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.
That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit.
Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment.
why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? .
Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
This is why you can NOT use the unemployment rate as an accurate stand alone means to judge the state of the economy. This is precisely why you should be knowledgeable to what the unemployment rate actually covers before you start spouting figures.
U3 is still U3
It measures the same thing it always has
That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit.
Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment.
why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? .
Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit.
Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment.
why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? .
Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Right. What they're saying is that too many people would be left out if only those collecting benefits were counted AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT DOE NOT COUNT JUST THOSE WHO COLLECT BENEFITS!
Did you not read your own link? "Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country."
And from the BLS Technical Note to the Employment Situation
" People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits."
It does not "fill in the list." The survey is the only source for the national level data. For the local area data, the UI rolls and other state data are used to adjust the survey as the sample for each state is too small.That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit.
Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment.
why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? .
Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Right. What they're saying is that too many people would be left out if only those collecting benefits were counted AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT DOE NOT COUNT JUST THOSE WHO COLLECT BENEFITS!
Did you not read your own link? "Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country."
And from the BLS Technical Note to the Employment Situation
" People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits."
Another one lagging behind the learning curve. I just mentioned the random survey as a way to fill in the list data for those who are no longer are elligeable for unemployment compensation, it's still not accurate.
How do you figure that?If you read the website, they said it wouldn't be feasible to ask everyone that is unemployed what their status is so they use a RANDOM SURVEY to make up the data. It doesn't escape the truth that the numbers they use more accurately depicts those still receiving benefits.
What a pile of crap. Fannie's share of the market dropped 50-67% around 2003 as GOP cronies like Countrywide and Leiman took over the market, allowing anyone with a pulse to get a loan and Boooshie oversight let AIG insure toxic assets, bundle them, and sell them around the world. GOP pressure on Fannie to join in got them in later. Sorry about facts.No one doubts our economy could be better, though we have the best economy in the world amid a world of recession and continued depression in many places, but whose fault is all this? I'll go with the bought off GOP who started a world depression and have obstructed all the typical solutions for 7 years now. AND continue the 35 year pander to the rich, no real investment in anything for 35 years.Economic disaster?
More than doubled the stock market
Saved the banks and auto companies
Added $50 trillion to nations wealth
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%
Some "disaster"
If job security could be summed up by simply throwing out a 5% unemployment rate, the economy would not be an issue among voters this time around. Unless the real economy lies in the type of jobs Americans are finding.
Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
Three-quarters of those who label themselves as such say they're not working in a job that uses their education and training. One quarter say they are working part time but want full-time work.
Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
* The unemployment rate for new college grads is 5.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent in 2007.
* Young high school grads have an unemployment rate of 17.9 percent, compared with 15.9 percent in 2007.
for recent high-school graduates, about one-third are currently underemployed, compared with roughly 27 percent in 2007
Young college grads are suffering from an underemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared with 9.6 percent in 2007
At the same time, many are entering the workforce with higher levels of debt, thanks to tuition fees that have increased far faster than median family income.
* Recent grads who are "idled" -- neither enrolled in school nor employed -- is still higher than before the recession. For college grads, the rate is now almost 10 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 2007. About 15.5 percent of young high-school grads are now idled, compared with 13.7 percent in 2007.
* People of color are especially hard-hit. Young black college grads have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in April 2007.
Job quality has eroded. In 2001, almost 42 percent of new college grads found jobs with pensions. That declined to just over 29 percent in 2015
Welcome to the job market, class of 2016: It still stinks
see sig PP1- from 2007- and rolling on...
I'd go back further to changing of CRA in 1994, using race to force banks to lend to those who were shown to have a very poor credit history, and the democrats failure to pursue strict oversight of Fannie and Freddie who were mismanaging funds and later collapsed to begin the downward spiral towards this Great Recession. Then again blaming Bush or the rich ones easier, over rooting out the cause of the two government agency's collapse ... and comes as no surprise.
What a pile of crap. Fannie's share of the market dropped 50-67% around 2003 as GOP cronies like Countrywide and Leiman took over the market, allowing anyone with a pulse to get a loan and Boooshie oversight let AIG insure toxic assets, bundle them, and sell them around the world. GOP pressure on Fannie to join in got them in later. Sorry about facts.No one doubts our economy could be better, though we have the best economy in the world amid a world of recession and continued depression in many places, but whose fault is all this? I'll go with the bought off GOP who started a world depression and have obstructed all the typical solutions for 7 years now. AND continue the 35 year pander to the rich, no real investment in anything for 35 years.Economic disaster?
More than doubled the stock market
Saved the banks and auto companies
Added $50 trillion to nations wealth
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%
Some "disaster"
If job security could be summed up by simply throwing out a 5% unemployment rate, the economy would not be an issue among voters this time around. Unless the real economy lies in the type of jobs Americans are finding.
Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
Three-quarters of those who label themselves as such say they're not working in a job that uses their education and training. One quarter say they are working part time but want full-time work.
Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
* The unemployment rate for new college grads is 5.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent in 2007.
* Young high school grads have an unemployment rate of 17.9 percent, compared with 15.9 percent in 2007.
for recent high-school graduates, about one-third are currently underemployed, compared with roughly 27 percent in 2007
Young college grads are suffering from an underemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared with 9.6 percent in 2007
At the same time, many are entering the workforce with higher levels of debt, thanks to tuition fees that have increased far faster than median family income.
* Recent grads who are "idled" -- neither enrolled in school nor employed -- is still higher than before the recession. For college grads, the rate is now almost 10 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 2007. About 15.5 percent of young high-school grads are now idled, compared with 13.7 percent in 2007.
* People of color are especially hard-hit. Young black college grads have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in April 2007.
Job quality has eroded. In 2001, almost 42 percent of new college grads found jobs with pensions. That declined to just over 29 percent in 2015
Welcome to the job market, class of 2016: It still stinks
see sig PP1- from 2007- and rolling on...
I'd go back further to changing of CRA in 1994, using race to force banks to lend to those who were shown to have a very poor credit history, and the democrats failure to pursue strict oversight of Fannie and Freddie who were mismanaging funds and later collapsed to begin the downward spiral towards this Great Recession. Then again blaming Bush or the rich ones easier, over rooting out the cause of the two government agency's collapse ... and comes as no surprise.
Your headline is a RW LIE. Those are the employees, not F+F. How much did they give to the GOP? Another bs pile of crap, dupe.What a pile of crap. Fannie's share of the market dropped 50-67% around 2003 as GOP cronies like Countrywide and Leiman took over the market, allowing anyone with a pulse to get a loan and Boooshie oversight let AIG insure toxic assets, bundle them, and sell them around the world. GOP pressure on Fannie to join in got them in later. Sorry about facts.No one doubts our economy could be better, though we have the best economy in the world amid a world of recession and continued depression in many places, but whose fault is all this? I'll go with the bought off GOP who started a world depression and have obstructed all the typical solutions for 7 years now. AND continue the 35 year pander to the rich, no real investment in anything for 35 years.Economic disaster?
More than doubled the stock market
Saved the banks and auto companies
Added $50 trillion to nations wealth
Added 13 million jobs
Cut unemployment rate by 5%
Some "disaster"
If job security could be summed up by simply throwing out a 5% unemployment rate, the economy would not be an issue among voters this time around. Unless the real economy lies in the type of jobs Americans are finding.
Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
Three-quarters of those who label themselves as such say they're not working in a job that uses their education and training. One quarter say they are working part time but want full-time work.
Nearly half of U.S. workers consider themselves underemployed, report says
* The unemployment rate for new college grads is 5.6 percent, compared with 5.5 percent in 2007.
* Young high school grads have an unemployment rate of 17.9 percent, compared with 15.9 percent in 2007.
for recent high-school graduates, about one-third are currently underemployed, compared with roughly 27 percent in 2007
Young college grads are suffering from an underemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared with 9.6 percent in 2007
At the same time, many are entering the workforce with higher levels of debt, thanks to tuition fees that have increased far faster than median family income.
* Recent grads who are "idled" -- neither enrolled in school nor employed -- is still higher than before the recession. For college grads, the rate is now almost 10 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 2007. About 15.5 percent of young high-school grads are now idled, compared with 13.7 percent in 2007.
* People of color are especially hard-hit. Young black college grads have an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, compared with 8.9 percent in April 2007.
Job quality has eroded. In 2001, almost 42 percent of new college grads found jobs with pensions. That declined to just over 29 percent in 2015
Welcome to the job market, class of 2016: It still stinks
see sig PP1- from 2007- and rolling on...
I'd go back further to changing of CRA in 1994, using race to force banks to lend to those who were shown to have a very poor credit history, and the democrats failure to pursue strict oversight of Fannie and Freddie who were mismanaging funds and later collapsed to begin the downward spiral towards this Great Recession. Then again blaming Bush or the rich ones easier, over rooting out the cause of the two government agency's collapse ... and comes as no surprise.
The top five benefactors receiving contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
1. Senator Dodd, Christopher J - D-CT
$133,900
2. Senator Kerry, John - D-MA
$111,000
3. Senator Obama, Barack - D-IL
$105,849
4. Senator Clinton, Hillary - D-NY
$75,550
5. Congressman Kanjorski, Paul E - D -PA
$65,500
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats
You don't want to go down this road, I'd be willing to bet I've got a lot more research on the topic, too much that's appropriate for the topic on this thread. If you want to start another thread on the subject, I'll gladly disclose all my research there as I can go on for quite a while.
Again from the government website:It does not "fill in the list." The survey is the only source for the national level data. For the local area data, the UI rolls and other state data are used to adjust the survey as the sample for each state is too small.That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?You do realize the tracking of unemployment is based upon those who "qualify" to receive that benefit.
Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.There are also those who have been part of a lay off reduction of force multiple times during those 8 years. Job.numbers doesn't differentiate between long term employment or 3 month employment.
why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?So are we talking about workers finally receiving long term employment or the same worker trying his luck with another position? .
Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Right. What they're saying is that too many people would be left out if only those collecting benefits were counted AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT DOE NOT COUNT JUST THOSE WHO COLLECT BENEFITS!
Did you not read your own link? "Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country."
And from the BLS Technical Note to the Employment Situation
" People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits."
Another one lagging behind the learning curve. I just mentioned the random survey as a way to fill in the list data for those who are no longer are elligeable for unemployment compensation, it's still not accurate.
How do you figure that?If you read the website, they said it wouldn't be feasible to ask everyone that is unemployed what their status is so they use a RANDOM SURVEY to make up the data. It doesn't escape the truth that the numbers they use more accurately depicts those still receiving benefits.
I used to work at BLS. I know the methodology very well.
But that does NOT say that the basis is unemployment benefits and the CPS used to supplement.It does not "fill in the list." The survey is the only source for the national level data. For the local area data, the UI rolls and other state data are used to adjust the survey as the sample for each state is too small.That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.
why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?
Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Right. What they're saying is that too many people would be left out if only those collecting benefits were counted AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT DOE NOT COUNT JUST THOSE WHO COLLECT BENEFITS!
Did you not read your own link? "Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country."
And from the BLS Technical Note to the Employment Situation
" People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits."
Another one lagging behind the learning curve. I just mentioned the random survey as a way to fill in the list data for those who are no longer are elligeable for unemployment compensation, it's still not accurate.
How do you figure that?If you read the website, they said it wouldn't be feasible to ask everyone that is unemployed what their status is so they use a RANDOM SURVEY to make up the data. It doesn't escape the truth that the numbers they use more accurately depicts those still receiving benefits.
Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is IMPRACTIBLE to count EVERY unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
From the government website, just like I had previously said almost word for word in my previous response.
Right. But that has NOTHING to do with the unemployment data used for the unemployment rate. As you read, it comes from the Current Population Survey. What part of " The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits Makes you think unemployment benefits play a part?????I used to work at BLS. I know the methodology very well.
Which explains earlier why you didn't know that the unemployment number only covers the vast majority who are STILL receiving benefits. When you are laid off the first question they ask is your employment history, to see if you earned enough unemployment benefits to "qualify" for those benefits. If you didn't earn enough through your time of prior work with your employer YOU CAN'T RECEIVE THEM. Without unemployment following up your progress they don't know how long you are unemployed for or what form of employment you choose to pursue (part-time, or a change in employment opportunity that earns less). They would have to physically call you to keep tabs if you are no longer "REQUIRED" to report to them on a monthly basis, because you are not qualified in receiving any benefits. This is very basic knowledge, and you would have already known that without someone like myself having to provide a website and explain it. Your supposed knowledge is obviously in need of retraining..
I showed you the numbers. Again?I'd seriously suggest you educate yourself first before [in all your knowledge] you begin the discussion by not understanding how the unemployment figure is "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits".
Hey dipshit. If you are going to plagiarize several sources, and splice them together, you need to provide the source links, mm-kay?That is about all you could could call it. I would hate to have seen McCain or Romney become president, both of whom I despise, but it's undeniable but obama has made a complete mess of the economy, almost as bad as he's been on national security. (and that's pretty bad)
On the wealth gap,according to a report from the Pew Research Center, in 2014 upper income households had almost seven times the wealth of middle class households. That is the largest gap between these respective groups in the three decades the Fed has collected such data. Yes, it's even higher than the "Evil 80s" under Reagan.
Recall President Obama's campaign exchange with Joe the Plumber when he stated, "And I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Yet, lower and middle class Americans, groups with which Democrats so often claim allegiance, have fallen further down the economic ladder under President Obama. Consider this staggering comparison: In 2007, the average household income in America was $55,627. In 2014, that figure had slipped to $53,880 -- Americans earned less on average than they did seven years prior. So, what has happened is that the average American family has been earning less than it did when the great Recession began. All the while, over that same period prices of practically everything else we buy rose.
According to government data, in 2007 the lowest quintile of earners in America made up 3.4% of total earnings. That means the lowest 20% of earners in America only collected 3.4% of the total earnings pie in 2007.
In 2013 (the latest available data), that figure had dropped to 3.2%. Bear with me on the math, because it is damning evidence of Obama's Utopian economic failure. That reduction from 3.4% to 3.2% of total earnings means these folks have seen a 6.25% reduction in the slice of their total earnings pie over that period.
What about the highest earning quintile? Over that same period, their slice of the pie actually swelled from 49.7% in 2007 to 51.0% in 2013.
The New York Times, cited a National Employment Law Project study in an April article in which it was noted that a million jobs in middle-income industries were lost during the Great Recession. The article added that those million workers then often found themselves either unemployed or flipping burgers at a minimum wage job.
And the scorecard for Blacks ? (who so overwhelmingly support him and Hillary Clinton) >>> Some Obama supporters will defend him by saying that the Black unemployment rate has dropped from 12.7% when he took office to 11.1% as of November 2014, the latest reported month. At first glance, that might appear impressive. However, the reason that figure has dropped is because so many Blacks have actually dropped out of the labor force.
In January 2009, there were 10,312,000 Blacks not in the labor force. As of November 2014, the latest available data, that figure had swelled to 11,923,000. That represents more than a 15% increase in Black Americans who have exited the workforce
Look at SNAP (commonly known as "food stamps." The program, has grew from $54.8 billion in 2009 to $69.4 billion in 2014. In January 2015, the number of beneficiaries receiving food stamps topped 46 million for 38 straight months, with 14.6 percent of the population and 19.7 percent of all households receiving food stamps. This represents an increase of 1516.96 % over the 2.9 million Americans participating in the food stamp program in 1969. Not good Barrack.
The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015.
Despite Obama’s promises that the implementation of Obamacare would lower health-care costs, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the Consumer Price Index, CPI, for medical care services has continued a straight-line increase since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The CPI for medical care services has increased from 149.952 in January 2009 to 186.961 in February 2016.
The labor-force participation rate has fallen consistently under the Obama administration as an increasing percentage of those out of work and looking for work simply give up and quit looking. The labor-force participation rate has dropped from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.9 percent in February 2016. Beware of false reports of drops in the unemployment rate, as reported by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics. These have become virtually meaningless, with the Obamans having adopted a policy of making unemployment percentages look artificially low by increasing the number of workers considered no longer in the work force.
Actually, these workers ARE a part of the workforce, in that they WANT a job, but have stopped looking because of a repetitive inability to get hired (no thanks to Obama's immigration-friendly policies)
John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulate “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes. Williams writes in his subscription newsletter on ShadowStats.com. ““The broad economic outlook has not changed, despite the heavily-distorted numbers that continue to be published by the BLS,”The unemployment rates have not dropped from peak levels due to a surge in hiring; instead, they generally have dropped because of discouraged workers being eliminated from headline labor-force accounting.”
The federal debt is projected to nearly double under President Obama, with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart showing it has increased from $11.1 trillion in the first quarter 2009 to $18.9 trillion in the fourth quarter 2015. At the end of the George W. Bush presidency in January 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It is projected to exceed $20 trillion by the end of Obama’s presidency in January 2017.
While Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve policy of printing money to buy U.S. Treasury Department-issued government debt, known among economists as QE, began under President George W. Bush, it took off under President Obama. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis chart shows the adjusted monetary base of the United States rose from $1.772 trillion on Jan. 14, 2009, to $3.996 trillion as of March 16, 2016.
Real median household income in the United States has declined from a height of $57,357 in 2007 under President George W. Bush to $53,657 in 2014 under President Obama. The calculation takes into consideration the “Obama economic recovery,” in that real median household income in the United States by 2013 rose to $54,426 in 2013, from a low of $52,605 in 2012, only to fall back again in 2014.
Home ownership under Obamanomics has continued a straight-line decline that began with the collapse of the substandard real estate market during George W. Bush’s second term in office. The home-ownership rate has declined from 67.4 percent in 2009 to 63.7 in the second quarter 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the rate of home ownership in the second quarter 2015 hit a 48-year low, reflecting the reality that fewer middle class Americans can afford to buy a home. Under Obama, an increasing number of Americans are living in rented homes, with the American dream of owning a home no longer an economic reality.
On the wealth gap,according to a report from the Pew Research Center, in 2014 upper income households had almost seven times the wealth of middle class households. That is the largest gap between these respective groups in the three decades the Fed has collected such data. Yes, it's even higher than the "Evil 80s" under Reagan.
Consider the wealth gap. According to a report from the Pew Research Center, in 2014 upper income households had almost seven times the wealth of middle class households. That is the largest gap between these respective groups in the three decades the Fed has collected such data. Yes, it's even higher than the "Evil 80s" under Reagan.
Home ownership under Obamanomics has continued a straight-line decline that began with the collapse of the substandard real estate market during George W. Bush’s second term in office. The home-ownership rate has declined from 67.4 percent in 2009 to 63.7 in the second quarter 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the rate of home ownership in the second quarter 2015 hit a 48-year low, reflecting the reality that fewer middle class Americans can afford to buy a home. Under Obama, an increasing number of Americans are living in rented homes, with the American dream of owning a home no longer an economic reality.
Home ownership under Obamanomics has continued a straight-line decline that began with the collapse of the substandard real estate market during George W. Bush’s second term in office. The home-ownership rate has declined from 67.4 percent in 2009 to 63.7 in the second quarter 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the rate of home ownership in the second quarter 2015 hit a 48-year low, reflecting the reality that fewer middle class Americans can afford to buy a home. Under Obama, an increasing number of Americans are living in rented homes, with the American dream of owning a home no longer an economic reality.
Again from the government website:It does not "fill in the list." The survey is the only source for the national level data. For the local area data, the UI rolls and other state data are used to adjust the survey as the sample for each state is too small.That has never been true. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Because it's a monthly figure. Duration of unemployment is tracked though.
why does that make a difference to just counting the total number employed for a month?
Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Right. What they're saying is that too many people would be left out if only those collecting benefits were counted AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT DOE NOT COUNT JUST THOSE WHO COLLECT BENEFITS!
Did you not read your own link? "Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country."
And from the BLS Technical Note to the Employment Situation
" People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits."
Another one lagging behind the learning curve. I just mentioned the random survey as a way to fill in the list data for those who are no longer are elligeable for unemployment compensation, it's still not accurate.
How do you figure that?If you read the website, they said it wouldn't be feasible to ask everyone that is unemployed what their status is so they use a RANDOM SURVEY to make up the data. It doesn't escape the truth that the numbers they use more accurately depicts those still receiving benefits.
"Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is IMPRACTIBLE to count EVERY unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country."
That came directly from the government website, just like I had previously stated almost word for word in my previous response.
I used to work at BLS. I know the methodology very well.
Which explains earlier why you didn't know that the unemployment number only covers the vast majority who are STILL receiving benefits. When you are laid off the first question they ask is your employment history, to see if you earned enough unemployment benefits to "qualify" for those benefits. If you didn't earn enough through your time of prior work with your employer YOU CAN'T RECEIVE THEM. Without unemployment following up your progress they don't know how long you are unemployed for or what form of employment you choose to pursue (part-time, or a change in employment opportunity that earns less). They would have to physically call you to keep tabs if you are no longer "REQUIRED" to report to them on a monthly basis, because you are not qualified in receiving any benefits. This is very basic knowledge, and you would have already known that without someone like myself having to provide a website and explain it. Your supposed knowledge is obviously in need of retraining..
I really don't like wasting time constantly having to show you what's already stated clearly in the web page concerning those areas of inaccuracies within the unemployment numbers. As well as repeating myself about the random surveys to make up the data gap.
I'd seriously suggest you educate yourself first before [in all your knowledge] you begin the discussion by not understanding how the unemployment figure is "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits".
But that does NOT say that the basis is unemployment benefits and the CPS used to supplement.It does not "fill in the list." The survey is the only source for the national level data. For the local area data, the UI rolls and other state data are used to adjust the survey as the sample for each state is too small.Read for yourself.
Maybe rightwinger can learn something too
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
Right. What they're saying is that too many people would be left out if only those collecting benefits were counted AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT DOE NOT COUNT JUST THOSE WHO COLLECT BENEFITS!
Did you not read your own link? "Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country."
And from the BLS Technical Note to the Employment Situation
" People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits."
Another one lagging behind the learning curve. I just mentioned the random survey as a way to fill in the list data for those who are no longer are elligeable for unemployment compensation, it's still not accurate.
How do you figure that?If you read the website, they said it wouldn't be feasible to ask everyone that is unemployed what their status is so they use a RANDOM SURVEY to make up the data. It doesn't escape the truth that the numbers they use more accurately depicts those still receiving benefits.
Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is IMPRACTIBLE to count EVERY unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
From the government website, just like I had previously said almost word for word in my previous response.
The CPS, NOT unemployment benefits or anything else, is what is used to calculate the national labor force numbers.
Right. But that has NOTHING to do with the unemployment data used for the unemployment rate. As you read, it comes from the Current Population Survey. What part of " The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits Makes you think unemployment benefits play a part?????I used to work at BLS. I know the methodology very well.
Which explains earlier why you didn't know that the unemployment number only covers the vast majority who are STILL receiving benefits. When you are laid off the first question they ask is your employment history, to see if you earned enough unemployment benefits to "qualify" for those benefits. If you didn't earn enough through your time of prior work with your employer YOU CAN'T RECEIVE THEM. Without unemployment following up your progress they don't know how long you are unemployed for or what form of employment you choose to pursue (part-time, or a change in employment opportunity that earns less). They would have to physically call you to keep tabs if you are no longer "REQUIRED" to report to them on a monthly basis, because you are not qualified in receiving any benefits. This is very basic knowledge, and you would have already known that without someone like myself having to provide a website and explain it. Your supposed knowledge is obviously in need of retraining..
I showed you the numbers. Again?I'd seriously suggest you educate yourself first before [in all your knowledge] you begin the discussion by not understanding how the unemployment figure is "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits".
Ok. For the week of September 11-17 2016, BLS says there were 7,658,000 unemployed. 991,000 had quit their job (not eligible for unemployment benefits), 2,367,000 re-entering the labor force (not eligible for benefits) and 764,000 people looking for their first job. so that's 53.8% of those classified as unemployed not even ELIGIBLE for unemployment benefits. So that leaves 3,536,000 who were laid off or finished temporary jobs. According to the Dept of Labor, for the week of 11-17 September there were 1,795,740 people receiving unemployment benefits from all programs. So how is the unemployment number "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits" when only 23.4% of those classified as unemployed are receiving benefits.
Let's make this as simple as possible: Go to the BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 1
You don't even have to read it, just do a search. And tell me where in that document it talks about how unemployment benefits are used to calculate the unemployment rate. I'll give you a hint. Nowhere.
I really have no idea how you can read the BLS site and still think benefits are used in any way.
And? No one is arguing otherwise. Because all that is true, the government uses a monthly household survey. This way, people not receiving benefits or whose benefits have run out are captured.But that does NOT say that the basis is unemployment benefits and the CPS used to supplement.It does not "fill in the list." The survey is the only source for the national level data. For the local area data, the UI rolls and other state data are used to adjust the survey as the sample for each state is too small.Right. What they're saying is that too many people would be left out if only those collecting benefits were counted AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT DOE NOT COUNT JUST THOSE WHO COLLECT BENEFITS!
Did you not read your own link? "Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country."
And from the BLS Technical Note to the Employment Situation
" People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits."
Another one lagging behind the learning curve. I just mentioned the random survey as a way to fill in the list data for those who are no longer are elligeable for unemployment compensation, it's still not accurate.
How do you figure that?If you read the website, they said it wouldn't be feasible to ask everyone that is unemployed what their status is so they use a RANDOM SURVEY to make up the data. It doesn't escape the truth that the numbers they use more accurately depicts those still receiving benefits.
Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is IMPRACTIBLE to count EVERY unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
From the government website, just like I had previously said almost word for word in my previous response.
The CPS, NOT unemployment benefits or anything else, is what is used to calculate the national labor force numbers.
Right. But that has NOTHING to do with the unemployment data used for the unemployment rate. As you read, it comes from the Current Population Survey. What part of " The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits Makes you think unemployment benefits play a part?????I used to work at BLS. I know the methodology very well.
Which explains earlier why you didn't know that the unemployment number only covers the vast majority who are STILL receiving benefits. When you are laid off the first question they ask is your employment history, to see if you earned enough unemployment benefits to "qualify" for those benefits. If you didn't earn enough through your time of prior work with your employer YOU CAN'T RECEIVE THEM. Without unemployment following up your progress they don't know how long you are unemployed for or what form of employment you choose to pursue (part-time, or a change in employment opportunity that earns less). They would have to physically call you to keep tabs if you are no longer "REQUIRED" to report to them on a monthly basis, because you are not qualified in receiving any benefits. This is very basic knowledge, and you would have already known that without someone like myself having to provide a website and explain it. Your supposed knowledge is obviously in need of retraining..
I showed you the numbers. Again?I'd seriously suggest you educate yourself first before [in all your knowledge] you begin the discussion by not understanding how the unemployment figure is "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits".
Ok. For the week of September 11-17 2016, BLS says there were 7,658,000 unemployed. 991,000 had quit their job (not eligible for unemployment benefits), 2,367,000 re-entering the labor force (not eligible for benefits) and 764,000 people looking for their first job. so that's 53.8% of those classified as unemployed not even ELIGIBLE for unemployment benefits. So that leaves 3,536,000 who were laid off or finished temporary jobs. According to the Dept of Labor, for the week of 11-17 September there were 1,795,740 people receiving unemployment benefits from all programs. So how is the unemployment number "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits" when only 23.4% of those classified as unemployed are receiving benefits.
Let's make this as simple as possible: Go to the BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 1
You don't even have to read it, just do a search. And tell me where in that document it talks about how unemployment benefits are used to calculate the unemployment rate. I'll give you a hint. Nowhere.
I really have no idea how you can read the BLS site and still think benefits are used in any way.
Again, if you are unemployed (and most people could very well be unemployed for over 3 months), there is no method to track those individuals to give an accurate account of how many weeks they were without unemployment looking for work - NONE!! If they are no required to give an account to unemployment, because they are not reviving benefits.
Since the survey doesn't ask about benefits, that's not possible. However, the breakdown of duration of unemployment by reason for unemployment iis available. That would be a rough approximation as job leavers, reentrants and new entrants are not eligible for benefits.I'd suggest you show me in your next response a detailed graph that very accurately states how many clearly specified and counted separately as not receiving unemployment benefits were unemployed for 12 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, 17 weeks, or still looking after 26 weeks.
Individuals are not tracked. You know that. So you knew you were asking for information that doesn't exist. Why?With a detailed account of what form of work they later obtained so as to no longer be considered as "unemployed" (was it part-time work or full-time employment) and no longer found to be included in the unemployment rate. Good luck
The closest to that isI'd suggest you show me in your next response a detailed graph that very accurately states how many clearly specified and counted separately as not receiving unemployment benefits were unemployed for 12 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, 17 weeks, or still looking after 26 weeks.
And? No one is arguing otherwise. Because all that is true, the government uses a monthly household survey. This way, people not receiving benefits or whose benefits have run out are captured.But that does NOT say that the basis is unemployment benefits and the CPS used to supplement.It does not "fill in the list." The survey is the only source for the national level data. For the local area data, the UI rolls and other state data are used to adjust the survey as the sample for each state is too small.Another one lagging behind the learning curve. I just mentioned the random survey as a way to fill in the list data for those who are no longer are elligeable for unemployment compensation, it's still not accurate.
How do you figure that?If you read the website, they said it wouldn't be feasible to ask everyone that is unemployed what their status is so they use a RANDOM SURVEY to make up the data. It doesn't escape the truth that the numbers they use more accurately depicts those still receiving benefits.
Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is IMPRACTIBLE to count EVERY unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
From the government website, just like I had previously said almost word for word in my previous response.
The CPS, NOT unemployment benefits or anything else, is what is used to calculate the national labor force numbers.
Right. But that has NOTHING to do with the unemployment data used for the unemployment rate. As you read, it comes from the Current Population Survey. What part of " The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits Makes you think unemployment benefits play a part?????I used to work at BLS. I know the methodology very well.
Which explains earlier why you didn't know that the unemployment number only covers the vast majority who are STILL receiving benefits. When you are laid off the first question they ask is your employment history, to see if you earned enough unemployment benefits to "qualify" for those benefits. If you didn't earn enough through your time of prior work with your employer YOU CAN'T RECEIVE THEM. Without unemployment following up your progress they don't know how long you are unemployed for or what form of employment you choose to pursue (part-time, or a change in employment opportunity that earns less). They would have to physically call you to keep tabs if you are no longer "REQUIRED" to report to them on a monthly basis, because you are not qualified in receiving any benefits. This is very basic knowledge, and you would have already known that without someone like myself having to provide a website and explain it. Your supposed knowledge is obviously in need of retraining..
I showed you the numbers. Again?I'd seriously suggest you educate yourself first before [in all your knowledge] you begin the discussion by not understanding how the unemployment figure is "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits".
Ok. For the week of September 11-17 2016, BLS says there were 7,658,000 unemployed. 991,000 had quit their job (not eligible for unemployment benefits), 2,367,000 re-entering the labor force (not eligible for benefits) and 764,000 people looking for their first job. so that's 53.8% of those classified as unemployed not even ELIGIBLE for unemployment benefits. So that leaves 3,536,000 who were laid off or finished temporary jobs. According to the Dept of Labor, for the week of 11-17 September there were 1,795,740 people receiving unemployment benefits from all programs. So how is the unemployment number "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits" when only 23.4% of those classified as unemployed are receiving benefits.
Let's make this as simple as possible: Go to the BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 1
You don't even have to read it, just do a search. And tell me where in that document it talks about how unemployment benefits are used to calculate the unemployment rate. I'll give you a hint. Nowhere.
I really have no idea how you can read the BLS site and still think benefits are used in any way.
Again, if you are unemployed (and most people could very well be unemployed for over 3 months), there is no method to track those individuals to give an accurate account of how many weeks they were without unemployment looking for work - NONE!! If they are no required to give an account to unemployment, because they are not reviving benefits.
The BLS link you cited was very clear
Tracking benefits would miss too many people
Tracking everyone would be impossible
Therefore a survey is the only way.
I have no idea how you could have read the BLS site and still think only people receiving benefits are included.
Since the survey doesn't ask about benefits, that's not possible. However, the breakdown of duration of unemployment by reason for unemployment iis available. That would be a rough approximation as job leavers, reentrants and new entrants are not eligible for benefits.I'd suggest you show me in your next response a detailed graph that very accurately states how many clearly specified and counted separately as not receiving unemployment benefits were unemployed for 12 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, 17 weeks, or still looking after 26 weeks.
Individuals are not tracked. You know that. So you knew you were asking for information that doesn't exist. Why?With a detailed account of what form of work they later obtained so as to no longer be considered as "unemployed" (was it part-time work or full-time employment) and no longer found to be included in the unemployment rate. Good luck
Are you on drugs ? The OP is loaded with source links all throughout the text. Sorry to interrupt your snort-fest.Hey dipshit. If you are going to plagiarize several sources, and splice them together, you need to provide the source links, mm-kay?
Pseudocons have only two brain cells. One for Ctrl-C, and one for Ctrl-V.
No one has argued the information is complete or totally accurate: that would be impossible in any practical sense.And? No one is arguing otherwise. Because all that is true, the government uses a monthly household survey. This way, people not receiving benefits or whose benefits have run out are captured.But that does NOT say that the basis is unemployment benefits and the CPS used to supplement.It does not "fill in the list." The survey is the only source for the national level data. For the local area data, the UI rolls and other state data are used to adjust the survey as the sample for each state is too small.
How do you figure that?
Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is IMPRACTIBLE to count EVERY unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
From the government website, just like I had previously said almost word for word in my previous response.
The CPS, NOT unemployment benefits or anything else, is what is used to calculate the national labor force numbers.
Right. But that has NOTHING to do with the unemployment data used for the unemployment rate. As you read, it comes from the Current Population Survey. What part of " The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits Makes you think unemployment benefits play a part?????I used to work at BLS. I know the methodology very well.
Which explains earlier why you didn't know that the unemployment number only covers the vast majority who are STILL receiving benefits. When you are laid off the first question they ask is your employment history, to see if you earned enough unemployment benefits to "qualify" for those benefits. If you didn't earn enough through your time of prior work with your employer YOU CAN'T RECEIVE THEM. Without unemployment following up your progress they don't know how long you are unemployed for or what form of employment you choose to pursue (part-time, or a change in employment opportunity that earns less). They would have to physically call you to keep tabs if you are no longer "REQUIRED" to report to them on a monthly basis, because you are not qualified in receiving any benefits. This is very basic knowledge, and you would have already known that without someone like myself having to provide a website and explain it. Your supposed knowledge is obviously in need of retraining..
I showed you the numbers. Again?I'd seriously suggest you educate yourself first before [in all your knowledge] you begin the discussion by not understanding how the unemployment figure is "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits".
Ok. For the week of September 11-17 2016, BLS says there were 7,658,000 unemployed. 991,000 had quit their job (not eligible for unemployment benefits), 2,367,000 re-entering the labor force (not eligible for benefits) and 764,000 people looking for their first job. so that's 53.8% of those classified as unemployed not even ELIGIBLE for unemployment benefits. So that leaves 3,536,000 who were laid off or finished temporary jobs. According to the Dept of Labor, for the week of 11-17 September there were 1,795,740 people receiving unemployment benefits from all programs. So how is the unemployment number "mostly reflective of those who are still eligible to receive those benefits" when only 23.4% of those classified as unemployed are receiving benefits.
Let's make this as simple as possible: Go to the BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 1
You don't even have to read it, just do a search. And tell me where in that document it talks about how unemployment benefits are used to calculate the unemployment rate. I'll give you a hint. Nowhere.
I really have no idea how you can read the BLS site and still think benefits are used in any way.
Again, if you are unemployed (and most people could very well be unemployed for over 3 months), there is no method to track those individuals to give an accurate account of how many weeks they were without unemployment looking for work - NONE!! If they are no required to give an account to unemployment, because they are not reviving benefits.
The BLS link you cited was very clear
Tracking benefits would miss too many people
Tracking everyone would be impossible
Therefore a survey is the only way.
I have no idea how you could have read the BLS site and still think only people receiving benefits are included.
Since the survey doesn't ask about benefits, that's not possible. However, the breakdown of duration of unemployment by reason for unemployment iis available. That would be a rough approximation as job leavers, reentrants and new entrants are not eligible for benefits.I'd suggest you show me in your next response a detailed graph that very accurately states how many clearly specified and counted separately as not receiving unemployment benefits were unemployed for 12 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, 17 weeks, or still looking after 26 weeks.
Individuals are not tracked. You know that. So you knew you were asking for information that doesn't exist. Why?With a detailed account of what form of work they later obtained so as to no longer be considered as "unemployed" (was it part-time work or full-time employment) and no longer found to be included in the unemployment rate. Good luck
Individuals are not tracked unless there is a record of them receiving benefits from the government, a financial trail. There is no trail provided for those unemployed who don't qualify in receiving unemployment benefits. No exact count of those unemployed not receiving benefits can be found, else you would have easily provided such information of the exact number of those employed who are no longer eligeable in receiving any financial assistance, how long (2 weeks 17 weeks, or over 26 weeks), and what form of employment (full time or part time) they received.
In short the unemployment information is incomplete and not entirely accurate. It only took over three posts for you to see that. Now let us finally move on to the topic on hand. I'm done with this.
