| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
august |
| Date Posted: |
09/03/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
Your example is made up and has nothing to do with the unemployment rate or nonfarms payrolls. What is the point of showing an example of how people "fall off" the unemployment figures if it has nothing to do with how the unemployment figures are calculated in real life? It??s clear to anyone that reads the article that you thought that the BLS calculated the unemployment rate based upon unemployment benefits which run out after 26 weeks (you say this word for word on your website). To now somehow suggest that it was just some random example is laughable.
You also have not commented on your statements that the EU shows "real unemployment" number (when they really do the samething as BLS). Also, do you still think the "unemployment rate" that the LAT's got from the BLS is at a 20 year high (I had thought the article said 10 but you said 20). How can 9.7% be at a 20 year high when it's be over 10% in the past ten years?
These aren't things that a rational person can disagree on. They aren't normative. There is a right and wrong answer to them:
-Either you still think the LAT's does it's own research and therefore their 9.7% can be at a 20 year high as you say in your article (in which case post a link to where you got this idea from) or you admit that they used the BLS numbers as I showed above (line by line) in which case your article is wrong about it being at a 20 year high.
-Either you still think the countries listed on the right hand side of the article show something different then the BLS (in which case cite your sources) or you don't.
- Either you still believe that: "...those who fail to find a job after 26 weeks fall off BLS statistics." (direct quote from the front page of your website) or you don't. If you still believe this to be true post a link to the BLS website where they talk about it.
Again these aren't things that someone can "disagree" about. There are right and wrong answers. I have posted how you are wrong about them yet you refuse to admit it. I realize it's hard to admit when you're wrong sometimes but continuing to argue when it's clear you are wrong makes you looks foolish.
|
| Message: |
these sentences in quotes are from
the BLS press release issued today
3 sept '04 ---
"Both the number of unemployed persons,
8.0 million, and the unemployment rate,
5.4 percent, were little changed from July
to August. The jobless rate is down from
its recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003;
most of this decline occurred in the second
half of last year."
i emphasis sentence number2, "... is down
from its recent high...." shall we define "recent"?
recent to me is july, even late spring -- of
this year, 2004, not last year, 2003. BLS is
calling "recent" 15 months ago. maybe seen
as an unimportant point -- i'm looking at overall
impression here, their sentence impresses the
rate has fallen from 6.3 to 5.4 -- recently.... now,
continue to read how they redefine "recently"
when the numbers aren't so good...
"After rising in July, the labor force participation
rate edged down to its
June level of 66.0 percent."
edged down... did people die? they don't tell us...
but they claim to know who is in school or simply
staying home with family.....
" The number of persons who were marginally
attached to the labor force was 1.6 million in
August, about the same as a year earlier. (Data
are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
wanted and were available to work and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior
12 months. They were not counted
as unemployed, however, because they did
not actively search for work in the
4 weeks preceding the survey. There were
534,000 discouraged workers in August, also
about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged
workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
were not currently looking for work specifically
because they believed no jobs were available
for them. The other 1.1 million marginally
attached had not searched for work for reasons
such as school or family responsibilities."
marginally attached - a great term. sort of like
your arm being marginally attached...can't use it,
even though it is still connected to your body
awaiting reconnection through surgery. more
importantly -- this number, per BLS is the same
as a year ago -- "recently" if you use their term
from the first paragraph... and yet the
unemployment rate is 1 percent lower. that is what
my article is about. it points out how that
rate can drop even though the numbers of
unemployed don't change. furthermore, the other
marginally attached are called students or
homemakers (roughly)? are they in that position
because they were laid off and couldn't find a job?
that is what i find to be an important point which is
not addressed.
1.6 million were not counted as unemployed. they
wanted a job, but in the same sentence they say
these people didn't look for a job. "wanted"
doesn't sync up with "no action." it is not a logical
connection.
discouraged -- same as a year ago. (recently if i
use their term from para 1)
workforce total is 147 million (down slightly from
month before)
workforce employed is 139 million (21 people
more than the month before)
this means 94.6 percent are employed; or 5.4
percent are not.. that is what bls is saying.
when you include the 1.6 -- 93.4 percent are
employed; or 6.52 percent unemployed.
amazing how just a handful of people (1.6
million) can put that rate above where it
was 'recently.'
have a good weekend everyone.
|
|
