u6 the BLS did." ... [when quoting portalseven.com, not bls.gov]

• "dear, are you saying that a person who works part time for economic reasons is counted as employed in both u3 and u6?" ... [later, the con says: U-6 ... plus total employed part time for economic reasons

• "and I even bet you $10,000" ... [he did not bet me $10,000]

• "dear, the U in U6 stand for unemployment."

• "U6 would count a guy with a Ph.D flipping burgers 20 hours a week as unemployed."

 

[pinqy]

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.

What is illogical about temporary minimal governent support to prevent people from starving or turning to crime and allow them to find a job that suits their needs/skills/abilities rather than begging or stealing?

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.

By what you're saying there would be no ability to search for own work. As soon as a person is fired or quits, then the Nanny-State govenment you're proposing would give the person a job. What about someone looking for his first job? Or someone returning to the labor market after an absence?

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

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.

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

It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.


People are unemployed because they got laid off. Or quit. Or are looking for their first job. Or are retutning to the labor force. Almost no one can find a job instantly...there will always be a lag. That's frictional unemployment..can't get rid of it. But you would practically criminalize it?

Then there's structural unemployment, where you may have 100 jobs for 100 people, but 55 jobs are for engineers and 45 for doctors, but there are only 47 engineers and 53 doctors. That gives 8% unemployment even though the number of available jobs matches the available number of workers.

Look...UI benefits are not great and not much above minimum wage. For some perhaps, the differential is small enough that they're better off getting a little less than min wage in benefits and not having to work than working 40 hours a week at a min wage job for only a few dollars more than UI. The world's not perfect. For most a little assistnace is necessary to take care of necessities while looking for a job. I hold that it's better to supplement a person while s/he looks for a job that matches his/her skills and abilities than waste him/her on a minimum wage job that hurts his/her ability to look for work.

 

[Synthaholic]

NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

*bump*

 

[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,

]
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?

let's go with anyone who can claim to unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

does it matter if that person is still employing a minimum Standard of money based resources in our market for labor? a person with a form of minimum wage to "compensate" for a lack of full employment of resources in the market for labor is what i am referring.

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

 

[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.

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.

Just asking questions for clarification and cognizance by those on the right, who sometimes exhibit cognitive dissonance regarding their alleged values. It has to do with the habitual and customary Appeals to Ignorance of the law, in favor of their alleged morals regarding a work ethic, from the Iron Age.

 

[pinqy]

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.


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?

let's go with anyone who can claim to unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

That's a non-answer. Explain the mechanism. If you're saying there is a more efficient way to collect the metrics, you must have some idea of what that way is. And yet you refuse to explain.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

let's go with anyone who can claim to unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

That's a non-answer. Explain the mechanism. If you're saying there is a more efficient way to collect the metrics, you must have some idea of what that way is. And yet you refuse to explain.

Sure; it should be done on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States than it is currently being done under our current regime.

 

[pinqy]

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?

let's go with anyone who can claim to unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

That's a non-answer. Explain the mechanism. If you're saying there is a more efficient way to collect the metrics, you must have some idea of what that way is. And yet you refuse to explain.

Sure; it should be done on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States than it is currently being done under our current regime.

Again, that's not an answer. Specifics: What data? Who will collect it? How? How often? What are the current methods and what makes your version more efficient?
You have a habit of giving answers that are so vague as to be useless.

 

[protectionist]

NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

*bump*

He and you both wouldn't post such sillieness, if you had read (and understood) the OP.
Don't you read the thread ? In the future, please don't come in here unprepared. Until then, this is for you >>>

 

[SteadyMercury]

Don't you read the thread ?

I read the thread. From what I can tell you fear immigrants will work harder/smarter/faster than you, and as a solution you'd like to implement policies to protect you from needing to succeed on your own merit.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

What is illogical about temporary minimal governent support to prevent people from starving or turning to crime and allow them to find a job that suits their needs/skills/abilities rather than begging or stealing?

It's illogical, because giving people a buffer where they can relax, encourages them to use the buffer. As I said, if they know there is no buffer they will A) work harder to not get fired, B) make sure they have a backup plan in case they get laid off, C) work harder to quickly get a job when they do get fired. Paying someone to enjoy their time off is stupid no matter how temporary. I've never been out of work for even one day in my entire life. No one in my family has ever been out of work. Not even for one day. I do have distant relatives that took advantage of the extension of unemployment benefits to stay unemployed for years till that ran out. Shockingly they all got jobs "moments" after the unemployment benefits ran out. Unemployment benefits are nothing more than paid vacation time. Paid to do nothing.

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.

By what you're saying there would be no ability to search for own work. As soon as a person is fired or quits, then the Nanny-State govenment you're proposing would give the person a job. What about someone looking for his first job? Or someone returning to the labor market after an absence?

By what you're saying it's impossible for someone to do two things concurrently. You are saying humans are incapable of working one shift and searching for a job when they are not working that shift. lol.. that's just silly. What I described is not a nanny state. Being paid to work is not having a nanny take care of you. Our current system is a nanny state. My proposal ends the nanny state. Thus, your accusation is baseless, false, .. your accusation is quite frankly, asinine. As for "first job" you can look for your "first job" while going to school. That's how most successful students do it.

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

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.

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

It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy. You must have worked for the government. Military or civilian?

People are unemployed because they got laid off. Or quit. Or are looking for their first job. Or are retutning to the labor force. Almost no one can find a job instantly...there will always be a lag. That's frictional unemployment..can't get rid of it. But you would practically criminalize it?

Blah blah blah... working is not punishment. Stealing income from others that's theft, which is a crime, albeit a legal one under our current laws through unemployment. You want a buffer, buy your own. I don't want your damn buffer, why the effing hell do I have to pay for yours?

Then there's structural unemployment, where you may have 100 jobs for 100 people, but 55 jobs are for engineers and 45 for doctors, but there are only 47 engineers and 53 doctors. That gives 8% unemployment even though the number of available jobs matches the available number of workers.

Blah blah blah... there's always room for more engineers and more doctors. This idea that there is a limit to the number of jobs to do is complete BS.

Look...UI benefits are not great and not much above minimum wage.

I see so because the maximum amount you can get is only a little above minimum wage it's ok to pay people a little above minimum wage to do nothing? ROFL Why is the gift of my income to you so you can sit on your ass better than me paying you a wage for work?

For some perhaps, the differential is small enough that they're better off getting a little less than min wage in benefits and not having to work than working 40 hours a week at a min wage job for only a few dollars more than UI. The world's not perfect. For most a little assistnace is necessary to take care of necessities while looking for a job. I hold that it's better to supplement a person while s/he looks for a job that matches his/her skills and abilities than waste him/her on a minimum wage job that hurts his/her ability to look for work.

I see so the idea is make people who are unemployed better off... not to get them working again. ROFL

in blue...

 

[pinqy]

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.

What is illogical about temporary minimal governent support to prevent people from starving or turning to crime and allow them to find a job that suits their needs/skills/abilities rather than begging or stealing?

It's illogical, because giving people a buffer where they can relax, encourages them to use the buffer. As I said, if they know there is no buffer they will A) work harder to not get fired, B) make sure they have a backup plan in case they get laid off, C) work harder to quickly get a job when they do get fired. Paying someone to enjoy their time off is stupid no matter how temporary. I've never been out of work for even one day in my entire life. No one in my family has ever been out of work. Not even for one day. I do have distant relatives that took advantage of the extension of unemployment benefits to stay unemployed for years till that ran out. Shockingly they all got jobs "moments" after the unemployment benefits ran out. Unemployment benefits are nothing more than paid vacation time. Paid to do nothing.

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.

By what you're saying there would be no ability to search for own work. As soon as a person is fired or quits, then the Nanny-State govenment you're proposing would give the person a job. What about someone looking for his first job? Or someone returning to the labor market after an absence?

By what you're saying it's impossible for someone to do two things concurrently. You are saying humans are incapable of working one shift and searching for a job when they are not working that shift. lol.. that's just silly. What I described is not a nanny state. Being paid to work is not having a nanny take care of you. Our current system is a nanny state. My proposal ends the nanny state. Thus, your accusation is baseless, false, .. your accusation is quite frankly, asinine. As for "first job" you can look for your "first job" while going to school. That's how most successful students do it.

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

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.

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

It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy. You must have worked for the government. Military or civilian?

People are unemployed because they got laid off. Or quit. Or are looking for their first job. Or are retutning to the labor force. Almost no one can find a job instantly...there will always be a lag. That's frictional unemployment..can't get rid of it. But you would practically criminalize it?

Blah blah blah... working is not punishment. Stealing income from others that's theft, which is a crime, albeit a legal one under our current laws through unemployment. You want a buffer, buy your own. I don't want your damn buffer, why the effing hell do I have to pay for yours?

Then there's structural unemployment, where you may have 100 jobs for 100 people, but 55 jobs are for engineers and 45 for doctors, but there are only 47 engineers and 53 doctors. That gives 8% unemployment even though the number of available jobs matches the available number of workers.

Blah blah blah... there's always room for more engineers and more doctors. This idea that there is a limit to the number of jobs to do is complete BS.

Look...UI benefits are not great and not much above minimum wage.

I see so because the maximum amount you can get is only a little above minimum wage it's ok to pay people a little above minimum wage to do nothing? ROFL Why is the gift of my income to you so you can sit on your ass better than me paying you a wage for work?

For some perhaps, the differential is small enough that they're better off getting a little less than min wage in benefits and not having to work than working 40 hours a week at a min wage job for only a few dollars more than UI. The world's not perfect. For most a little assistnace is necessary to take care of necessities while looking for a job. I hold that it's better to supplement a person while s/he looks for a job that matches his/her skills and abilities than waste him/her on a minimum wage job that hurts his/her ability to look for work.

I see so the idea is make people who are unemployed better off... not to get them working again. ROFL

in blue...

Let's hit a main point here. You say that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyone in the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them. How do you propose to manage that level of government monitoring and interference, especially when we're talking many times more people than receiving benefits? Your system sounds a lot like the Soviet Union.

As for your claim that without a buffer people will work harder to avoid getting fired...you are ignoring layoffs from down-sizing or business failure. During the recession there were 9 people unemployed (total looking for work, not just those receiving benefits) so your claims that there are always plenty of jobs is idiotic.

Mexico (except for Mexico City) has no unemployment insurance. Is that really your model of how things should be?

Your major error is referring to all unemployed as if they were leeches or should have no problem finding a job. Yet, as I already mentioned, those receiving benefits are only a third of total unemployed. In December 2014, there were 2.69 million people who had been looking for work for more than 26 weeks (the state maximimum). over half of them (1.78 million) had been looking for work for over a year. So right there, that's more than the total number of people receiving benefits. So clearly, it's not that easy to find work even if there are no benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

let's go with anyone who can claim to unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

That's a non-answer. Explain the mechanism. If you're saying there is a more efficient way to collect the metrics, you must have some idea of what that way is. And yet you refuse to explain.

Sure; it should be done on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States than it is currently being done under our current regime.

Again, that's not an answer. Specifics: What data? Who will collect it? How? How often? What are the current methods and what makes your version more efficient?
You have a habit of giving answers that are so vague as to be useless.

Ok, since you asked, here is the paradigm: A social safety net should only end when it is no longer necessary or it merely sacrifices the end to the means.

And, since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, public policies (which constitute public Use), should correct for market inefficiencies whenever possible in order to achieve those gains from productivity.

The market for labor is one example. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our republic. We could be solving simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that corrects for both, a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty when due merely to a lack income usually associated with employment.

 

[pinqy]

]
But you refuse to define the term unemployed as you use it.
What exact method of collection are you proposing that would be more efficient?

let's go with anyone who can claim to unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

That's a non-answer. Explain the mechanism. If you're saying there is a more efficient way to collect the metrics, you must have some idea of what that way is. And yet you refuse to explain.

Sure; it should be done on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States than it is currently being done under our current regime.

Again, that's not an answer. Specifics: What data? Who will collect it? How? How often? What are the current methods and what makes your version more efficient?
You have a habit of giving answers that are so vague as to be useless.

Ok, since you asked, here is the paradigm: A social safety net should only end when it is no longer necessary or it merely sacrifices the end to the means.

And, since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, public policies (which constitute public Use), should correct for market inefficiencies whenever possible in order to achieve those gains from productivity.

The market for labor is one example. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our republic. We could be solving simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that corrects for both, a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty when due merely to a lack income usually associated with employment.

I didn't ask for the paradigm or your philosophy. You made a specific claim. I'd forgotten this is all you do: You claim something is possible without ever giving details on how it would be possible. Never any specifics or mechanisms...just empty assertions.

 

[danielpalos]

let's go with anyone who can claim to unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

That's a non-answer. Explain the mechanism. If you're saying there is a more efficient way to collect the metrics, you must have some idea of what that way is. And yet you refuse to explain.

Sure; it should be done on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States than it is currently being done under our current regime.

Again, that's not an answer. Specifics: What data? Who will collect it? How? How often? What are the current methods and what makes your version more efficient?
You have a habit of giving answers that are so vague as to be useless.

Ok, since you asked, here is the paradigm: A social safety net should only end when it is no longer necessary or it merely sacrifices the end to the means.

And, since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, public policies (which constitute public Use), should correct for market inefficiencies whenever possible in order to achieve those gains from productivity.

The market for labor is one example. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our republic. We could be solving simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that corrects for both, a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty when due merely to a lack income usually associated with employment.

I didn't ask for the paradigm or your philosophy. You made a specific claim. I'd forgotten this is all you do: You claim something is possible without ever giving details on how it would be possible. Never any specifics or mechanisms...just empty assertions.

Sorry; i didn't realize you didn't have a clue or a Cause.

The concept involved is employment at will and unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis.