| 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: |
??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.??
You act as if you can??t find these numbers on BLS and that the LAT is actually performing their own research. I was hoping that I could get you to figure this out for yourself but I??ll let you in on a little secret. What the LAT??s did was go to BLS:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
and click on U-6 not seasonally adjusted. Since you haven??t posted the link I can??t be sure what type of adjustment or if they are looking at slightly different numbers (since they used 9.7%) or not but there it is. However, no country is the world counts people who are not looking for unemployment as unemployed if they did France would probably be at 15-17.5% or higher (there is a research project for you).
??i thought you read the story before making comments
c/p
thinkandask.com/news/jobs.htm????
See above. I??m not looking for a link to your site I??m looking for links/sources for your research.
??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.??
First, you??re wrong. They count people who do not register (in addition to those who register) for unemployment benefits for their headline number. Second, wonder if someone doesn??t register for unemployment? Or does so late. Don??t you see the problems with using unemployment benefits? They US also posts weekly data on unemployment benefits called initial and continuing claims but again these have nothing to do with the BLS??s numbers.
??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.??
This would be far less accurate and costly then the CPS. Who is going to call millions of people each month? How are you going to count the people who are not eligible for unemployment benefits? How are you going to count people who never apply for unemployment benefits?
|
|
