By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Unemployment rates are severely under tracked.

JWS on 22 July 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
JWS said:

The unemployment rate in america is figured by counting the people receiving unemployment benefits.

Sorry, but that's not how it works.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

You can get an unemployment check, and not be looking for a job. If you are not looking for a job, you are not part of the equation. So if you have a country of 3 people, 1 working, 1 looking for a job on unemployment, and 1 not looking for a job on unemployment, your unemployment rate would be calculated at 50%, not the 66% it should be.

When you sign up for your weekly checks if you answer that you have not been looking for work you lose your benefits and are not considered unemployed.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 22 July 2010
JWS said:
TheRealMafoo said:
JWS said:

The unemployment rate in america is figured by counting the people receiving unemployment benefits.

Sorry, but that's not how it works.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

You can get an unemployment check, and not be looking for a job. If you are not looking for a job, you are not part of the equation. So if you have a country of 3 people, 1 working, 1 looking for a job on unemployment, and 1 not looking for a job on unemployment, your unemployment rate would be calculated at 50%, not the 66% it should be.

When you sign up for your weekly checks if you answer that you have not been looking for work you lose your benefits and are not considered unemployed.


The federal calculation for unemployment has nothing to do with the unemployment checks. It's an independent survey the use to collect this information.



SamuelRSmith on 23 July 2010
Tanstalas said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Not living, just vacating for the month :P I've also been to New York, probably going Vegas next year (I say probably, because my parents are wanting to go, but you have to be 21 to actually gamble, which seems to be the main attraction - - and my brothers are even younger than I (will be 17 and 14 by the time we go), so there would less for us.

Maybe I should try and convince my parents for Cali - they were interested in it a few years ago. I've always wanted to go to Hawaii, but the flight is just too much for someone like me (the 9 hours to Orlando is enough to drive me insane).

So, you're going to have to re-re-evaluate my opinion back down again.

Is your family rich and just vacations in different parts of the world?


You make it sound like we spend more time out of the country than in... that's not true, but, yeah, we do go on holiday a lot.

Rich? Maybe, but then so is anybody who has enough disposable income to fund a gaming hobby (well, that's my view anyway - and one of the reasons why I get so agg at the self-proclaimed "defenders of the poor" on this website, who seem to criticize capitalism and talk about how it exploits the poor, etc - and yet they're sitting there in an electrified, heated room, on their computer with their internet connection, clearly interested in gaming, and clearly having more than enough spare time - all benefits of the system that they hate oh-so-much, but, hey, I'm rambling)



Vertigo-X on 23 July 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
Tanstalas said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Not living, just vacating for the month :P I've also been to New York, probably going Vegas next year (I say probably, because my parents are wanting to go, but you have to be 21 to actually gamble, which seems to be the main attraction - - and my brothers are even younger than I (will be 17 and 14 by the time we go), so there would less for us.

Maybe I should try and convince my parents for Cali - they were interested in it a few years ago. I've always wanted to go to Hawaii, but the flight is just too much for someone like me (the 9 hours to Orlando is enough to drive me insane).

So, you're going to have to re-re-evaluate my opinion back down again.

Is your family rich and just vacations in different parts of the world?


You make it sound like we spend more time out of the country than in... that's not true, but, yeah, we do go on holiday a lot.

Rich? Maybe, but then so is anybody who has enough disposable income to fund a gaming hobby (well, that's my view anyway - and one of the reasons why I get so agg at the self-proclaimed "defenders of the poor" on this website, who seem to criticize capitalism and talk about how it exploits the poor, etc - and yet they're sitting there in an electrified, heated room, on their computer with their internet connection, clearly interested in gaming, and clearly having more than enough spare time - all benefits of the system that they hate oh-so-much, but, hey, I'm rambling)

I agree. It seems awfully hypocritical for the two in this thread to be bashing the system that has produced so much of what they love and don't even discuss how different things would be if we switched to an alternate system (socialism).



The BuShA owns all!

Trentonater on 25 July 2010

i don't think so



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Biofy1meIfE562y8VMnww

BUG LONDON.

Around the Network
Tanstalas on 25 July 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
Tanstalas said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Not living, just vacating for the month :P I've also been to New York, probably going Vegas next year (I say probably, because my parents are wanting to go, but you have to be 21 to actually gamble, which seems to be the main attraction - - and my brothers are even younger than I (will be 17 and 14 by the time we go), so there would less for us.

Maybe I should try and convince my parents for Cali - they were interested in it a few years ago. I've always wanted to go to Hawaii, but the flight is just too much for someone like me (the 9 hours to Orlando is enough to drive me insane).

So, you're going to have to re-re-evaluate my opinion back down again.

Is your family rich and just vacations in different parts of the world?


You make it sound like we spend more time out of the country than in... that's not true, but, yeah, we do go on holiday a lot.

Rich? Maybe, but then so is anybody who has enough disposable income to fund a gaming hobby (well, that's my view anyway - and one of the reasons why I get so agg at the self-proclaimed "defenders of the poor" on this website, who seem to criticize capitalism and talk about how it exploits the poor, etc - and yet they're sitting there in an electrified, heated room, on their computer with their internet connection, clearly interested in gaming, and clearly having more than enough spare time - all benefits of the system that they hate oh-so-much, but, hey, I'm rambling)

Spending $60 on a video game is cheaper than 5 plane tickets/accommodations to various parts of the world.  I laughed when you compared vacationing for 5 people in hawaii to buying the latest Street Fighter game :P 



Unicorns ARE real - They are just fat, grey and called Rhinos

numonex on 26 July 2010

 

Governments need to reduce immigration significantly and start addressing the unemployment issues in this country. Most governments have been all talk and no action. The unemployment figures have been window dressed and they do not truly reflect the real unemployment rate. The Government 'official' unemployment figures are a joke.

Imagine a cheap foreign worker takes your job. Lower pay and conditions and flown in on a working visa. Employer saves money on labour costs by taking on cheap foreign workers.

The foreign workers come over here by plane or by boat and they take local people's jobs. Working visas are taking away  our jobs, saves employers money boosts their profits and increase return on share holders returns. Economic migration saves companies lots of money but costs average Australian's their jobs.

The foreign workers save employers up to $50,000 per year on labour costs. The poor white, single disadvantaged person is the growing problem with no job and no future. 

Illegal immigrants are working on farms and factories around the country and the farmers and factory owners are getting away with it. Local workers would not have a chance of getting these jobs even if they wanted to work in appalling conditions.



numonex on 26 July 2010

I claim that the unemployment rates are increasing all the time as technology efficiency increases. There is just not enough jobs to go around to have unemployment rates to fall below 10%. The made up government unemployment rates are nothing more than a propaganda tool. 

You do a job for 20 years and technology makes your position redundant. Employers are reluctant to take on employees over the aged of 40. 



NJ5 on 26 July 2010

I can't believe this thread has gone on for three pages without anyone mentioning U6 unemployment.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

The definition's right there in wikipedia:

 

  • U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
  • U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
  • U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
  • U4: U3 plus "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
  • U5: U4 plus other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
  • U6: U5 plus Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).


My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

FreeTalkLive on 26 July 2010
NoddyHolder said:


bull, its Libertarian scum that are causing the problems by refusing to let the government do more to tackle the issues, if the self righteous vermin were kept well away from politics things would have gone much better.


I love you.  Live Free or Die!



 

Tired of big government?
Want liberty in your lifetime?
Join us @
http://www.freestateproject.org