1.3 million Americans set to lose unemployment benefits Saturday

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

If there is an unmet supply for jobs as the two posters suggested these figures should indeed fall and reflect a picture which is closer to reality. If their testimonial is indicative of the real world, the actual unemployment rate is already much lower than the figures show, for they include those who opt to be unemployed.

The current unemployment rate does not count those who opt to be unemployed, from what I understand. Only those actively seeking a job who are receiving unemployment compensation. Not sure how they COULD count someone like my wife who is unemployed, receiving nothing, yet is putting in applications around town.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Probably it's because benefit sign ups are the only statistics collected - how else would you do it?

Tweaking the rules just means the government can say unemployment has fallen when it actually hasn't.

[JohnR! 5,495]

The current unemployment rate does not count those who opt to be unemployed, from what I understand. Only those actively seeking a job who are receiving unemployment compensation. Not sure how they COULD count someone like my wife who is unemployed, receiving nothing, yet is putting in applications around town.

I hear you and I agree with you. I was simply pointing our the flaw in rationale exhibited by two other posters. Thank you for helping me make my point, with your cogent argumentation.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not sure how they COULD count someone like my wife who is unemployed, receiving nothing, yet is putting in applications around town.

It's not that hard to find out if you want to know.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

It's not that hard to find out if you want to know.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

Yeah, I know how to use Google, thanks. But that method, while perhaps the best possible, is far from perfect. No one has ever contacted anyone in my family to see if we are working. And with a sampling of 110K, that's about .03% of the US population.

I doubt very seriously they know my wife is unemployed.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, I know how to use Google, thanks. But that method, while perhaps the best possible, is far from perfect. No one has ever contacted anyone in my family to see if we are working. And with a sampling of 110K, that's about .03% of the US population.

I doubt very seriously they know my wife is unemployed.

It's called a survey. That's how a lot of stuff is established. Like how many household watch a specific TV program. Nobody ever asked me - and they didn't need to. They do this with a representative sampling. That's how it's been done. And it is fairly accurate. Even if nobody ever asked you whether your souse is looking for work while not filing for benefits. That happens to be the case for a lot of people. And they are and have been capturing that fairly well. It is why they are saying that only about a quarter of those that will cease to receive extended UI will actually drop out of the workforce. The other 75% or so will remain in the workforce and - until they start working - be counted as unemployed even if they do no longer file for benefits. They'll be in the same boat that your spouse is in. And they will be counted as unemployed even if nobody contacts them or their family.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, I gotta admit, I thought you were talking to him too. In fact, you are the first person in the thread to bring up the oldest profession. Do you know something of its lucrativeness? To whom WERE addressing the remark?

Oh come now, there is only one regular to VJ OT who has laid the claim that they have no morals and exults prostitution as giving women freedom of choice. You know that as well as I do but for some reason you are too coy to admit it. I wonder why?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

...there is only one regular to VJ OT who has laid the claim that they have no morals and exults prostitution as giving women freedom of choice.

Link, or it didn't happen.

[Karee 4,190]

The labor participation rate is an interesting figure:

Source:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The labor participation rate is an interesting figure:

Source:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Yes. Fewer persons in the workforce, which is the sole reason unemployment has been declining in the Obama years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes. Fewer persons in the workforce, which is the sole reason unemployment has been declining in the Obama years.

Sorry but that claim is actually false. There is a lower percentage of the civilian non-institutional population in the workforce but there are not fewer but actually more persons in the workforce today (155.3MM) than there were in Feb 2009 (154.2MM). There are also more persons employed today (144.4MM) than there were in Feb 2009 (141.7MM). It's easy to see that the number of employed persons has grown faster (+2.7MM) than the number of persons in the workforce (+1.1MM). Hence the decline in the unemployment rate between then (8.1%) and now (7%).

I apologize in advance for having injected facts into the discussion.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I apologize in advance for having injected facts into the discussion.

[Pooky 3,787]

Sorry but that claim is actually false. There is a lower percentage of the civilian non-institutional population in the workforce but there are not fewer but actually more persons in the workforce today (155.3MM) than there were in Feb 2009 (154.2MM). There are also more persons employed today (144.4MM) than there were in Feb 2009 (141.7MM). It's easy to see that the number of employed persons has grown faster (+2.7MM) than the number of persons in the workforce (+1.1MM). Hence the decline in the unemployment rate between then (8.1%) and now (7%).

I apologize in advance for having injected facts into the discussion.

And yet, when you factor in the 3+% fall in the workforce, nowhere near all of which can be explained away by aging out of the workforce, you see why the bare numerical statistics are treated with such disdain.

Where has that 3% gone? As a part of a 66% participation rate in 2009. This would amount to about a 4.5% adder to the unemployment rate that has simply gone missing in the last 5 years.

As the quote goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

It's called a survey. That's how a lot of stuff is established. Like how many household watch a specific TV program. Nobody ever asked me - and they didn't need to. They do this with a representative sampling. That's how it's been done. And it is fairly accurate. Even if nobody ever asked you whether your souse is looking for work while not filing for benefits. That happens to be the case for a lot of people. And they are and have been capturing that fairly well. It is why they are saying that only about a quarter of those that will cease to receive extended UI will actually drop out of the workforce. The other 75% or so will remain in the workforce and - until they start working - be counted as unemployed even if they do no longer file for benefits. They'll be in the same boat that your spouse is in. And they will be counted as unemployed even if nobody contacts them or their family.

Okay. If you say so. But like a lot of statistics, I'm sure there's large room for error. Kind of like one statistic saying that mass murders in the US is on the rise in recent years... but THAT all depends on how one defines "mass murder", right? Over 4, like the FBI? Over 14? In fact, mass murders are on the decline. But you have to really look to find that factoid.

BLUF... the unemployment rate matters not. It could be higher or lower, and unless we spent a LOT of money to get an actual number, we will never know. Some are unemployed due to laziness, some because of location, others may be over-qualified or under-qualified. But in the end, does it matter? There are X amount of jobs, and X+Y too many people to fill them.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Oh come now, there is only one regular to VJ OT who has laid the claim that they have no morals and exults prostitution as giving women freedom of choice. You know that as well as I do but for some reason you are too coy to admit it. I wonder why?

Sorry, I don't have time to memorize the morals of all the people who post here. I have a hard enough time keeping straight all the idiots from the cogent posters.

And this isn't OT, it's CEHST. And prostitution IS the choice of a woman. I've never tried to force my wife to make more money selling her body. That would be insensitive of me.

Edited December 28, 2013 by DavenRoxy