Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: strk on March 30, 2004, 09:39:29 AM
-
http://www.jobwatch.org/
closer to 7.4 - according to Economic Policy Institute
"Unemployment measures understate job slack
The number of unemployed workers (currently 8.2 million) and the national unemployment rate of 5.6% in February 2004 do not adequately convey the true labor slack in the economy for several reasons. One major understatement is that the unemployment rate does not reflect the uniquely large 1.2% decline in labor force participation that has occurred since the current recession began in early 2001. This decline represents a stark contrast to the past three business cycles, when labor force participation actually grew by an average of 0.4% of the working-age population over similar lengths of time. Consequently, there is what can be called a "missing labor force" of 2,808,000 workers who might otherwise be in the actual labor force but have either dropped out entirely or failed to enter the labor market because of the lack of jobs. If the unemployment rate in February 2004 took into account this missing labor force, the unemployment rate would have been 7.4%, or 1.8% greater than the official rate of 5.6% (see chart below)."
-
Howard Dean is unemployed.
-
If your not collecting unemployment and do not have a job your not figured into the unemployment stats.
-
One thing those numbers miss as far as new jobs is the amount of people that have become self employed. I saw a figure today that said that even with MINOR outsourcing this downsizing isnt nearly as bad as the dot com bust.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
One thing those numbers miss as far as new jobs is the amount of people that have become self employed. I saw a figure today that said that even with MINOR outsourcing this downsizing isnt nearly as bad as the dot com bust.
The numbers figure the new jobs. As long as they are legal.
Btw they are now going to start outsourceing accounting jobs and legal assistant work.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
The numbers figure the new jobs. As long as they are legal.
Btw they are now going to start outsourceing accounting jobs and legal assistant work.
I wasnt referring to anything Illegal at all....contractors are self employed and get a 1099...since they arnt filing a W4 for their jobs they arent being counted.
ALOT of IT jobs have switched to Contracters vrs. direct hire
My brother in law is a CPA and says his company and alot of competitors have allready tried outsourcing those jobs and have allready started bringing them back to the states because of poor quality work.
Latest figures i've seen says only 300-350,000 jobs have been outsourced over the last 3 YEARS. How big is our workforce????? sounds like a pretty small percentage to me.
-
Btw they are now going to start outsourceing accounting jobs and legal assistant work.
You're a couple of years behind the times.
-
I wasnt referring to anything Illegal at all....contractors are self employed and get a 1099...since they arnt filing a W4 for their jobs they arent being counted.
ALOT of IT jobs have switched to Contracters vrs. direct hire
My brother in law is a CPA and says his company and alot of competitors have allready tried outsourcing those jobs and have allready started bringing them back to the states because of poor quality work.
Latest figures i've seen says only 300-350,000 jobs have been outsourced over the last 3 YEARS. How big is our workforce????? sounds like a pretty small percentage to me
you mis-understand the way it is counted. they don't take you off of the list when you start reporting wages through a W-2. (and that is the whole point of the post I think)
they way they calculate the unemployemnt rate is people who apply for unemployment (and recieve) unemployment benifits.
when you stop recieving a check you are considered employed (or at least don't figure into the unemployed %, which yeilds the same result).
so if you are on unemployment and become self employed, then you are no longer elegible for benifits and are taken off the list of unemployed (so yes, you would be counted as someone who returned to work. even though you don't technically 'have an employer').
if the job situation is so bad, that your benifits run out before you find work, then you are nolonger counted as unemployed.
if you where new to the workforce and hadn't worked long enough to qualify for unemployment compensation, before your job was sent overseas- then you never where unemployed.
as we get farther into this fluffied up economy more and more peoples benifits run out and they fall out of the '%unemployed' in the reports. thats how the ecconomy can still be so jacked-up but the % shows emprovement.
-
I have heard this for at least 30 years. might just as well add 2 or 3 percentage points to whatever figure is put out there at any time in history. Or... don't add em to the current numbers.
either way... what we have now is good numbers.
lazs
-
Just an FYI for those young'un's that are relatively new to unemployment figures: They've (The Gov't) NEVER counted those who've dropped off the unemployment benefit payrolls. So just add your 1.8% to any administration if you want to change the baseline.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Just an FYI for those young'un's that are relatively new to unemployment figures: They've (The Gov't) NEVER counted those who've dropped off the unemployment benefit payrolls. So just add your 1.8% to any administration if you want to change the baseline.:rolleyes:
So you admit that the number is probably closer to 8%??
-
Originally posted by strk
So you admit that the number is probably closer to 8%??
You want to redefine the baseline? Sure. Then that means it was only 6% and not 4.2% in March 2000. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You want to redefine the baseline? Sure. Then that means it was only 6% and not 4.2% in March 2000. :rolleyes:
Good, then I will say it again, we have lost 3.2 million jobs under Bush*, the most since Hoover.
There is no getting around the fact that Bush* will be the first president since WW2 to preside over a net loss of jobs.
At least the rich folks got their tax cut. How much did you get Rip? Are you a rich guy or are you one of the chickens supporting Colonel Sanders?
-
You gotta stop strk. I'm freaking laughing so hard my tears...are...streaming!
FYI: I was homeless at age 18. Where were you? In college wit a silver spoon in your mouth?
-
Incidently, without changing the baseline, (like you'd prefer to do strk, I'm still wiping my eyes dry!) here is the average annual unemployment rates for each President since Eisenhower:
--- historic average 5.64% ---
Johnson - 4.17
Eisenhower - 4.89
Nixon - 5.09
Clinton - 5.21
Bush II - 5.51
Kennedy - 5.97
Bush I - 6.30
Carter - 6.54
Reagan - 7.54
Ford - 8.13
Keep trying coffeecake! I'm sure theres plenty of mud to throw before election time! (And 4 more years after that!)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You gotta stop strk. I'm freaking laughing so hard my tears...are...streaming!
FYI: I was homeless at age 18. Where were you? In college wit a silver spoon in your mouth?
Oh now your mascara is running!
At 18 I was in college. At 19 I was enlisted in the US Navy serving as a corpsmen with the USMC.
How about you cupcake?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, without changing the baseline, (like you'd prefer to do strk, I'm still wiping my eyes dry!) here is the average annual unemployment rates for each President since Eisenhower:
--- historic average 5.64% ---
Johnson - 4.17
Eisenhower - 4.89
Nixon - 5.09
Clinton - 5.21
Bush II - 5.51
Kennedy - 5.97
Bush I - 6.30
Carter - 6.54
Reagan - 7.54
Ford - 8.13
Keep trying coffeecake! I'm sure theres plenty of mud to throw before election time! (And 4 more years after that!)
Well I found this, which shows your numbers are screwy.
http://nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm#annl
Why dont you post your link?
tired of defending boy king yet?
-
What would be really neet is to see someone blaming the rise in unemployment on bush actually explain how that is possible. Just what exactly has bush done that caused those numbers to rise so drastically?
Did he start taxing corperations heavier? Did he raise taxes? Did he raise operations costs? Did he add beurocracy to restrict growth? Did he force companies to outsource? What was it that he, as the president, did to cause this?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What would be really neet is to see someone blaming the rise in unemployment on bush actually explain how that is possible. Just what exactly has bush done that caused those numbers to rise so drastically?
Did he start taxing corperations heavier? Did he raise taxes? Did he raise operations costs? Did he add beurocracy to restrict growth? Did he force companies to outsource? What was it that he, as the president, did to cause this?
MiniD
It doesnt matter, Mini, stop clouding the issue. Lets just vote Dean in. Dean will give us all jobs.
Only racists, sexists, and unemployment figure liars will vote for Bush.
-
"Unemployment measures understate job slack
The number of unemployed workers (currently 8.2 million) and the national unemployment rate of 5.6% in February 2004 do not adequately convey the true labor slack in the economy for several reasons. One major understatement is that the unemployment rate does not reflect the uniquely large 1.2% decline in labor force participation that has occurred since the current recession began in early 2001. This decline represents a stark contrast to the past three business cycles, when labor force participation actually grew by an average of 0.4% of the working-age population over similar lengths of time. Consequently, there is what can be called a "missing labor force" of 2,808,000 workers who might otherwise be in the actual labor force but have either dropped out entirely or failed to enter the labor market because of the lack of jobs. If the unemployment rate in February 2004 took into account this missing labor force, the unemployment rate would have been 7.4%, or 1.8% greater than the official rate of 5.6% (see chart below)."
Wow, you'd think that the people at the Economics Institute would have taken economics.
Either that or their Bias is showing.
For an unemployment figure, you don't count the part of the labour force that has stopped looking for jobs.
So either these guys have never taken economics, or they are trying to show that the U/E number is a lot worse then what it really is.