Complete Myth Of Low US Unemployment

[DamianTV]

*sigh*

So people that retire are still considered "Working Age"?

Why is the legal definition of "Longterm Unemployed" constantly meddled with? Reducing it from two years to only one year? That is a tactic called "moving the goalpost". Does anyone remember 99 weeks? Isnt 99 weeks almost 2 years?

Zippy, you define things as you want to see them, not the way everyone else sees them. There are a LOT of people that want jobs that dont apply to work for Uber or other places they know they will have success chance of success, and those seem to be the only jobs that many people are qualified for. Yet, not applying to work for Uber when you dont have a car means youre not Unemployed, it means you dont want to work? If Real Unemployment is so low, why are there so few jobs, even crap jobs, and the number of people, excluding Baby Boomers retiring, that are part of the 102 MILLION Working Age people that dont have jobs? There are a few legit exclusions like students or disabled. Pointing the finger at retiring Baby Boomers is twaddlespeak because that group is no longer included in "Working Age" and is as easily offset as many people are also turning 18 and also adding to "not in the labor force".

I swear, if you asked Zippy to crunch the raw data, he would conclude that Unemployment is at 0.00038% because he does not care at all about telling the truth, or how his lies hurt people, and only wants to bolster his own ego.

 

[Zippyjuan]

*sigh*

So people that retire are still considered "Working Age"?

Why is the legal definition of "Longterm Unemployed" constantly meddled with? Reducing it from two years to only one year? That is a tactic called "moving the goalpost". Does anyone remember 99 weeks? Isnt 99 weeks almost 2 years?

Zippy, you define things as you want to see them, not the way everyone else sees them. There are a LOT of people that want jobs that dont apply to work for Uber or other places they know they will have success chance of success, and those seem to be the only jobs that many people are qualified for. If Real Unemployment is so low, why are there so few jobs, even crap jobs, and the number of people, excluding Baby Boomers retiring, that are part of the 102 MILLION Working Age people that dont have jobs? There are a few legit exclusions like students or disabled. Pointing the finger at retiring Baby Boomers is twaddlespeak because that group is no longer included in "Working Age" and is as easily offset as many people are also turning 18 and also adding to "not in the labor force".

I swear, if you asked Zippy to crunch the raw data, he would conclude that Unemployment is at 0.00038% because he does not care at all about telling the truth, or how his lies hurt people, and only wants to bolster his own ego.

BLS counts anybody age 16 and older as "working age". They don't toss you out when you hit 65- you only don't count as "working age" when you are dead. Retired or working, they are considered "working age". If they are retired, they are not in the labor force since they are aren't working and aren't looking for work. But if you want to exclude anybody of retirement age from the "not working" category you just reduced your 100 million in it to about 50 million.

There are a few legit exclusions like students or disabled.

Add in stay at home parents and those taking care of others and you have almost everybody besides the retired people so if you reject counting retired people as not counting as "working age" then almost everybody in the "not in the labor force" is covered (all but 0.9% of the population according to the charts Firestarter posted above).

Yet, not applying to work for Uber when you dont have a car means youre not Unemployed, it means you dont want to work?

If you are not looking for a job, you are not counted as in the labor force and thus are not considered "unemployed". If you applied to Uber, you are.

Why is the legal definition of "Long term Unemployed" constantly meddled with? Reducing it from two years to only one year? That is a tactic called "moving the goalpost". Does anyone remember 99 weeks? Isnt 99 weeks almost 2 years?

When was the last time that the definition of "long term unemployment" was changed? How does that impact the overall unemployment rate? Your "99 week" in the OP refers to time limits for collecting unemployment insurance -not to "long term unemployment". To be eligible for unemployment insurance you must be looking for work- that action counts you as in the labor force but unemployed. But you can also be not on unemployment insurance and count as in the workforce and unemployed- all you need to do is be not working for money but looking for a job. Being on unemployment is irrelevant to your classification of being unemployed.

If Real Unemployment is so low, why are there so few jobs, even crap jobs,

I don't know- why? Are there no jobs?

That is total jobs. What about available jobs?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/07/job-openings-remain-near-record-highs-in-u-s/

U.S. job openings at record high levels

With the U.S. economic expansion well into its eighth year, some states are experiencing what might seem like an enviable problem: not enough people to fill all the available jobs. Utah and Colorado, among others, are reporting local worker shortages and record or near-record low unemployment. And nationally, job openings remain at their highest levels since the turn of the century.

As of the end of April, nonfarm employers reported more than 6 million job openings, according to seasonally adjusted data from the government’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (known as JOLTS). Although there are still more people without jobs than there are job openings – about 6.9 million people reported being unemployed in May – the monthly estimate of open positions has been above 5.5 million for all but one month since the start of 2016, a sign of the U.S. economy’s relative health. In July 2009, just past the trough of the Great Recession, employers reported fewer than 2.2 million job openings, the lowest total since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting JOLTS data in 2000.


Another way of looking at the vacancies data is the job openings rate, which is calculated by dividing the total number of openings by the sum of total employment and openings. (The higher the rate, the greater the nation’s unmet demand for labor.) The openings rate was a robust 4% in April, matching the high points reached in July 2015 and July 2016. Like the total number of job openings, the openings rate bottomed out in July 2009, at 1.7%.

(article was from one year ago)

 

[DamianTV]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zippyjuan again.

You deserve yet another -Rep. Someone want to cover me?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Which of those people should be counted as unemployed?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ment-different-stories-from-the-jobs-numbers/

That bottom number (35.2%) is where we find our "not in the labor force" people- including students, stay at home parents, volunteer caregivers, retired persons, etc. They have not looked for a job in at least a year.

The 2.5% "employed part time for economic reasons" are people who are working part time but would like to be working more hours.

 

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-u-s-increased-in-april-to-record-6-7-million

Earlier this month:

U.S. Job Openings Rise to Record, Exceeding Number of Unemployed

U.S. job openings unexpectedly rose to a fresh record in April, with vacancies increasingly exceeding the number of unemployed workers amid a robust labor market, Labor Department data showed Tuesday.

Key Takeaways
The gains reinforce the view that the economy is creating jobs at a pace that can absorb any remaining labor-market slack. The report follows data released last week that showed payrolls increased more than forecast in May, the unemployment rate fell to 3.8 percent, matching April 2000 as the lowest since 1969, and wages also picked up.

More at link.

 

[DamianTV]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-u-s-increased-in-april-to-record-6-7-million

Earlier this month:



More at link.

So why doesnt ANYONE jump in to back up ANY of your claims that everything is awesome, inflation is good, unemployment is really low, and Ron Paul is flat out wrong on everything especially the economy? Are you smarter than Ron Paul? Does Ron Paul only express incorrect opinions on everything that has to do with economics? Why arent there a hundred thousand people, hell, even ONE person, jumping in and jumping my shit and having your back?

 

[Zippyjuan]

So why doesnt ANYONE jump in to back up ANY of your claims that everything is awesome, inflation is good, unemployment is really low, and Ron Paul is flat out wrong on everything especially the economy? Are you smarter than Ron Paul? Does Ron Paul only express incorrect opinions on everything that has to do with economics? Why arent there a hundred thousand people, hell, even ONE person, jumping in and jumping my $#@! and having your back?

Sorry. You are right. We are always in recession. There is never any good economy. Unemployment and inflation are all triple digits. Always. But gold will solve all of that.

Yes, I do disagree with Ron Paul on economics. Some here disagree with him on other things like immigration and border walls. I don't agree with anybody on everything. I don't follow whatever anybody says blindly. (and I am not the only one).

So, back to the discussion. How many of the people in the chart would you consider "unemployed"? Which groups?

How do you define unemployment? Anybody not working for whatever reason? If so, we have about 40% unemployment.

Is there a preferred time limit to not be looking for work before we decide a person isn't interested in getting a job? Is a year too short?

 

[DamianTV]

I would define Unemployed as anyone who self defines Unemployed. The decision would be based on their own opinion. The ability for someone else to interpret what they say as different allows for Bias. The results are obvious to anyone who isnt a Brainwashed Keynsian.

You've pissed a lot more people here off here than just me, Mr "I have the longest Red Bar of any member on this forum". You may also want to keep in mind that with that big Red Bar, anything you say has very very damaged credibility, especially to people who read but do not post. So by all means, continue to post and continue to undermine the very system you try to support, as most people now understand why you have the big Red Bar that you do. With that status, you are now working against the very system you continue to validate since you never offer solutions that work for anyone but yourself or your overlords.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I would define Unemployed as anyone who self defines Unemployed. The decision would be based on their own opinion. The ability for someone else to interpret what they say as different allows for Bias. The results are obvious to anyone who isnt a Brainwashed Keynsian.

My red bars were a gift from a friend. But I don't care about bars.

OK. This is a start. The person should say they consider themselves unemployed. BLS asks people if they want a job or not in their figures.

We can toss out those in the "employed" category in the chart. We can also get rid of the "don't want a job" category. That leaves 5.6%. Shadowstats says about 22% so he is way off. We can reject his figures but we can keep the grey line in his chart- the U-6 unemployment. The U-6 measures those and also counts those who are part time but want more hours. That is currently 7.6%.

That is at its lowest point on his chart since at least 2000 and was about 17% during the recession- a significant improvement for no jobs being added.

 

[Swordsmyth]

My red bars were a gift from a friend of liberty.

fixed it.

 

[loveshiscountry]

The important thing being that these are people who CHOOSE not to have jobs for various reasons. Even if there were 100 million more jobs available in the economy, they would not accept one of them.

What reasons?

If people can afford to not work and choose not to, does that mean you have a bad economy?

Who says people can afford to not work?

 

[TheTexan]

Plenty of good jobs open at the TSA if anyone's looking

 

[Zippyjuan]

What reasons?

That was listed previously. Retirement. Going to school and not working while attending. Stay at home mothers and fathers. People not working so they can take care of family or relatives who may be disabled or ill.

 

[loveshiscountry]

That was listed previously. Retirement. Going to school and not working while attending. Stay at home mothers and fathers. People not working so they can take care of family or relatives who may be disabled or ill.

Haven't we always had that?
More of the younger generation is going to school. Guessing a minute shift there.
Less stay at home moms and dads unless there has been a sudden shift i'm not aware of.
Life expectancy has slightly declined in "Murica the last few years and aren't a higher percentage of the older generation working because they can't afford to retire?
I'm guessing that technology/internets has allowed more disabled to work too.

 

[loveshiscountry]

Plenty of good jobs open at the TSA if anyone's looking

The real money is in buying all the stuff the TSA workers boost.