[cowboywannabe]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

If they are actively seeking work, then they're already part of that figure. If you don't understand how it's calculated, why not look it up before speculating?

If Romney had won the election, this thread would be filled with the same people claiming that the drop to 7.7 was a result of increased hope resulting from Romney's win. I've yet to see a single conspiracy theorist take a consistent position on anything.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

what about those who've given up and no longer get unemployment comp?

[Captain Caveman]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

If they are actively seeking work, then they're already part of that figure. If you don't understand how it's calculated, why not look it up before speculating?

If Romney had won the election, this thread would be filled with the same people claiming that the drop to 7.7 was a result of increased hope resulting from Romney's win. I've yet to see a single conspiracy theorist take a consistent position on anything.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Just because they are actively seeking employment, doesn't mean they are counted. My Mother-In-Law's benefits ran out almost 6 months ago. She's still looking for work.

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

what about those who've given up

Then they aren't counted. If you're trying to judge the difficulty level of trying to find a job, why would you ask someone who isn't trying to find a job?

[kirgi08]

They are still unemployed,expending resources like that will drain ones finances.'08.

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by kirgi08

They are still unemployed

Correct, but since they're not looking for a job, they aren't useful if we want to determine how hard it is to find one.

If Romney or any other conservative were President you'd be saying that it's unfair to count those who are not actively seeking work because it makes the economy look worse than it really is. Let's be honest, your position on the unemployment rate is dictated by who's in office.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[kirgi08]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

Correct, but since they're not looking for a job, they aren't useful if we want to determine how hard it is to find one.

If Romney or any other conservative were President you'd be saying that it's unfair to count those who are not actively seeking work because it makes the economy look worse than it really is. Let's be honest, your position on the unemployment rate is dictated by who's in office.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

If they haven't found 1 in 99wks how hard do you reckon it is.'08.

ETA,I guess you missed my post about "it doesn't matter" whom is in office the #s will be doctored.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

Then they aren't counted. If you're trying to judge the difficulty level of trying to find a job, why would you ask someone who isn't trying to find a job?

That is like saying "An amputee is no longer considered an amputee if they quit going to physical therapy"

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by countrygun

That is like saying "An amputee is no longer considered an amputee if they quit going to physical therapy"

That makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to simply count the number of people who don't have a job, regardless of the fact if they're even looking for a job, we have a number for that.

The purpose of the unemployment rate is to determine the state of the economy from the context of how hard it is for willing, motivated people who are seeking employment to successfully find employment. Do you, or do you not understand that concept?

[fortyofforty]

Then the easiest way for Democrats to reduce the measured rate of unemployment is to increase the incentives for people to stop looking for work altogether. Hmmmm. How would that work? I don't know. Maybe they could reduce or eliminate the work requirements for welfare. Or perhaps increase the time a person could collect unemployment payments without looking for work. Or foster a sense of entitlement that leads more people to apply for and collect disability rather than a paycheck. Or count people who have part time jobs as being fully employed. Or promise people healthcare coverage without forcing them to get insurance through their employers. Of course, nothing like that would ever happen. Just think. If nobody is looking for work, the unemployment rate is zero percent.

[cowboywannabe]

lemme see, fewer "unemployed" but more people getting some form of welfare than ever before.

i get it.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

That makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to simply count the number of people who don't have a job, regardless of the fact if they're even looking for a job, we have a number for that.

The purpose of the unemployment rate is to determine the state of the economy [I]from the context of how hard it is for willing, motivated people who are seeking employment to successfully find employment[/I]. Do you, or do you not understand that concept?

And just how do you factor in the people who are unwilling to take employment they aren't particularly "motivated" to take, because their benefits for not working keep them comfortable?

IF your "yardstick" is unable to measure all of the unemployed then you can't say how many people are unemployed, ergo they aren't an accurate measurement and the conclusions cannot be accurate either.

can you grok that concept?

[stevelyn]

Nothing the regime or the Lamestream Propaganda Corps says can be trusted.

Those number were cooked from the start to give Obama (ptooh) and advantage in the election. As was, it wasn't needed since none of his supporters want to work anyway.

[kirgi08]

I thought I said that.'08.

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by countrygun

And just how do you factor in the people who are unwilling to take employment they aren't particularly "motivated" to take, because their benefits for not working keep them comfortable?

Originally Posted by IvanVic

If you want to simply count the number of people who don't have a job, regardless of the fact if they're even looking for a job, we have a number for that.

There is already an economic indicator that tells us this - and nobody is stopping you from using that indicator as your benchmark. Essentially you're asking for two calculations that are the exact same but are given two different names.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[barbedwiresmile]

The U-3 is among the best examples of the abject absurdity of modern America. The measurement virtually guarantees that the worse the job market gets, the lower the unemployment rate will be. That we even discuss this metric or accept it as our primary metric illustrates how ridiculous we have become.

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

There is already an economic indicator that tells us this - and nobody is stopping you from using that indicator as your benchmark.

I believe you are referring to U6. So why is this metric no longer used to measure "the unemployment rate" in headlines and broadcasts?

[fortyofforty]

The key is what measure is broadcast on ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCCNBCNPRPBS? What is the headline that most people see? What is the measure of unemployment that the majority of Stewart or Colbert or Letterman viewers see, absorb and upon which base voting decisions?