| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
2 of 2: no clearer way.... |
| Date Posted: |
08/24/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
"the actual number of unemployed professionals in the united states of america is not accurate by
the federal measurements in place. "
the following para you posted is not "random." you may subscribe (or view for free)
pollingreport.com to see what random means.
(john: ??Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is
interviewed more than 4 consecutive months. This practice avoids placing too heavy a burden on the
households selected for the sample. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months,
it leaves the sample for 8 months and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year
later, before leaving the sample for good. This procedure results in approximately 75 percent of
the sample remaining the same from month to month and 50 percent from year to year. ??)
(john: "Who is going to call millions of people each month?")
not necessary. for the majority of us workerbees...SS# is sufficient.
some options are:
1.) earning money and therefore paying taxes,
2.) earning money and exempt,
3.) not earning money,
4.) retired,
5.) dead
SS# / your tax ID number is tracked efficiently by the employer and the IRS. the only SS#s which need
to be monitored on the "unemployment" front are those who make no income for a given amount of
time. this would begin upon layoff -- the IRS sees the end date of your job.
debatable how long the measurement should be... this eliminates 1 and 2, 4 and 5 should not be
included.
next question would be "3" -- why? sitting at home? in college full time? or trying to find a job
and having no success? i care about the 'no success' number. this is what the current president says
is not a problem.
(john: 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:)
the LAT has been keeping records --to the best of their ability-- of a much truer number of unemployed
and underemployed since 911. they used more than BLS to compile their data. and disagree most
strongly in how BLS reports the data....hence the reason they do this work.
their own research provides 16m in 2003, twice that of BLS.
you may not agree; however, i suggest you take it up with them.
CONTD on next thread. |
| Message: |
CONTD from first thread.
(john: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab 12.htm and click on U-6 not seasonally adjusted...)
that number is actually higher than the LAT's figure of 9.7 for all of 2003. BLS shows 10.1
(john: 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.)
no, that connection does not exist. in discussing why france experienced 20 percent drop since
1970, and why the usa rose 20 percent is not about unemployment.... france (has used) a 35 hour
work week. in the usa it is --- as high as the corporation demands of the employee(s).
(john: 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.)
by this logic, i've never been counted at all because i am not on the household survey. neither is my family...
or extended family... neither are any of my friends... and i'll bet neither are you. minus you, i count 117
households that i am intimate with. no survey...accurate? paint an equal picture of the entire
economy? enough to say everyone is back to work?
USpop: 281,000,000 (+)
households: 105,000,000 (+)
what you are saying is that 60,000 (if indeed we buy that higher number is consistent, BLS does not
confirm consistency only estimates ) is enough of a sample out of all households to accurately
gauge the unemployment rate. 60 / 105000
i say no. it is not accurate to based an entire federal policy, benefits program, unemployment
program, retraining program, or political ideology and argumentation upon these numbers.
fair to apply the same estimates to our GNP? trade deficit? military spending with contracting
service companies? your ID says "banker" is this is how banking business works today, by
estimating one or two accounts for all?
--end--
|
|
