stuckincincy Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Here are the US Bureau of Labor statistics, Sept. 08 to Sept 09, released 10/2/09: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm What you see in the media is the U-3 rate. Which is always an understatement. Scroll down to the U-6 rate - 17% unemployment. Perhaps someone can shed some light on the seasonally and non-seasonally adjusted words. Change you can believe in. It's inexorable...
Magox Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 This has always been the most retarded way of gauging unemployment. Basically in a nutshell, if you are not looking for a job and/or resigned to the "fact" that you won't get one, then it doesn't count . That's right, it doesn't count, how freaking retarded is that? If you're not employed, then I don't care what anyone says, your !@#$ing unemployed
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 This has always been the most retarded way of gauging unemployment. Basically in a nutshell, if you are not looking for a job and/or resigned to the "fact" that you won't get one, then it doesn't count . That's right, it doesn't count, how freaking retarded is that? If you're not employed, then I don't care what anyone says, your !@#$ing unemployed Agreed, but that is the way that it has been measured for years. The arguments for and against are a head ache to rehash. I guess measuring the non-looking v. the disgruntled is hard to accurately separate.
KD in CA Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Agreed, but that is the way that it has been measured for years. The arguments for and against are a head ache to rehash. I guess measuring the non-looking v. the disgruntled is hard to accurately separate. The only argument "for" that asinine rationalization is so scumbag politicians don't have to be associated with the real unemployment figures in the country. After all, people might start to ask WTF the politicians were doing if they had to admit to 17% unemployment.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 The only argument "for" that asinine rationalization is so scumbag politicians don't have to be associated with the real unemployment figures in the country. After all, people might start to ask WTF the politicians were doing if they had to admit to 17% unemployment. Agreed and the 3 or 4% unemployment rate at the height of the expansion would probably be a lot higher too... say 8 or 9%, but agreed it is a bunch of crap. The actual v. effective rate of employment from econ 101 is what I remember.
Keukasmallies Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 I'm not sure how to quantify the "Can't find a jobbers." Nor how to compare and contrast their numbers with the "I don't want no stinkin' jobbers." When you and I provide a certain level of support to a great number for whom having no job is, to them, a good thing; I wan't work harder to feel real pain for them.
Recommended Posts