Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: More info on related econ downturn threads...

Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 24, 2012, 5:02 p.m. EST by richardkentgates (3269)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/unemployment-increases-mid-february.aspx

8 Comments

8 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by newman (-58) 12 years ago

% Employment-Population Ratios

2009: 58.5, 58.5, 58.2

2010: 58.5, 58.5, 58.5, 58.7, 58.7, 58.5, 58.5, 58.5, 58.5, 58.3, 58.2, 58.3

2011: 58.4, 58.4, 58.5, 58.4, 58.4, 58.2, 58.2, 58.3, 58.4, 59.4, 58.5, 58.5

2012: 58.5

If anyone can see any improvement in those employment-population numbers, I would like to know what statistical analysis was used!

But wait, the unemployment rate has gone down, hasn’t it? How could that be with no parallel improvement in the employment-population ratio? Let’s look at the U-6 unemployment data and see if we can explain this apparent discrepancy. The reason I use the U-6 number is it is the most inclusive unemployment number, because it counts not only the unemployed seeking full-time employment, but also includes those who want to work but are no longer actively looking and those working part-time who would prefer full time employment.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Good call, if you find a graph or chart with that data, post a link and I'll add it to the OP or just post new about it. Either way it's useful info.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23827) 12 years ago

Is there a graph that shows the gallup numbers along with the actual Dept. of Labor reported unemployment rate? Just curious how good a predictor it is.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

I didn't look. Thats why I left the link to the page I got the image from. I think the numbers you are looking for come out the last Thursday of every month. Keep in mind the dept of labor bases it's numbers on those filing for unemployment and sense time is lapsing for many to continue qualifying, it will naturally keep coming down but that doesn't mean those people are now working. Only after working full time at a job for 90 days do you qualify for unemployment and because many are working as temps or part time, the department of labor unemployment numbers will be a very inaccurate gauge now and in the foreseeable future.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23827) 12 years ago

I agree. I wasn't saying the gallup graph is wrong. Just wondering how it matches with the numbers the DOL puts out. Yes, the real rate is much much higher.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 12 years ago

Yes, and the government figures are padded. The unemployed are only counted so long as they collect unemployment benefits. After that, job or not, they are no longer counted as unemployed.

The government figures also do not reflect those who have taken part-time work or even full-time work at much-reduced wages. As Ross Perot said years ago, "Everyone will work at Taco Bell..."

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

it's good to see others understand that basic principle.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 12 years ago

'As Ross Perot said years ago, "Everyone will work at Taco Bell..."

I remember that comment from 'way back when' Also, a much cruder way to tell that we are truly in an economic depression is the fact that even for minimum wage ojr non public or private subsidy qualifying low wage obs almost nobody can snap one up within a week of applyihg for 10 to 15 of them as was possible from the 1980's through to the mid 1990's and of course, local papers' job classifieds pages frequently comprise only 1 or less pages whereas in a more healthy economy the number of jobs listed would equal at least 8 pages of news print.

...Sysyphus with respect to the job market is flattened...

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply