Reply With Quote
Where do you get the 20 million job loss from?
And... there is no SS trust fund. Congress has always raided that money. It is all spent.
There's no doubt that we all would take the 'better' number, but for one reason or another, that isn't always available. When you have to dance with the ty partner, then it becomes 'how ty is it?'. That's what I was trying to quantify. The 4% didn't look necessarily significant as a percentage point on it's own. Once quantified in amount of people affected, then it becomes clear the actual impact is pretty big.
Where do you get the 20 million job loss from?
And... there is no SS trust fund. Congress has always raided that money. It is all spent.
Where do you get the 20 million job loss from?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdfHousehold Survey Data
The unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent in February but has shown little movement, on net, since September 2012. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.0 million, also edged lower in February. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for whites (6.8 percent) declined in February while the rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult wo
men (7.0 percent), teenagers (25.1 percent), blacks (13.8 percent), and Hispanics (9.6 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted),
little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
In February, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about
unchanged at 4.8 million. These individuals accounted for 40.2 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The employment-population ratio held at 58.6 percent in February. The civilian labor force participation rate, at 63.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 8.0 million, was essentially
unchanged in February. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back
or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)
In February, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, the same as a year
earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 885,000 discouraged workers in February, down slightly from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not
currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in February had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasonssuch as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table
A-16.)
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-19-2013 at 03:30 AM.
(generally cited BLS figures for job losses in 2008 and 2009 are in the 8.5M to 8.8M range)
so then, the U-6 figure is probably somewhere around 20M right now. attributing all of that to the Panic of 2008 is fudging, tbh.
20 million people didn't just lose their jobs. Around a 5% unemployment rate is considered normal and we have always had unemployed. To say 20 million lost their jobs is saying 13% lost their jobs.
just guessing here, if you add the those working part time for economic reasons to the ~9M who lost their jobs in the recession, then figure in the discouraged and others not counted by the survey, the figure might be be somewhere around 20M. be interesting to hear from Dan how he figured it.
"jobs" number is of course very uninformative, since many who lost jobs 2007-2010 got "jobs" but which are much lower in pay, dropping them from comfortable to week-to-week near-poverty.
unemployment stats don't count that for a good reason: you're not unemployed if you have a job. if Dan wants to talk about underemployment and and poverty let him talk about that, but don't see how fudging unemployment numbers helps him out, tbh.
the facts don't support your argument. 2013 federal tax receipts, i.e. government income, is projected to be $400 billion times more than in 2008. However, we are still projected to have nearly a $1 trillion deficit. In 2017 the federal government is projected to receive $1.5 trillion more in tax revenue than in 2008, a 60% increase, and we're still projected to have a $600 billion deficit.
Brookings Ins ution
It seems to me that Dan's unsupported facts might be the total unemployed, not the net change.
Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203
That's only federal. state and municipal tax receipts were and still are way down
"Deficits Don't Matter"
-- head
Glad to see Barry is working to reduce that deficit.
you're off on a tangent. Dan Argued that the lack of government income compared to 2008 was the direct source of our fiscal problems. I provided facts that show he's dead wrong on his assumptions. Now you're arguing, besides deficits don't matter, that State & Local Taxes are "way" down. My source, Brookings Ins ution, shows that even State & Local Taxes have essentially evened out.
Now deficits don't matter theory is another story, but the question is what are we receiving for these deficits? Lower Labor Participation Rates, high unemployment, high underemployment. I don't think we are getting a good return on our money.
The Banksters Great Depression caused a huge e in costs Medicaid (many newly qualified), unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc. Much of that continues.
The deficit doesn't buy or obtain or cause "high unemployment, high underemployment.", so the idea that those two are a poor ROI of deficit spending is beyond stupid.
However, right-wingers will certainly obtain huge es in deficits and unemployment with the austerity of Ryan's ridiculous budget.
so contradicting yourself is smart?
nothing left to do but change the subject or move the goal posts, once called out on it. boutons never admits an error.
The Great Boutons Abides
---wrong thread---
---wrong thread---
Context please...
It was proved that the deficit didn't matter to the voters. Time and again they elect presidents and congress that spends, spends, spends.
I got the 20 million figure from a conglomeration of bad conservative policy which led to either direct job loss or increases in the labor market dropout rate or the underemployed and part-time employed rate..the count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is NOT a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official unemployment rate statistics (U3, U4, U5, U6, etc.). Rather, the unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm or Google: "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey"...many people wanted better jobs, but just couldn't find them or found ty part time jobs..
dp
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
