Reply With Quote
The Shadow Government alternate seems to be trending up.
this one is pretty good: (I'd pick the gray one)
The Shadow Government alternate seems to be trending up.
Perhaps they adjust for the long term unemployed who drop off the rolls.
Just curious, Che', why do you prefer the U-6 measurement?
Study: Unemployment Added 9.3 Million Adults To The Rolls Of The Uninsured
In yet another example of the problem with linking insurance coverage to employment, a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that “a one percentage point increase in the state unemployment rate is associated with a 1.67 percentage point (2.12%) reduction in the probability that men have health insurance.” “This effect is strongest among college-educated, white, and older (50-64 year old) men,” the research concluded. Similarly a “one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 1.37 percentage point (4.69%) higher probability that a child is covered by public health insurance.” And so based on those estimates, 9.3 million adults lost insurance “due to a higher unemployment rate alone during the 2007-09 recession.” The Affordable Care Act will mitigate this trend, as individuals, families, small businesses (and eventually larger businesses) will be able to find coverage in the exchanges.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011...the-uninsured/
===
Yet another reason why working Americans STFU and are intimidated by the prospect loss of job.
When jobs really start coming back, unemployment rate will temporarily rise again as discouraged workers start looking for jobs again. - Ezra Klein
very good point
a rise in unemployment can be good news, just as a fall can reflect something bad
Just another predatory thrust in the UCA War on Employees
“Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit From the Nest Eggs of American Workers”
With slick accounting tricks, Schultz writes, corporate America has funneled billions of dollars out of pension funds. Many companies used the money to pay for downsizing—covering early-retirement buyouts, which are considered voluntary, instead of imposing a layoff and cash severance. Some funds were simply terminated, and the money was used to offset operating expenses. And so, company by company, a great surplus dwindled.
To replenish the pension funds, companies cut benefits, Schultz writes. Their gains were immediate: Earnings got a boost. The companies’ obligations were cut. Their bottom lines were bolstered. It took much longer for workers’ losses to register: In many of the cases Schultz cites, workers realized the damage only once they were old and sick and had little in the way of resources to embark on a protracted legal battle.
It’s utterly depressing, and that’s just the start. Having plundered the pensions, companies exploited 401(k) plans to borrow money cheaply. With pensions underfunded or frozen, they dug into retiree health plans. The trend of tying executive pay to performance only made matters worse, Schultz explains, leading, for instance, to the death-benefit bamboozle, whereby companies take out life insurance policies on their employees. When a worker dies, even if he’s long since found other work or retired, the company cashes in on the death benefit, tax-free. In many of these cases, the payout to the company dwarfs whatever benefit might go to the next of kin.
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture...live_20111201/
Thanks for sharing the tricks of the trade, boss man. You're a goldmine of information (for your fellow corporate-Americans) on how to screw over your employees.
No.
Remember, this is also temporary X-Mas hiring.
True, but that is the standard used. There are different numbers available, but that is the official one.
Trends Show Women Losing Access to Jobs
The employment rate for women is down 0.7 percentage points from its year-ago level.
The Labor Department reported a decline of 315,000 people in the labor market in October. This was the main factor driving a drop of 0.4 percentage points in the unemployment rate to 8.6 percent. The establishment survey showed a weaker-than-expected 120,000 job gain for the month; although this bad news was largely offset by upward revisions of 72,000 to the job growth numbers for the prior two months.
The drop in participation was entirely among women and especially black women. (Among married women, employment rose by 194,000, so this was not a case of women as second earners dropping out of the labor force.) Participation numbers among white women fell by 199,000, a decline of 0.2 percentage points. The drop among black women was 164,000, a drop of 1.2 percentage points. These monthly numbers are highly erratic, and it is likely that at least part of this drop will be reversed in future months. Nonetheless there had been a trend of declining participation rates among both white and black women even prior to the November plunge. This suggests that there is a real issue of women losing access to jobs; although the December figures may show some reversal.
http://www.truth-out.org/declining-l...ent/1322855116
I read somewhere (don't remember where...please don't ask me to link it...I can't...) that the unemployment rate among women was going to go up as the recessionary influences hit state and local government jobs. In other words, it was reporting that women were NOT among those who lost their jobs first in the recession, because they were not employed in the private sector in the same proportions as men.
As the recession forced state and local governments to rein in spending due to lower tax revenues, however, women were the primary folks hit.
I think that's likely the explanation for the women thing.
I can't figure out why you guys are screaming at each other about methodologies here though. God grief!!
I recall reading that too. It may have been posted here somewhere...
Screaming?
???
Seemed like a regular conversation to me...
Hard to unpack the significance of the figure without, you know, unpacking it a little.
Myself, I simply get tired of the race and gender cards being used when ever possible.
okay perhaps not screaming, but, sorry, it sure seemed to me to go and on and on and on with some sort of 'passive aggressive' screaming.
Didn't mean to offend...just struck me as...goofy.
No you assumed my comments to be universal. You should know me better to think that when it comes to human behavior, i will not make such comments.
OTOH, CC has a propensity to make a conclusion and then insert logic after the fact to fit those conclusions. That where the discussion from me came from.
You have decided to include yourself in my statements when i have told you point blank that is not the case. I may have misspoke at some point but my intention is never to claim that there is some sort of universal human behavior.
Keep up the martyr routine though its somewhat amusing if unfounded.
goofy for sure
i know exactly what that is but the question is "are you looking for work." They fall under that category that answers no. If you have some data that demonstrates that is a significant trend over and above what its been for the last several months then by all means link the data.
My only contention is that the data normalizes for monthly variations in response to what the majority leader claimed.
You did not qualify "ST posters"Not global, but still pretty sweeping, as stated.I know how the numbers are figured and they are seasonally adjusted which seems to be oblivious to ST posters and GOP reps alike.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-02-2011 at 06:16 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
