| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
waiting |
| Date Posted: |
09/10/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
??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??
No, this isn??t what your article is about. According to your summery it??s about how "those who fail to find a job after 26 weeks fall off BLS statistics" (this is wrong and what your ??example?? is based upon). If you look at the number of unemployed (the first number you quoted in the news release) it was 8830 last year vs. 7940 now. This is why the unemployment rate has fallen. You can also look at the entire number of people who are underutilization (this is what the LATs did). I??ve already showed you were to get these numbers (several times) but you can find them here:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
U-6 Total unemployed (the LATs used "Not seasonally
adjusted").
I wonder if the LATs is going to run another story anytime soon using these numbers and comparing them year-over-year...
As for the term recent I??m guessing they are viewing the unemployment rates vs. the most recent economic cycle. Most of the other numbers they compare on a year-over-year basis?? this makes sense since they aren??t seasonally adjusted like the unemployment rate is.
|
| Message: |
a lot of this being discussed now... personally, i'm pleased about that. it should be discussed by candidates and by the press. so far, the only answer is "everyone is right." LOL.
i only caught the LAT's story
in january (about 2003) i don't know if they did a story in 2002, even though they compare data y2y. we'll have to wait.
interesting too how the HOUSE overturned the new overtime rules yesterday. that is a surprise too! i never expected that.
month to month, lets see what happens with september's numbers.
|
|
