This is a joke right? Workers decided they don't need to be earning the income they once had because they no longer feel they want to have a full time job, or it's because they have decided they would much rather look after the kids? Are you being serious? Underemployment MEANS they are unable to find work at the income they once had and have to "settle" with earning less, perhaps even work two jobs to make up the loss of income under one (which would also make an increase in the job numbers deceptive and misleading). You are able to figure out what underemployment means with respect to a bad economy, aren't you?
There's no set definition for "underemployment." The definition Gallup uses for their measure is
Respondents who work either for an employer or for themselves, and do not work more than 30 hours per week at either job are categorized as employed part time. Additionally, when asked, these respondents indicated they do want to work more than 30 hours per week.
Gallup definitions
So nothing to do with unable to find full time or having to settle. People working part time because they need to look after kids or elderly or share a car or juggle school will be classified as "underemployed" by Gallup's measure. I find it revealing that you just invented your own definition rather than try to find what was actually used for the measure you were discussing.
Invented? You really don't know anything about this economy and the variables that show it's TRUE condition (which is far worse than just a simple 8.3% unemployment the media loves to project while hiding behind the true recession figures).
Actually, since I do this for a living, I know quite a good deal about it. The T cited "Unemployment" as near 20%. You attempted to back that up with Gallup's "UNDERemployment" rate, which is not the same thing. You also claimed that "underemployment" meant "
they are unable to find work at the income they once had and have to "settle" with earning less, but as I demonstrated, that is certainly NOT the definition Gallup used, so you were claiming, falsely, that the number meant someting it didn't.
You need to do a little more investigating on this recession and educate yourself a bit instead of settling for the "sweet coating" figures from the liberal media, like MSNBC.
I don't....I go straight to the databases of BLS, Census, BEA, etc.
Labor that falls under the underemployment classification includes those workers that are highly skilled but working in low paying jobs, workers that are highly skilled but work in low skill jobs and part-time workers that would prefer to be full-time. This is different from unemployment in that the individual is working but isn't working at their full capability.
That is a definition of Underemployment, but it is NOT the one used for the number you were citing. Nobody really publishes any data on "highly skilled but working in low paying jobs" because precise definitions and collection of such data (especially seperating economic from non-economic reasons) are practically impossible.
When looking at data you MUST discuss them using the definitions used for that data. You can't just claim they mean something they don't really mean. At least not honestly.
The Gallup Unederemployment rate is Unemployed (not working, looked for work in last 4 weeks) plus part-time workers who say they want full time work as a percent of the Labor Force (employed plus unemployed). It does NOT measure whether someone used to work full time or any skills mismatch.
Of course there's more to the labor market and the underlying conditions than the simple unemployment rate. But that doesn't mean the UE rate is wrong or misleading...it measures what it measures and if you want more info you have to know where to look because the media doesn't cover it. Bloggers cover it badly.
partisanship got us the NDAA 2012. Partisanship got us the Patriot Act. You can keep those senators and Congressmen who supported those things. **** the GOP and the Democratic Party.
)
