|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 8, 2012 13:22:05 GMT -5
It's not an either or thing. You've got those who are unemployed and are looking, those who are unemployed and not looking and those who are employed but wish they had something better. Economists only count the first category in most cases. Why? For the simple reason that if you put up a Help Wanted sign in the window, those people are going to be the ones that answer. They are all that matter in most cases because they are the ones who are available to be hired. Exactly. The ones who WILL look for work are counted, because they're the ones who - when they get a job - will affect and lower the rate. You forget that some of those included in the rates you include are those who physically cannot work due to illness or injury, or those who are simply too old to get a job. Therefore, those who cannot lower the rate by getting a job are not included in the rate. It's not like the U-5 rate or whatever are just people sitting back being lazy with their hand out. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 8, 2012 13:25:01 GMT -5
It's not an either or thing. You've got those who are unemployed and are looking, those who are unemployed and not looking and those who are employed but wish they had something better. Economists only count the first category in most cases. Why? For the simple reason that if you put up a Help Wanted sign in the window, those people are going to be the ones that answer. They are all that matter in most cases because they are the ones who are available to be hired. Exactly. The ones who WILL look for work are counted, because they're the ones who - when they get a job - will affect and lower the rate. You forget that some of those included in the rates you include are those who physically cannot work due to illness or injury, or those who are simply too old to get a job. Therefore, those who cannot lower the rate by getting a job are not included in the rate. It's not like the U-5 rate or whatever are just people sitting back being lazy with their hand out. Then you're admitting that the total number of unemployed people in this country is not 7.8%. We can argue all we want about deleting the "lazy people" from the equation, but the fact of the matter is that MORE THAN 7.8% of Americans are not even part-time employees. That's all I'm trying to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 8, 2012 18:35:41 GMT -5
Exactly. The ones who WILL look for work are counted, because they're the ones who - when they get a job - will affect and lower the rate. You forget that some of those included in the rates you include are those who physically cannot work due to illness or injury, or those who are simply too old to get a job. Therefore, those who cannot lower the rate by getting a job are not included in the rate. It's not like the U-5 rate or whatever are just people sitting back being lazy with their hand out. Then you're admitting that the total number of unemployed people in this country is not 7.8%. We can argue all we want about deleting the "lazy people" from the equation, but the fact of the matter is that MORE THAN 7.8% of Americans are not even part-time employees. That's all I'm trying to say. Those people don't matter though. Look at it this way. There are 8 million people living in New York City. Now, does that mean there is a market of 8 million people for the iPhone in New York City? No. Some of those people are Android die hards. Some of them use dumb phones and don't get smart phones at all. Some of those people hate technology. Some of them hate Apple. So the potential market for the iPhone in New York City is going to be something far less than 8 million. If you said there are 8 million potential iPhone users in NYC it would be completely false because even if you gave iPhones away free or dirty cheap you'd have a market of less than 8 million. Same way with the unemployment rate. If you are sitting on your ass at home and haven't looked for work for months (for whatever reason) you don't count because you are not a potential job candidate. If I place an ad "Now Hiring - Anyone who can breathe" you are not going to show up at the job interview. You're not going to fill that job. So economists don't count you because you make no difference. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 8, 2012 18:40:11 GMT -5
Then you're admitting that the total number of unemployed people in this country is not 7.8%. We can argue all we want about deleting the "lazy people" from the equation, but the fact of the matter is that MORE THAN 7.8% of Americans are not even part-time employees. That's all I'm trying to say. Those people don't matter though. Look at it this way. There are 8 million people living in New York City. Now, does that mean there is a market of 8 million people for the iPhone in New York City? No. Some of those people are Android die hards. Some of them use dumb phones and don't get smart phones at all. Some of those people hate technology. Some of them hate Apple. So the potential market for the iPhone in New York City is going to be something far less than 8 million. If you said there are 8 million potential iPhone users in NYC it would be completely false because even if you gave iPhones away free or dirty cheap you'd have a market of less than 8 million. Same way with the unemployment rate. If you are sitting on your ass at home and haven't looked for work for months (for whatever reason) you don't count because you are not a potential job candidate. If I place an ad "Now Hiring - Anyone who can breathe" you are not going to show up at the job interview. You're not going to fill that job. So economists don't count you because you make no difference. That is precisely the point I was making. |
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 8, 2012 20:38:17 GMT -5
I don't understand why the "true number of unemployed Americans" would matter more now than it did before. I think bringing it up is just another way to discredit anything done by the current administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 8, 2012 20:57:17 GMT -5
I don't understand why the "true number of unemployed Americans" would matter more now than it did before. I think bringing it up is just another way to discredit anything done by the current administration. Pretty much, usually only brought up by the party not in power. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 8, 2012 21:59:18 GMT -5
No. When you say "this many people are unemployed," you're either talking about employed or not employed. You don't just get to delete an entire fraction of people because they don't meet your criteria for "trying to get a job." That's  ing absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 8, 2012 22:20:15 GMT -5
I think the term "unemployment rate" has always clearly referred only to those who are looking for work. I don't disagree that the true percentage of people in the US without a job is definitely higher than that... but what is traditionally used as the criteria for "unemployment rate" should be measured consistently from administration to administration. And come on... are you really going to hold the fact that there are stay-at-home moms against the president? That is bordering on deliberately deceptive, if you ask me.
And in my personal opinion, for those who are currently in need of work, are able to work and have made a conscious decision to stop looking.... I have absolutely zero empathy for them. And I think it's a little misleading to say that the President (whoever it happens to be) is at fault for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 8, 2012 23:26:40 GMT -5
I think the term "unemployment rate" has always clearly referred only to those who are looking for work. I don't disagree that the true percentage of people in the US without a job is definitely higher than that... but what is traditionally used as the criteria for "unemployment rate" should be measured consistently from administration to administration. And come on... are you really going to hold the fact that there are stay-at-home moms against the president? That is bordering on deliberately deceptive, if you ask me. And in my personal opinion, for those who are currently in need of work, are able to work and have made a conscious decision to stop looking.... I have absolutely zero empathy for them. And I think it's a little misleading to say that the President (whoever it happens to be) is at fault for that. QFT. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 9, 2012 2:18:58 GMT -5
Whether your looking or not doesn't change if your unemployed or not. There's not a "Unemployed And Looking" rate and an "Unemployed And Not Looking" rate here. If you're unemployed - through whatever means, and whether you're looking for work or not, you're in this 7.8% number. QFDerp. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 9, 2012 2:22:32 GMT -5
I think the term "unemployment rate" has always clearly referred only to those who are looking for work. I don't disagree that the true percentage of people in the US without a job is definitely higher than that... but what is traditionally used as the criteria for "unemployment rate" should be measured consistently from administration to administration. And come on... are you really going to hold the fact that there are stay-at-home moms against the president? That is bordering on deliberately deceptive, if you ask me. And in my personal opinion, for those who are currently in need of work, are able to work and have made a conscious decision to stop looking.... I have absolutely zero empathy for them. And I think it's a little misleading to say that the President (whoever it happens to be) is at fault for that. I actually think it speaks volumes for the President's inability to inspire the nation to continue looking for work and get off government benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 9, 2012 3:11:34 GMT -5
Also, I am not saying that the President is responsible for any unemployment rate. I'm merely suggesting that if we're going to talk about number of unemployed people, we cut the bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 9, 2012 3:38:57 GMT -5
Also, I am not saying that the President is responsible for any unemployment rate. I'm merely suggesting that if we're going to talk about number of unemployed people, we cut the bullcrap. Which is exactly what that 7.8% number does. Cuts out the people that won't affect the number either way; the stay-at-home moms and dads, the elderly that are past retirement age, the physically incapable of working, the kids who aren't of age to work, and yes, those who just don't give a f*ck about working. It's like Hulk said, if you market in a town of 1000, but 100 say they will not buy your product - or any product - then they don't count into the number that won't buy what you're selling. Because you cannot improve upon that number no matter what you do. It's the same way with jobs. There's going to be a part of the population that simply does not want to work, no matter what you do. So if that part was counted, there would always be a percentage of unemployed people no matter what happens or who the President happens to be and there is NOTHING that can be done about that. Except to exempt that part of the population which will not lower the overall total number from said number. Because that's what's being done is exempting that part of the population, not erasing them and pretending they don't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 9, 2012 4:12:44 GMT -5
So if that part was counted, there would always be a percentage of unemployed people no matter what happens or who the President happens to be and there is NOTHING that can be done about that. Yes. What the President "can do" or "not do" does not change the number of people who don't have jobs. You need to stop looking at this as an "R" vs "D" issue. It's not. It's an issue that the country needs to handle together. If someone is unemployed and isn't actively working for a job, that doesn't necessarily mean that they flat-out don't want a job. In some cases, these people have become so disheartened by the job market that they've given up trying. We can call that laziness or whatever, but that doesn't mean that we should forget about them. Certainly we can't force people to look for employment, but the economy is still in a tough spot right now. If the economy was better, people would have more opportunity to be employed. Yes, there would still be people who don't want jobs. Those people should still be counted as being "unemployed" until they have jobs... Because they're unemployed if they're lazy pieces of shit. Except to exempt that part of the population which will not lower the overall total number from said number. Because that's what's being done is exempting that part of the population, not erasing them and pretending they don't exist. I understand what it is, which is why I tried to explain it before in a rational way when you were ranting about how ALL unemployed people are in the reported unemployed numbers; which is not true. Regardless, exempting people is not the right thing to do if you want to report accurate numbers. Under this theory, if there was some crazy economic collapse tomorrow and half of all businesses closed, causing half of the country's workers to lose their jobs tomorrow; there could be a situation where unemployment numbers would be INCREDIBLY underreported. In this scenario, with half of the American population looking for jobs, there would be practically zero jobs available (due to all of the other companies filling their open positions in a very short time). Without the government (federal and state) financially able to provide unemployment checks at such a high rate, people would stop applying for unemployment benefits (since they wouldn't be getting them anyway). Within four weeks, most of the country's unemployed people would no longer be called "unemployed" by the economists' definition. So then the unemployment rate would be back to a very low number, rather than showing that 50% of the country is without a job. Look, I understand that the President can't fix unemployment and he can't be blamed for people not wanting to get jobs... But that doesn't change the number of unemployed people. They still don't have jobs whether it's their choice or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 9, 2012 8:08:22 GMT -5
No. When you say "this many people are unemployed," you're either talking about employed or not employed. You don't just get to delete an entire fraction of people because they don't meet your criteria for "trying to get a job." That's ing absurd. No, it's not absurd. Take it up with every single economist in the country who doesn't have an axe to grind. It's already been explained why it is that way. The people who haven't looked for work in months are not going to affect the rate at all. If the economy took off like gangbusters tomorrow, those people are still going to be sitting on the couch. They are not potential employees. Think of the unemployment rate as a count of potential employees. The guy sitting on the couch for months is not a potential employee. The guy out looking for work is. |
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 9, 2012 10:35:53 GMT -5
I actually think it speaks volumes for the President's inability to inspire the nation to continue looking for work and get off government benefits. I literally have no clue if you're kidding or not. If you are, well played, but if you're not.... boy, that's stretching the boundaries of reality a little thin. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 9, 2012 14:16:53 GMT -5
I actually think it speaks volumes for the President's inability to inspire the nation to continue looking for work and get off government benefits. I literally have no clue if you're kidding or not. If you are, well played, but if you're not.... boy, that's stretching the boundaries of reality a little thin. You really believe the Presidents words and actions are worthless? It's not his full responsibility to create jobs, but markets change whenever the leader speaks and what he does with what power he has. I would like to broach the subject without the snide little remarks if that is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 9, 2012 15:07:29 GMT -5
No. When you say "this many people are unemployed," you're either talking about employed or not employed. You don't just get to delete an entire fraction of people because they don't meet your criteria for "trying to get a job." That's ing absurd. No, it's not absurd. Take it up with every single economist in the country who doesn't have an axe to grind. It's already been explained why it is that way. The people who haven't looked for work in months are not going to affect the rate at all. If the economy took off like gangbusters tomorrow, those people are still going to be sitting on the couch. They are not potential employees. Think of the unemployment rate as a count of potential employees. The guy sitting on the couch for months is not a potential employee. The guy out looking for work is. Do they have jobs or not? The answer is no. They are unemployed. End of argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 9, 2012 15:14:26 GMT -5
This is like presenting a number (and I'm using fictitious data) that says, "5% of Americans have a form of cancer." But that 5% only includes people who are actively fighting cancer using medication. It doesn't take into account the number of people who have stopped taking their medication and have accepted death or people who are in partial remission.
The fact is that these people still have cancer, whether or not they fit into your convenient little statistic or not. You don't just get to remove them from the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 9, 2012 17:55:46 GMT -5
No, it's not absurd. Take it up with every single economist in the country who doesn't have an axe to grind. It's already been explained why it is that way. The people who haven't looked for work in months are not going to affect the rate at all. If the economy took off like gangbusters tomorrow, those people are still going to be sitting on the couch. They are not potential employees. Think of the unemployment rate as a count of potential employees. The guy sitting on the couch for months is not a potential employee. The guy out looking for work is. Do they have jobs or not? The answer is no. They are unemployed. End of argument. Are they potential employees? No. End of argument. |
|
