Real unemployment at 15%

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2012 10:20 PM GMT
    This is not good for anybody.

    You can read the whole Congressional Budget Office report at CBO.gov, for those of you who dislike the origin of the link. I read the CBO report and the information in the text is easy to find.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/unemployment/2012/02/16/new-cbo-report-decimates-obamanomics-real-unemployment-hits-15#ixzz1maHc95kK

    "The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent. Compounding the problem of high unemployment, the share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months—referred to as the long-term unemployed—topped 40 percent in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.”

    Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/unemployment/2012/02/16/new-cbo-report-decimates-obamanomics-real-unemployment-hits-15#ixzz1maNtnF3N
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 17, 2012 3:19 AM GMT
    Ok, since Southbeach prefers to troll and keep bumping dead threads that no one cares to answer, before I head off to work, I'll just say this :

    This is a fine example of conservative, fox news lead idiocy and spin. Southbeach, even you know this...and I'm sure the OP knows this as well.

    To call unemployment 15% is to redefine unemployment. Unemployment is slightly above 8%. The other term they use there, the people who work part time who want to work full time...it's called UNDER EMPLOYMENT.

    You can't add the under employment rate to the unemployment rate and magically get a new unemployment rate.

    All except idiots understand this.

    Fox news cannot, despite what it wants to do, make up its own definitions. It is no surprise that this comes from them, as they are a spin outlet that caters to the intellectually lacking part of the conservative community.

    Again: Unemployment rate + underemployment rate does not equal "Real unemployment rate."

    Such stupidity.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 17, 2012 3:20 AM GMT
    Apparently, news on the economy and jobs created are so good, they have to start redefining terms in order to make things look bad... Even Romney got called out recently and had to admit that the economy was improving and had to just say "not as fast as he would like."

    Deal with it...spin it as much as you want...Smart people see through it. Peace out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2012 4:09 PM GMT
    OP - What you are witnessing here is the continual ignorant and dishonest spin from the hardcore liberals who have remained active. More and more of us don't even bother much dealing with them.

    Fox reported from the CBO document that stated:

    Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent.

    The fact that it happened to be reported on the Fox website is all that matters to these idiots even with Fox is quoting directly from the CBO document. It is really not worth having a back-and-forth discussion with them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2012 4:17 PM GMT
    "as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent."

    Interesting IF in there.

    If you have three different jobs and work two of them for two days a week each and one of them for three days a week you have a part-time worker, even though they are working full-time hours, or in this example, more. 7 days a week. No vacation (part-time/temp), no benefits, and a life with little time for anything other than work.

    Yet according to the quote above, you'd be considered unemployed.

    Interesting indeed.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 17, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidOP - What you are witnessing here is the continual ignorant and dishonest spin from the hardcore liberals who have remained active. More and more of us don't even bother much dealing with them.

    Fox reported from the CBO document that stated:

    Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent.

    The fact that it happened to be reported on the Fox website is all that matters to these idiots even with Fox is quoting directly from the CBO document. It is really not worth having a back-and-forth discussion with them.


    Idiot? YOu are the idiot

    Please answer my question: Since when has underemployment been part of the formula for unemployment?

    Answer that. You can't redefine unemployment rate to add those that are underemployed. You spun it. It's not a matter that it came from fox...the issue at hand is that they took it upon themselves to redefine unemployment rate inappropriately to come up with a scary number in order to put people in a fearful state.

    As stated before, and I will reiterate it again, as it's being proven true - The only shot in hell that republicans have at motivating their base is through fear...And now, because they are desperate enough, they are redefining certain terms in order to spin things.

    UNEMPLOYMENT RATE + UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE DOES NOT EQUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

    You can't just friggin add the two together and redefine unemployment rate!!!
    I know this. Most people know this. Deep down, I know you know this, too.

    Now, let's have Montana state government show you how's it done:

    http://dli.mt.gov/resources/howrate.asp

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREThe unemployment rate has specific limitations. It can't differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs. It doesn't account for people who are underemployed, or working in jobs for which they are overqualified because they can't find a good job. It won't tell you how many people have become so discouraged in their job search that they have given up hope of finding a job.



    So...what we see here is an attempt to inflate a falling number...Bravo, Republicans. Bravo. When numbers start looking good, redefine how you calculate them to try and make them look bad. Find a way to add a new section of the population on it that you haven't done previously!

    While a direct quote from the CBO...notice the phrase "IF." Yes "If those people were included."

    That's an IF..not that is. Unfortunately, rabid republicans have hopped on this and are feeding on it. They made it into a talking point, disregarding that it is just the CBO saying "IF." They say "IF" because...as explained above, it isn't. If we did the same thing to the unemployment rate during Republican presidents....You know...just added the unemployment and underemployment rate and called it the unemployment rate...just saying IF we did it under the Republican presidential terms..

    If, If, If...

    The importance of the word "If." If pigs flew...If Republicans had a brain...
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 17, 2012 6:53 PM GMT
    If you want to use the underemployment rate as a more accurate measure of the economic status - cool. But keep it consistent. You don't just redefine unemployment rate at one point and have it skyrocket because you did so. If this is going to be done, you'd have to track it back through many, many years to make that 15% number more than anything but a scary "If."

    If that were how employment rate were calculated...Well, it isn't. That's why the CBO says "if." You can't just start calculating it that way now because our president isn't someone you like. Deal with it. Like I said...if you wanna use that definition as a striking point, you need to go back and track it for the last 20-30 years using that definition.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2012 6:57 PM GMT
    The terms may not add up, but instead of viewing it as"apples and oranges", view it as a basket full of bad fruit (in which rotten apples and spoiled oranges can be found)

    The underemployment rate of people working sub-optimal jobs (for their education and skill sets) is still a *bad* thing when they might otherwise. e earning income commensurate with their education, credentials, and skills

    It means less income for people, and less tax revenue all around.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 17, 2012 6:59 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidThe terms may not add up, but instead of viewing it as"apples and oranges", view it as a basket full of bad fruit (in which rotten apples and spoiled oranges can be found)

    The underemployment rate of people working sub-optimal jobs (for their education and skill sets) is still a *bad* thing when they might otherwise. e earning income commensurate with their education, credentials, and skills

    It means less income for people, and less tax revenue all around.


    I agree. I think it's another statistical guide to evaluating the economy. However, choosing to redfine it now at this point would be an unfair evaluation of the market without previous unemployment rates that include the underemployment rate. You have to have comparisons.

    By hopping on that CBO line that states basically "If we chose to define the rate this way..." and then using the end of that line as a headline, you are being deceitful unless you trend it using the revised definition. By wrongfully misinterpreting it, you end up with lines such as "real unemployment isn't 8%, it's 15%!!!" Without a careful evaluation into this claim made by conservatives, one would be scared...why? Because they see a huge jump from 8% to 15% because prior numbers weren't defined the same way... It's deceit and scare tactics.

    Again, not opposed to using that number if one would like...but you have to be consistent and can't just lop on 7% all of the sudden without giving context into it not being how other numbers were calculated and trending the data.

    The appropriate interpretation is "Current unemployment rate hovers around 8% with an additional underemployment rate of around 7%."

    Again, one would need to trend the combined numbers to make anything of the combination of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2012 7:46 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness saidOP - What you are witnessing here is the continual ignorant and dishonest spin from the hardcore liberals who have remained active. More and more of us don't even bother much dealing with them.

    Fox reported from the CBO document that stated:

    Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent.

    The fact that it happened to be reported on the Fox website is all that matters to these idiots even with Fox is quoting directly from the CBO document. It is really not worth having a back-and-forth discussion with them.


    Idiot? YOu are the idiot

    Please answer my question: Since when has underemployment been part of the formula for unemployment?

    Answer that. You can't redefine unemployment rate to add those that are underemployed. You spun it. It's not a matter that it came from fox...the issue at hand is that they took it upon themselves to redefine unemployment rate inappropriately to come up with a scary number in order to put people in a fearful state.

    As stated before, and I will reiterate it again, as it's being proven true - The only shot in hell that republicans have at motivating their base is through fear...And now, because they are desperate enough, they are redefining certain terms in order to spin things.

    UNEMPLOYMENT RATE + UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE DOES NOT EQUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

    You can't just friggin add the two together and redefine unemployment rate!!!
    I know this. Most people know this. Deep down, I know you know this, too.

    Now, let's have Montana state government show you how's it done:

    http://dli.mt.gov/resources/howrate.asp

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREThe unemployment rate has specific limitations. It can't differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs. It doesn't account for people who are underemployed, or working in jobs for which they are overqualified because they can't find a good job. It won't tell you how many people have become so discouraged in their job search that they have given up hope of finding a job.



    So...what we see here is an attempt to inflate a falling number...Bravo, Republicans. Bravo. When numbers start looking good, redefine how you calculate them to try and make them look bad. Find a way to add a new section of the population on it that you haven't done previously!

    While a direct quote from the CBO...notice the phrase "IF." Yes "If those people were included."

    That's an IF..not that is. Unfortunately, rabid republicans have hopped on this and are feeding on it. They made it into a talking point, disregarding that it is just the CBO saying "IF." They say "IF" because...as explained above, it isn't. If we did the same thing to the unemployment rate during Republican presidents....You know...just added the unemployment and underemployment rate and called it the unemployment rate...just saying IF we did it under the Republican presidential terms..

    If, If, If...

    The importance of the word "If." If pigs flew...If Republicans had a brain...

    You don't like being called an idiot, so you called me one. I thought you were better, but you have to be among the biggest fools on RJ. The OP and I did not spin anything. All either of us did was quote the CBO document, in my case, with no additional comment except to call out your spin. The document spoke for itself. You don't like it, well tough shit.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 17, 2012 7:54 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness saidOP - What you are witnessing here is the continual ignorant and dishonest spin from the hardcore liberals who have remained active. More and more of us don't even bother much dealing with them.

    Fox reported from the CBO document that stated:

    Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent.

    The fact that it happened to be reported on the Fox website is all that matters to these idiots even with Fox is quoting directly from the CBO document. It is really not worth having a back-and-forth discussion with them.


    Idiot? YOu are the idiot

    Please answer my question: Since when has underemployment been part of the formula for unemployment?

    Answer that. You can't redefine unemployment rate to add those that are underemployed. You spun it. It's not a matter that it came from fox...the issue at hand is that they took it upon themselves to redefine unemployment rate inappropriately to come up with a scary number in order to put people in a fearful state.

    As stated before, and I will reiterate it again, as it's being proven true - The only shot in hell that republicans have at motivating their base is through fear...And now, because they are desperate enough, they are redefining certain terms in order to spin things.

    UNEMPLOYMENT RATE + UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE DOES NOT EQUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

    You can't just friggin add the two together and redefine unemployment rate!!!
    I know this. Most people know this. Deep down, I know you know this, too.

    Now, let's have Montana state government show you how's it done:

    http://dli.mt.gov/resources/howrate.asp

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HEREThe unemployment rate has specific limitations. It can't differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs. It doesn't account for people who are underemployed, or working in jobs for which they are overqualified because they can't find a good job. It won't tell you how many people have become so discouraged in their job search that they have given up hope of finding a job.



    So...what we see here is an attempt to inflate a falling number...Bravo, Republicans. Bravo. When numbers start looking good, redefine how you calculate them to try and make them look bad. Find a way to add a new section of the population on it that you haven't done previously!

    While a direct quote from the CBO...notice the phrase "IF." Yes "If those people were included."

    That's an IF..not that is. Unfortunately, rabid republicans have hopped on this and are feeding on it. They made it into a talking point, disregarding that it is just the CBO saying "IF." They say "IF" because...as explained above, it isn't. If we did the same thing to the unemployment rate during Republican presidents....You know...just added the unemployment and underemployment rate and called it the unemployment rate...just saying IF we did it under the Republican presidential terms..

    If, If, If...

    The importance of the word "If." If pigs flew...If Republicans had a brain...

    You don't like being called an idiot, so you called me one. I thought you were better, but you have to be among the biggest fools on RJ. The OP and I did not spin anything. All either of us did was quote the CBO document, in my case, with no additional comment except to call out your spin. The document spoke for itself. You don't like it, well tough shit.


    I reciprocate...like any good gay ;)

    Also, as far as the biggest fools on RJ, I think that honor goes to your saggy moobs.. See, look, I reciprocate.

    And, yes..the OP did spin

    "Real unemployment rate"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2012 8:04 PM GMT
    This is the piece that makes or breaks the reliability of these unemployment studies:

    ...The unemployment rate has specific limitations. It can't differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs. It doesn't account for people who are underemployed, or working in jobs for which they are overqualified because they can't find a good job. It won't tell you how many people have become so discouraged in their job search that they have given up hope of finding a job.


    This is nearly as spurious as some (government) publications of the consumer price index and rates of inflation, where we have "announced" rates of under 3% (which accounts for the annual cost of living/within grade pay increases for federal employees, when not frozen due to executive order).

    Which has nearly nothing to do with real inflation due to an ever-weakening dollar, costs of oil which percolate out to the transportation and food production sectors, and have us all wondering why real income seems to be receding against the real cost of living.

    In short, what comes out of the CBO might not exactly be the Gospel.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 17, 2012 8:09 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said


    The importance of the word "If." If pigs flew...If Republicans had a brain...

    You don't like being called an idiot, so you called me one. I thought you were better, but you have to be among the biggest fools on RJ. The OP and I did not spin anything. All either of us did was quote the CBO document, in my case, with no additional comment except to call out your spin. The document spoke for itself. You don't like it, well tough shit.

    I reciprocate...like any good gay ;)

    Also, as far as the biggest fools on RJ, I think that honor goes to your saggy moobs.. See, look, I reciprocate.

    And, yes..the OP did spin

    "Real unemployment rate"


    Many on RJ in this forum are emboldened to personal attacks. Partially because others have been doing it for a long time. The other because of the clear absence of moderators, or there own political bias.

    Its part of the reason you have rare constructive conversations occurring in this section.

    Clearly by your many other posts you think poorly of anyone outside your political sphere.

    It says more about the fact that you really do not want a conversation. But more of a "talking at people".

    I am not singling you out . But it seemed appropriate given the above back and forthe.
    Many other RJ'ers do this.

    Lets all try to post a reply without making references to a individuals and discuss the facts!

  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 17, 2012 8:11 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidThis is the piece that makes or breaks the reliability of these unemployment studies:

    ...The unemployment rate has specific limitations. It can't differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs. It doesn't account for people who are underemployed, or working in jobs for which they are overqualified because they can't find a good job. It won't tell you how many people have become so discouraged in their job search that they have given up hope of finding a job.


    This is nearly as spurious as some (government) publications of the consumer price index and rates of inflation, where we have "announced" rates of under 3% (which accounts for the annual cost of living/within grade pay increases for federal employees, when not frozen due to executive order).

    Which has nearly nothing to do with real inflation due to an ever-weakening dollar, costs of oil which percolate out to the transportation and food production sectors, and have us all wondering why real income seems to be receding against the real cost of living.

    In short, what comes out of the CBO might not exactly be the Gospel.


    I agree, it's hard to follow based off that. Because of the difficulty of assessing those, we have to use what we have, the unemployment rate.

    Being a statistical rate, it isn't perfect, but it is helpful that it's a rate that has been used for a long time and has been recorded. As such, it can be trended. Again, imperfections and arguments about the validity of the unemployment rate (as it stands), aside. It can, due to multiple other recordings of it in the past, be trended, which is helpful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2012 8:14 PM GMT
    Well, at least it isn't over 20% (nearly 50% for people under 30!) like it's been in Spain for a long time now?

    Oy icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2012 11:18 PM GMT
    This is what Canada went through in the 90s and 2001, 2002.

    A nation of contingency workers. All would fall into the unemployed category of that report.

    "Garry Mathiason, senior managing shareholder at Littler Mendelson, said it is the new normal.
    “As the economy gets moving faster, there will be more opportunities, and many of those will be in contingent jobs,” he said. Such free-agent work has gone far beyond low-skilled jobs and the construction sector, he said, where contract work long has been prevalent.
    Mathiason expects to see a rise in the use of contingent workers in highly skilled positions — including scientists, engineers, professionals and managers — as companies aim to do more project-based work with small groups of professionals they can bring in as needed. He compares it to making a movie, where producers bring in the crew needed to get the job done.
    “The business model has definitely arrived,” he said. “It was starting to arrive, but the recession caused an acceleration in the process.”

    Please read:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36826679/ns/business-careers/t/need-job-contract-work-could-be-new-normal/#.Tz7ey4cgfNU

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2012 11:26 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidThis is the piece that makes or breaks the reliability of these unemployment studies:

    ...The unemployment rate has specific limitations. It can't differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs. It doesn't account for people who are underemployed, or working in jobs for which they are overqualified because they can't find a good job. It won't tell you how many people have become so discouraged in their job search that they have given up hope of finding a job.


    This is nearly as spurious as some (government) publications of the consumer price index and rates of inflation, where we have "announced" rates of under 3% (which accounts for the annual cost of living/within grade pay increases for federal employees, when not frozen due to executive order).

    Which has nearly nothing to do with real inflation due to an ever-weakening dollar, costs of oil which percolate out to the transportation and food production sectors, and have us all wondering why real income seems to be receding against the real cost of living.

    In short, what comes out of the CBO might not exactly be the Gospel.


    Im sorry Alpha but you are wrong. Unemployment looks at the study of people who DO NOT have a job and would like one, i.e. actively looking. UNDEREMPLOYMENT describes people who are overqualified. They are still employed, hence not unemployed. You have to look at both studies, they are both important. But to say that one is skewed because of the very definition of unemployment is...well..ignorant...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2012 1:38 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo saidOk, since Southbeach prefers to troll and keep bumping dead threads that no one cares to answer, before I head off to work, I'll just say this :

    This is a fine example of conservative, fox news lead idiocy and spin. Southbeach, even you know this...and I'm sure the OP knows this as well.

    To call unemployment 15% is to redefine unemployment. Unemployment is slightly above 8%. The other term they use there, the people who work part time who want to work full time...it's called UNDER EMPLOYMENT.

    You can't add the under employment rate to the unemployment rate and magically get a new unemployment rate.

    All except idiots understand this.

    Fox news cannot, despite what it wants to do, make up its own definitions. It is no surprise that this comes from them, as they are a spin outlet that caters to the intellectually lacking part of the conservative community.

    Again: Unemployment rate + underemployment rate does not equal "Real unemployment rate."

    Such stupidity.


    The real idiots are the ones who don't pay attention to the underlying numbers. Do you feel it is a problem that the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks is still at record highs is a problem?

    As for unemployment, you are aware of course of all the drop outs from the workforce? When you reduce the numerator in a percentage you do realize it falls?
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 18, 2012 1:40 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidOk, since Southbeach prefers to troll and keep bumping dead threads that no one cares to answer, before I head off to work, I'll just say this :

    This is a fine example of conservative, fox news lead idiocy and spin. Southbeach, even you know this...and I'm sure the OP knows this as well.

    To call unemployment 15% is to redefine unemployment. Unemployment is slightly above 8%. The other term they use there, the people who work part time who want to work full time...it's called UNDER EMPLOYMENT.

    You can't add the under employment rate to the unemployment rate and magically get a new unemployment rate.

    All except idiots understand this.

    Fox news cannot, despite what it wants to do, make up its own definitions. It is no surprise that this comes from them, as they are a spin outlet that caters to the intellectually lacking part of the conservative community.

    Again: Unemployment rate + underemployment rate does not equal "Real unemployment rate."

    Such stupidity.


    The real idiots are the ones who don't pay attention to the underlying numbers. Do you feel it is a problem that the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks is still at record highs is a problem?

    As for unemployment, you are aware of course of all the drop outs from the workforce? When you reduce the numerator in a percentage you do realize it falls?


    Yes, that's definitely a problem...As mentioned above, my problem is calling it the "real unemployment rate."

    Which was the whole purpose of this entire thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2012 1:40 AM GMT
    Chainers said
    AlphaTrigger saidThis is the piece that makes or breaks the reliability of these unemployment studies:

    ...The unemployment rate has specific limitations. It can't differentiate between full-time and part-time jobs. It doesn't account for people who are underemployed, or working in jobs for which they are overqualified because they can't find a good job. It won't tell you how many people have become so discouraged in their job search that they have given up hope of finding a job.


    This is nearly as spurious as some (government) publications of the consumer price index and rates of inflation, where we have "announced" rates of under 3% (which accounts for the annual cost of living/within grade pay increases for federal employees, when not frozen due to executive order).

    Which has nearly nothing to do with real inflation due to an ever-weakening dollar, costs of oil which percolate out to the transportation and food production sectors, and have us all wondering why real income seems to be receding against the real cost of living.

    In short, what comes out of the CBO might not exactly be the Gospel.


    Im sorry Alpha but you are wrong. Unemployment looks at the study of people who DO NOT have a job and would like one, i.e. actively looking. UNDEREMPLOYMENT describes people who are overqualified. They are still employed, hence not unemployed. You have to look at both studies, they are both important. But to say that one is skewed because of the very definition of unemployment is...well..ignorant...


    Underemployment also refers to part time workers who want full time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2012 4:12 AM GMT
    Chainers:

    My point in bringing up the potential for obfuscation with the terms "underemployment" vs. "unemployment" is that there is a segment of potential workers who are not employed, and have for whatever reason ceased from actively seeking any employment whatsoever ... this segment seems not to be accounted for in the study, unless I've misunderstood something to the contrary.

    I agree that underemployed != unemployed as defined previously for persons who are working below their talent/skill/educational levels or in part time/contingency cases, vs. jobless but seeking.

    In the most restrictive case where unemployed is exactly that pool of job seekers without a job, then yes, that is a reliable metric, but it really only tells a partial story. Building out a matrix of data to include underemployed and "morbidly unemployed" (stabbing here at a term to encapsulate those who have given up job seeking entirely, homeless/vagrants/off-grid/barterers) might give us a better snapshot of how the economy and the job markets are working.