21–30 of 149 posts
The actual labor force participation is what counts.
And therein lies the answer to the "why isn't pay rising" question:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-pa...
(switch to the 10-year time view)
The rules regarding unemployment statistics are entirely designed to be favorable. Citizens who are unemployed for greater than X months (where X is a figure I don't currently recall) stop being considered unemployed for the sake of this stat. Likewise, homeless populations are not counted. Not everyone who is homeless is necessarily unemployed, I guess, but it's patently ridiculous not to include any homeless in une…
If you stop looking for jobs you are not considered unemployed as someone not actively seeking work is not considered to be in the labor force. That is a different issue entirely and you will have to look at a different statistic. There are different types of "unemployment rate" and maybe what you want is U-4 or U-5 which include discouraged workers. Either way you can not expect a single number to encapsulate something as large and complex as the US labor market.
Uh, because we are all collectively being fleeced by a ruling class extracting obscene amounts of wealth from our work without doing anything useful themselves. Never fool yourself into thinking you'll get anything back from these vampires.
History shows otherwise with a very high rate of bankruptcies from lottery winners.
The widely published unemployment number only measures the dynamics of layoffs (how many people became unemployed in the window of the past 6 months). The actual labor force participation is what counts. And therein lies the answer to the "why isn't pay rising" question: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-pa... (switch to the 10-year time view)
Eight possible explanations and not a single mention of the word "deflation." The Japanese have a long history of low unemployment and deflation working together: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/unemployment-rate Maybe the idea that lower unemployment always leads to inflation is just wrong. For now, wage decreases have been masked by cuts to employer-funded health insurance programs. Eventually, there will be…
The rules regarding unemployment statistics are entirely designed to be favorable. Citizens who are unemployed for greater than X months (where X is a figure I don't currently recall) stop being considered unemployed for the sake of this stat. Likewise, homeless populations are not counted. Not everyone who is homeless is necessarily unemployed, I guess, but it's patently ridiculous not to include any homeless in une…
Sorry but that's not true at all. You are counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are actively looking for work. There is no "cut-off." Look up the definition at the BLS, there is no excuse for spreading this crap through laziness. If you stop looking for jobs you are not considered unemployed as someone not actively seeking work is not considered to be in the labor force. That is a different issue entirel…
Either way you can not expect a single number to encapsulate something as large and complex as the US labor market.
Uh, because we are all collectively being fleeced by a ruling class extracting obscene amounts of wealth from our work without doing anything useful themselves. Never fool yourself into thinking you'll get anything back from these vampires.
The widely published unemployment number only measures the dynamics of layoffs (how many people became unemployed in the window of the past 6 months). The actual labor force participation is what counts. And therein lies the answer to the "why isn't pay rising" question: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-pa... (switch to the 10-year time view)
U-3 is the commonly published "unemployment rate," aka the thing that is currently 4.4%. I don't think many people actually looks at U-1. You can get a better picture by looking at U-5 or U-6 together with the participation rate (LFPR).
The rules regarding unemployment statistics are entirely designed to be favorable. Citizens who are unemployed for greater than X months (where X is a figure I don't currently recall) stop being considered unemployed for the sake of this stat. Likewise, homeless populations are not counted. Not everyone who is homeless is necessarily unemployed, I guess, but it's patently ridiculous not to include any homeless in une…
From the article, "Only 78.6 percent of people age 25-54 are employed" yet we say unemployment is at 4.4. It very much smells like unemployment, as we count it, is a bad metric and that explains what looks like a paradox in economic principles.
The question is: Who is employable (outside of disability, student, etc) and not for legitimate reasons.
The U3 (4.4), as I understand it, is more a "moving target" of recent numbers... it's the number of recently unemployed and still looking
the U6 (8.6%) should be closer to "real" unemployment since it includes discouraged, marginal and part time workers (those under utilized).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but that's not true at all. You are counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are actively looking for work. There is no "cut-off." Look up the definition at the BLS, there is no excuse for spreading this crap through laziness. If you stop looking for jobs you are not considered unemployed as someone not actively seeking work is not considered to be in the labor force. That is a different issue entirel…
Either way you can not expect a single number to encapsulate something as large and complex as the US labor market. This is true, but part of the problem is with the media and government communications often failing to engage with this fact properly, and instead focusing on a single metric which is often misinterpreted.