Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Apr 21, 2013
Unbelievable...these are not real numbers. The drop also includes the folks who gave up and left the job search pool and continue to collect unemployment benefits. Why do these stories continue to think readers are sheep and don't know the true facts?
Yes, it's the familiar lament of the out party, and hear the out-of-touch party. The unemployment numbers do not account for people who have exited the job market. Never have, never will, because people exiting the job market do so for myriad of reasons - health, age, to become stay-at-home parents. Unfortunately, "Truth" has no conception of truth, only that he doesn't like successes that are achieved under Dems watch. Must be a very churlish old man - living in Dem dominated Cali and under an African-American Dem president.
Forbes: Web Link
Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2012, by state: Web Link
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6
6.2 5.8 10.4 11.1 12.2 19.3
Definitions of measurements included:
U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.
So Jim, skipping the nonsense about sides of the aisle and the color of, well, anyone, the fact is there is more than merely unemployed people and those people who may have chosen to stay home.
You're brilliant to have figured this out, Kathleen. Truly. I might point out that the labor stats you offer don't show long-term trends (and the hidden trends that are mentioned only go back to 2003); and the Forbes piece is a shameless opinion piece. Do you know the difference between the two? Didn't think so, as I've noticed that for you a link is a link, and there seems little ability on your part to sort through bias, selective facts, and omitted presuppositions. So, wave you hand, offer us your superficial gas, and we'll continue to laugh. At you.
Well, Truth, you might start by admitting you and Kathleen are one and the same person. Then, after you look up what differentiates an argument from an ungrounded assertion, you might try working on your contractions. Sorry to have spoiled your tired little tea party rant.
Jim, The point is there are factors not included in the unemployment rate that are important. I don't know why an opinion piece is shameless--you post yours. Here is a Business Week link that shows underemployed 1970 vs 2010. But please, do your own research and give us something credible to review. Web Link
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
A great Leap Day idea moves forward
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 831 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2017 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.