closeupready
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 01:57 PM
Original message |
Can someone explain to me how the unemployment statistics |
|
as we have them today are misleading as to understating the true level of unemployment? thanks in advance.
|
GodlessBiker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The statistic does not count those who have given up looking or have taken a part-time job. |
|
Reality is worse than the unemployment figure suggests.
|
Lost4words
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I think a truly accurate count would surprise even us, not to mention the UNDER-EMPLOYED.
|
prolesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Yes, there are millions of people who are underemployed |
|
They have run out of benefits and taken any job available just to have some income.
|
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
9. Doesn't count non-violent drug users in prison and their useless guards either |
|
Probably more significant than fudged numbers in determining our differences from the rest of the industrialized world.
|
marketcrazy1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:02 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics |
closeupready
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Right, but long ago, the stats were more accurate - didn't Reagan |
|
initiate some sort of changes to the method of collecting the stats which rendered them less useful, but made employment stats look better?
|
marketcrazy1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
of the birth/death model?? started using it in 2000???
|
closeupready
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Yeah, that may be it. |
|
I just recall that a while back, it was compiled differently, and over time, it's been neutered so as not to embarrass whoever is the current occupant of the Oval Office.
|
TimesSquareCowboy
(222 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. Well, Clinton did, too. |
|
And the reporting is not for every employer - the BLS takes the actual numbers they have and guesses at how many additional jobs were created. There's a columnist in the NY Post who's been covering this and other government statistics fudging for a long time, it's interesting to read.
|
Wilber_Stool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:06 PM
Response to Original message |
|
indicate the people that have never had a job because they are just now entering the work force.
|
GodlessBiker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. That's a good point. New grads from undergraduate, law, business schools. |
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Short answer: When your unemployment runs out they quit counting you |
|
Doesn't matter if you are still looking for a job or not.
|
TimesSquareCowboy
(222 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 04:07 PM
Response to Original message |
13. I posted an article that puts the real number at 13.9% |
closeupready
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-06-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 07:01 AM
Response to Original message |