Reply With Quote
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=24Their comments did not reflect it
Sure, if you pretend (like they did) that 315,000 people "quit looking for work" at the same time.
You want employment at 7%? Lets just pretend that a couple million of those lazy bas s quit looking for work...
Viola! 7% unemployment!!!!! Hooray!!!!!
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=24Their comments did not reflect it
employment rates I've seen sometimes as "seasonally adjusted", as in more outdoor/manual employment in good weather months, more retail employment Thanksgiving-to-Christmas.
Actually, the formula has continually been adjusted over the years.ppl here think the DOL started using this jobs formula as soon as Barack came to power
truth is the same formula has been used for decades and the # is just to reference it historically, which is the correct way to use it.
no it is not the real # of the unemployed today
The people that talk about seasonal changes as if they are not at least accounted for in some way which is from the quote that I initially replied to.
So you advocate counting those not looking for work anyway?
there is someone here that said the #s are bogus. which I agree. But that person refused to awknowledge that the same formula has been used throughout history which means compared historically it is a good way of telling how the jobs situation is.
Are they employed or unemployed?
They do not count housewives and students either for the same reason. Should we count those?
My question related to analysis. What realities does the number reflect?
If the drop more reflects that a large number people have given up looking for work, than new hires and seasonal adjustment -- as has happened at least once this year, I believe -- then it's not good news.
Ah then, we're not all ignorant dolts. Who did you mean then?
So then, you contend that the way the number is arrived at has not significantly changed over the years?
The BLS has not always removed "discouraged workers" from the unemployment numbers. This is a fairly recent development so your premise is incorrect.
That quote was certainly not directed at you. i know you are not intellectually lazy, Wine. You have proven that. There are some that do not have such inspection.
You can lump yourself with CC for the martyr pose if you like though.
not significantly in the last 20 years no. Unless you have proof it has, then I will retract.
@FL: You made a careless generalization. Pointing it out doesn't make me a martyr.
Another reason not to get excited about the drop in unemployment rate. There's plenty ongoing, no-end-in-sight, worsening info to offset it.
Job openings closed to the unemployed
Among recent job postings placed by Anderson Staffing, a San Francisco "full service staffing boutique that specializes in the placement of attorneys and legal personnel," was the following:
"Two openings for Corporate/Transactional Legal Secretaries in the Finance/Real Estate departments." Salary: $70,000-$80,000 a year. "We are also looking for a Legal Sec/EA (executive assistant) to Managing Partner." Salary: $80,000-$90,000 a year.
Among the must-have qualifications for the positions: "solid large law firm experience," "very flex for overtime," "friendly, polished and team player," "take charge type of person - large presence ... not meek."
Oh, and one other, as posted on CareerBuilder.com and HotSanFranciscoJobs.com: applicants must be "currently employed."
In New Jersey, such a posting would be illegal. A law signed by the state's Republican governor in March expressly prohibits posting a job ad that "knowingly or purposely" states that "qualifications for a job include current employment" - or that lack of same is an automatic disqualifier.
But not, as yet, in California, where the unemployment rate is 11.7 percent, or anywhere else in the nation.
"When I first found out about this, I thought, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, who said he will introduce legislation similar to the New Jersey law soon after Sacramento reopens for business in the new year.
"Being unemployed in this economy is stigma enough," he said. "But the fact that you can eliminate an entire class of people from competing for a job is unacceptable."
It's not surprising, in a highly compe ive job market, that companies might prefer applicants who are already gainfully employed over those who have been out of work and may have lost their skills. "Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance," said University of Colorado law Professor Helen Norton, testifying at a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing in February.
The practice first came to light last year, when it was reported that mobile phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson had added "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all" language to a job posting at its Atlanta headquarters. Since then, the practice appears to have spread.
Norton said companies and employment agencies have applied the "no unemployed allowed" sticker on jobs ranging from electronic engineers to restaurant managers and mortgage underwriters (oh, the irony!).
http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_...l=true#display
Do you know what a "discouraged worker" is? Do your homework, dude.
It was substantially re-written in 1994.
Thanks for the clarification. Originally you suggested the methodology hadn't changed "throughout history."
looks like CC nailed you on that one.
when were "discouraged workers" removed? (I've been looking for this)
thanks
at that time...'94
The problem is, defining "discouraged worker" is a subjective decision and is not arrived at through objective statistical measure...and it appears to me that this category is currently being abused to skew the numbers...
here is a good link I found including all types
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Which figure best reflects the reality of unemployment, in your opinion?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions