| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
... |
| Date Posted: |
08/24/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
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--
|
| Message: |
??the following para you posted is not "random." you may subscribe (or view for free)
pollingreport.com to see what random means. ??
I see you totally ignored the second paragraph from BLS which talks about a ***probability sample*** (i.e. random) in order to decide which households are chosen. I would ignore this if I were you as well since it tells you that you are wrong and it is in fact a random sample that is changed as talked about in the paragraph you did quote.
??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.??
Again this would be far less accurate then a survey with a large sample size. It would only include only those people who were laid off who couldn??t find a job. It would exclude those people who quit but couldn??t find a job, those people who were fired due to negligence that couldn??t find a job (and anyone else not eligible for unemployment benefits). But it would include people who were laid off but decided to go back to school for further training or decided to be a housewife/husband, etc.
??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.??
If this is what you care about then you should want the BLS system to stay in place since this is what is measure and what would be impossible to measure under your system.
|
|
