| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
... |
| Date Posted: |
08/24/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
CONTD from reply 1
(john: I can??t read the story in question you refuse to cite
post a link to anything you are talking about. You just pull
things out of your ass and expect people to accept it as fact.)
? i thought you read the story ? my purpose on vault
is not to drive visitors to thinkandask. our traffic has
already topped 2 million this year so i'm pleased.
so no, i don't post urls to my stories... see following
request for a copy/paste.
(john: How about the OECD publications which uses
the same method across each country?)
the OECD also says this:
"Did you know that since 1970, people work 20% less
hours in France and 20% more hours in the United States?"
(john: I hate to break it to you but no major country uses
??actual numbers of people??. Here is a link to the French
agency that collects their unemployment data.)
they also say this:
"They concern two specific unemployment boundaries:
the unemployed whose only form of job seeking is being
registered with the public employment office (the ANPE
in France) and the unemployed who have found a job due
to start in three or more months time."
IOW, the french count you if you are registered. but
as i've stated, even though i'm currently registered for
unemployment benefits stateside, i no longer count
when benefits run out in september. i'm not on the
household survey and i'm no longer registered
for unemployment even though i am 'unemployed.'
so for the week of 26 september the claims filed
will not be 321,842, but 321,841... assuming i'm
the only one, for example. indicates by default that
only because i've not filed, i'm now employed.
(john: Here you can read about their ??Employment Survey??
but I??m sure this is just an election year ploy by Bush to keep
himself in power, right? I would look up the links for other
EU members but something tells me you wouldn??t read
them because you don??t care about the truth only spewing
what you think is right.)
what i think is right -- is to count every professional today
who does not have a job and *not* due to their lack of
search. i'm advocating that we indeed hear from the feds
if the number is what the LAT says - 16,000,000, or
what the feds *estimate to be* 8,200,000 in july....
that is a hefty difference and the feds should be
accountable, the LAT already proved their case in print.
i would hope that everyone agrees we deserve the
true numbers for what we pay in taxes.
(john: Please post a link to this.......)
i thought you read the story before making comments
c/p
thinkandask.com/news/jobs.html
(john: Can you post anything that suggests that the BLS is
doing anything different right now then it has since it
started collecting data? Or is doing anything diffrent then
INSEE their French counterparts?)
the french conduct their survey quarterly, because those
on benefits have two years (lowered to two in 2004.)
again, registration is key, if a worker does not register
s/he is not counted. i'd agree for similar registration
practice in the usa.
the issue is not about BLS changes to their method for they
have not. no one disagrees. however, the BLS is under
continuous fire for the very reasons we discuss here.... the
numbers are not all inclusive and this upsets some who
want to believe BLS is somehow tidy.
the argument is that BLS *should* change their method and
collect data from those who apply for unemployment benefits,
and even when those benefits run out, the SS# of said person
is tracked until that SS# once again earns a salary or
reaches age of retirement; at which time s/he is no longer
counted.
the feds have the ability to collect this information...
and the story published explains why said method is not
used... the number of unemployed would reflect higher rates
and show our economy is not as good as the feds would like.
|
| Message: |
??i thought you read the story ? my purpose on vault
is not to drive visitors to thinkandask. our traffic has
already topped 2 million this year so i'm pleased.
so no, i don't post urls to my stories... see following
request for a copy/paste.??
I wasn??t asking for you to post or link to your story. I was asking you to post or link to any research/articles you are talking about (or talking about in your story.
??the OECD also says this:
"Did you know that since 1970, people work 20% less
hours in France and 20% more hours in the United States?" ??
No shit! Congratulations! This is the reason they have higher unemployment. It??s not some massive worldwide conspiracy to keep Bush in office. Its structural reasons that exist in various countries such as Europe??s labor law vs. the US. The normative discussion we can have about the pros and cons of these distinctions would be quite long as there are economists that dedicate their careers to it.
--"They concern two specific unemployment boundaries:
the unemployed whose only form of job seeking is being
registered with the public employment office (the ANPE
in France) and the unemployed who have found a job due
to start in three or more months time."
IOW, the french count you if you are registered. but
as i've stated, even though i'm currently registered for
unemployment benefits stateside, i no longer count
when benefits run out in september. i'm not on the
household survey and i'm no longer registered
for unemployment even though i am 'unemployed.'
so for the week of 26 september the claims filed
will not be 321,842, but 321,841... assuming i'm
the only one, for example. indicates by default that
only because i've not filed, i'm now employed. ??
By your logic you never were counted since as I keep repeating unemployment benefits don??t mean anything to the BLS. The headline number that is posted in France is the same basic definition as the US number. They use a survey just as in the US.
|
|
