|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 9, 2012 18:35:26 GMT -5
Do they have jobs or not? The answer is no. They are unemployed. End of argument. Are they potential employees? No. End of argument. Exactly. The ones who refuse to look for work will not affect the number, they won't be part of it when it lowers so they are exempt from the current number. |
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 9, 2012 19:26:23 GMT -5
I agree that the number that should be focused on is what is referred to traditionally as the unemployment rate. For those who have stopped looking for work voluntarily... I have no empathy for you and your laziness is a byproduct of your own behavior, not that of the President's or anyone else's.
Including voluntary stay-at-home parents/homemakers in any list that is meant to constructively discuss the current economy is being deliberately misleading in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 9, 2012 19:42:51 GMT -5
I don't know that I'd go so far as to chalk all of it up to laziness. Some of it is to be sure, but not all of it. Some of it is just people who are discouraged after looking for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 9, 2012 19:50:48 GMT -5
I don't know that I'd go so far as to chalk all of it up to laziness. Some of it is to be sure, but not all of it. Some of it is just people who are discouraged after looking for a long time. I don't think there is a huge distinction between the two. Right after college, I had one job for about 3 months, got laid off, and was out of work for over a year before finding a new job. And with God as my witness, I scoured the job market like a well-trained detective, just trying to find more work. I didn't take a single day off other than Christmas Eve and Day. I was truly one of the 7.8%. But Joe Six-Pack loses his job, looks for a few months and decides to give up (call it laziness or being discouraged) I don't have much empathy for him because in the same position, I busted my ass looking for work. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 10, 2012 2:22:36 GMT -5
Are they potential employees? No. End of argument. Potential employees? Yes. You don't think that ANY OF THEM would take cakewalk jobs where they'd make significantly more money than they do in unemployment? Maybe they're just waiting for the right opportunity. I find it hard to believe that they flat out don't WANT jobs. Maybe some don't, but I'd say that's probably a small fraction of an already small group. Just because you don't qualify them as being "potential employees" doesn't mean that they aren't unemployed. That's all I'm trying to say. Exactly. The ones who refuse to look for work will not affect the number, they won't be part of it when it lowers so they are exempt from the current number. The current number is fictitious, fantasy world bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 10, 2012 7:02:59 GMT -5
Are they potential employees? No. End of argument. Potential employees? Yes. You don't think that ANY OF THEM would take cakewalk jobs where they'd make significantly more money than they do in unemployment? Maybe they're just waiting for the right opportunity. I find it hard to believe that they flat out don't WANT jobs. Maybe some don't, but I'd say that's probably a small fraction of an already small group. Just because you don't qualify them as being "potential employees" doesn't mean that they aren't unemployed. That's all I'm trying to say. Exactly. The ones who refuse to look for work will not affect the number, they won't be part of it when it lowers so they are exempt from the current number. The current number is fictitious, fantasy world bullcrap. Explain how then. Because you've spent the last, now, 3 pages denying the graph and number that has been reported everywhere. Give me something other than "We'll if you count such and such". And don't tell me the numbers were "cooked" as Teapublicans have already said. I guess the number reporting the $207B decrease in the Federal Deficit is faked too? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 10, 2012 8:25:06 GMT -5
Are they potential employees? No. End of argument. Potential employees? Yes. You don't think that ANY OF THEM would take cakewalk jobs where they'd make significantly more money than they do in unemployment? Maybe they're just waiting for the right opportunity. I find it hard to believe that they flat out don't WANT jobs. Maybe some don't, but I'd say that's probably a small fraction of an already small group. Just because you don't qualify them as being "potential employees" doesn't mean that they aren't unemployed. That's all I'm trying to say. Exactly. The ones who refuse to look for work will not affect the number, they won't be part of it when it lowers so they are exempt from the current number. The current number is fictitious, fantasy world bullcrap. No. They're not potential employees. If you put a Help Wanted sign in your window today none of them would show up because they're not out looking for work. The 7.8% are going to be hired first. Some of the others will see this and get off their butt and start looking for work again. Some won't. At this moment though they are not potential employees. You can't tell me they're "waiting for the right opportunity" when they're not out looking for work. Can I tell you that I'm "looking to buy a car" when I haven't looked at a car ad, searched for cars on the Internet or darkened the door of a dealer for months? No. I'm not looking for a car at that point. You would not count me amongs the potential buyers of a new Ford. |
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Oct 10, 2012 9:00:49 GMT -5
Yeah!  poor people! Wait......what are we arguing about? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 10, 2012 15:32:56 GMT -5
No. They're not potential employees. If you put a Help Wanted sign in your window today none of them would show up because they're not out looking for work. That doesn't make them not "potential employees." If you say, "I'll give you a million dollars per year to wash my car every Thursday," I bet the vast majority of these people who you're claiming are not "potential employees" would jump on it. Yes, I understand that I'm using an outrageous example, but it's there to prove a point. These people are unemployed because of circumstance. Just because they don't want to scrub toilets for $8/hr. doesn't mean that they're not potential employees. If the right opportunity came along, (almost all) would gladly accept a job. The 7.8% are going to be hired first. Some of the others will see this and get off their butt and start looking for work again. Some won't. At this moment though they are not potential employees. You can't tell me they're "waiting for the right opportunity" when they're not out looking for work. They are potential employees unless you can prove that they would not accept ANY job offer. Then, and only then, could you logically say that they are not potential employees. Can I tell you that I'm "looking to buy a car" when I haven't looked at a car ad, searched for cars on the Internet or darkened the door of a dealer for months? No. I'm not looking for a car at that point. You would not count me amongs the potential buyers of a new Ford. No no no. You're mistaking your own words. You do not have to be "looking to buy a car" in order to be a "potential car buyer" in the same way that you do not have to be "looking for a job" to be a "potential employee." Allow me to explain: "Looking to buy a car" = "Looking for a job" "A potential car buyer" = "A potential employee" Again, you can be "a potential car buyer" without actively "looking to buy a car." For example, you may absolutely love your current vehicle and not be looking for a new vehicle. But if I came to your house today and said, "Would you like to purchase my 2011 Honda Pilot for $5?," you'd probably say, "Yes." Now were you "looking to buy a car?" No. But the right opportunity arose and - low and behold - you became a car buyer! You were, by definition, a potential car buyer. Now, if you were unable to purchase a car for some reason, that changes things. For example, perhaps you are physically unable to drive a vehicle, you don't have any money or you are legally not allowed to own a car; then yes, you are no longer a "potential car buyer." But unless one of those situations exists, you are still a potential car buyer. Explain how then. Because you've spent the last, now, 3 pages denying the graph and number that has been reported everywhere. Give me something other than "We'll if you count such and such". Give you something like WHAT? I'm providing you with flat-out, undeniable, factual evidence. MORE THAN 7.8% OF THE POPULATION IS WITHOUT A JOB RIGHT NOW. What more do you want from me? What do I need to do in order to prove that? Even the most hardened economists would agree that more than 7.8% of the population is without a job. They might not factor them into their "unemployment rate" because, as Dr. Hulk said, they don't view them as being "potential employees," but that doesn't mean they deny their existence entirely. First you claimed that the 7.8% number DID include the people I'm talking about. Now you claim that those people don't matter because they don't fit into it. I've given you example after example and said nothing of substance in response because, quite frankly, it's painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. And don't tell me the numbers were "cooked" as Teapublicans have already said. I guess the number reporting the $207B decrease in the Federal Deficit is faked too? Would you stop making this about "Republicans vs. Democrats" or in this case the Tea Party? If you would stop just regurgetating the DFL talking points, you really might actually learn something. The fact is that the 7.8% number misleads people into believing that only 7.8% of people are without jobs. This is not true. And honestly, who gives a crap what the "decrease in federal deficit" is when the overall deficit is still over $1 Trillion this year? I mean, certainly it's good to be trending in the right direction, but we're still MASSIVELY in the hole and these little chips away at things are not going to do the job. It would take 5x this number in decrease for the government to break even at zero for the year. Then once you break even at zero for the year, it'd take 80 years of the government running at a $207B/yr SURPLUS in order to pay off the current US debt. To applaud the fact that the deficit this year is "only $1 Trillion" as opposed to $1.2 Trillion is pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 10, 2012 15:43:28 GMT -5
No. They're not potential employees. If you put a Help Wanted sign in your window today none of them would show up because they're not out looking for work. That doesn't make them not "potential employees." If you say, "I'll give you a million dollars per year to wash my car every Thursday," I bet the vast majority of these people who you're claiming are not "potential employees" would jump on it. Yes, I understand that I'm using an outrageous example, but it's there to prove a point. These people are unemployed because of circumstance. Just because they don't want to scrub toilets for $8/hr. doesn't mean that they're not potential employees. If the right opportunity came along, (almost all) would gladly accept a job. They are potential employees unless you can prove that they would not accept ANY job offer. Then, and only then, could you logically say that they are not potential employees. No no no. You're mistaking your own words. You do not have to be "looking to buy a car" in order to be a "potential car buyer" in the same way that you do not have to be "looking for a job" to be a "potential employee." Allow me to explain: "Looking to buy a car" = "Looking for a job" "A potential car buyer" = "A potential employee" Again, you can be "a potential car buyer" without actively "looking to buy a car." For example, you may absolutely love your current vehicle and not be looking for a new vehicle. But if I came to your house today and said, "Would you like to purchase my 2011 Honda Pilot for $5?," you'd probably say, "Yes." Now were you "looking to buy a car?" No. But the right opportunity arose and - low and behold - you became a car buyer! You were, by definition, a potential car buyer. Now, if you were unable to purchase a car for some reason, that changes things. For example, perhaps you are physically unable to drive a vehicle, you don't have any money or you are legally not allowed to own a car; then yes, you are no longer a "potential car buyer." But unless one of those situations exists, you are still a potential car buyer. Give you something like WHAT? I'm providing you with flat-out, undeniable, factual evidence. MORE THAN 7.8% OF THE POPULATION IS WITHOUT A JOB RIGHT NOW. What more do you want from me? What do I need to do in order to prove that? Even the most hardened economists would agree that more than 7.8% of the population is without a job. They might not factor them into their "unemployment rate" because, as Dr. Hulk said, they don't view them as being "potential employees," but that doesn't mean they deny their existence entirely. First you claimed that the 7.8% number DID include the people I'm talking about. Now you claim that those people don't matter because they don't fit into it. I've given you example after example and said nothing of substance in response because, quite frankly, it's painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. And don't tell me the numbers were "cooked" as Teapublicans have already said. I guess the number reporting the $207B decrease in the Federal Deficit is faked too? Would you stop making this about "Republicans vs. Democrats" or in this case the Tea Party? If you would stop just regurgetating the DFL talking points, you really might actually learn something. The fact is that the 7.8% number misleads people into believing that only 7.8% of people are without jobs. This is not true. And honestly, who gives a crap what the "decrease in federal deficit" is when the overall deficit is still over $1 Trillion this year? I mean, certainly it's good to be trending in the right direction, but we're still MASSIVELY in the hole and these little chips away at things are not going to do the job. It would take 5x this number in decrease for the government to break even at zero for the year. Then once you break even at zero for the year, it'd take 80 years of the government running at a $207B/yr SURPLUS in order to pay off the current US debt. To applaud the fact that the deficit this year is "only $1 Trillion" as opposed to $1.2 Trillion is pathetic. Every little bit counts. It's better to drop by $2 BILLION than to raise it by $2 BILLION. And as I said, of course, when you include EVERY SINGLE PERSON from the newest of newborn babies, literally born just the second that this post is made to the 115 year old "World's Oldest person" - then sure, yeah, more than 7.8% of the population is unemployed. But to think that those people should be included in the unemployment rate is asinine, it's crazy, and as Dr. Hulk said, it ONLY serves to inflate the number, and to give people like you something to argue about. Something to debate because your view is right and everyone else is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 10, 2012 15:56:52 GMT -5
Jesus Christ. Those are not the people I'm talking about.
Are you really this clueless or are you just trolling me?
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 10, 2012 16:11:46 GMT -5
People that should be considered unemployed in my personal opinion.
Anyone that is between the ages of 18-65 who does not have income from being employeed by someone, or through being self employed.
|
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 10, 2012 16:33:25 GMT -5
So you would count a stay-at-home parent who is that by choice? For example, my mom hasn't had a job in about 15 years, and had that for only about a year, and otherwise hasn't worked since college. That's all because she had three kids and my dad had a very good job. I wouldn't consider someone in her situation in the present day to be "unemployed" at all. She's not working by choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 10, 2012 17:12:03 GMT -5
I absolutely would count them in the actual unemployment total.
Now if you want to break it down further and say that:
X% of people are unemployed.
Y% are intentionally unemployeed
Z% are unemployeed and looking for work
B% are unemployeed and not actively looking for work.
C% of people are physically or mentally unable to work
Break it down to whatever category you want, that's fine with me. But the "unemployment" numbers that both parties throw around are meaningless to every day people.
|
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Oct 10, 2012 17:13:47 GMT -5
Best part about this year's election: Math
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 10, 2012 18:12:08 GMT -5
Regardless of opinion, economists have a standard way of measuring unemployment. What anyone else (including myself) is really irrelevant. A standard has already been adopted. There are reasons its been adopted and those reasons have been discussed here. Wanting to change it is like wanting to have 14 inches in a foot.
Sent from my ADR6350 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 10, 2012 18:49:30 GMT -5
I understand that the problem is the way they report the numbers. But that doesn't mean we should just accept it. If those numbers don't give us an accurate representation of the people who don't have jobs at the moment, we should reject them for something more precise, not accept them as the gospel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 10, 2012 19:19:13 GMT -5
And now something we can all enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 10, 2012 19:31:09 GMT -5
The only thing funnier than cartoon Romney is actual Romney:
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 10, 2012 19:59:27 GMT -5
The Obama campaign put out a good ad about how much of a flip-flopper Romney is, actually.
Romney is completely full of shit.
Then again, so is Obama.
|
|
