Read the report from the US Department of Labor in the following link. If you do, you will find that those who are too discouraged to even look for work, or inconsistently look for work (meaning they are unemployed) are NOT counted in the unemployment statistic.

And nowhere in my comment did I dispute that. What I was disputing was WaltTheMan’s assertion that just because someone is not getting unemployment benefits, that doesn’t mean they aren’t counted as unemployed.

And as for healthcare, If they are going to die, they’d better do so quickly to reduce the surplus population. Only problem is that there will be less people to buy our products.

Seriously though, the divide in the USA is getting preposterous. I just saw a tv clip where diners pay to be hoisted into the air and eat at several hundred feet above the ground. A single dinner is several thousand dollars.

The 5.5% is not an accurate reading. It doesn’t take into account the underemployed and/or the people who have run out their unemployment benefits.

Bilbo. I do believe that the U.S. unemployment numbers are under weighted. And I concede that the trend seems to be toward higher unemployment. It is a problem and cause for some concerns going forward.

But, even considering that, unemployment is not as much a problem (today) in the U.S. as it is in many/most other places in the world. It is still tame by historic standards and by comparasion to the rest of the world.

But, considering the annecdotal evidence, it seems more likely it will get worse before it gets better.

July 6th, 2008 at 11:00 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

Here (and probably in most of the western EU countries) exist also an extensive program of subsidized (”free” in USA lingo) courses for unemployed people. That’s the way I got a 300 hour one on networking (NT and Novell Netware, very expensive courses then), when my employer layed off all the employees when he retired. Nowadays, I work in a consulting firm, thanks to that course.

A concept that don’t understand most of the “fiscal conservative” people, specially Republicans in your country. By spending money in “welfare” (frankly, is denigrating how this word, otherwise a good one, has become a pejorative in your country), people can far easily pull itself with his bootstraps, and become a more productive member for the society sooner. Now, I have a far better payed work than I had before the layoff, and I have no problem paying taxes, and knowing my money goes to pay for some other’s bootstraps, because I know I live in a society. Socialism? No, its common sense.

Read the report from the US Department of Labor in the following link. If you do, you will find that those who are too discouraged to even look for work, or inconsistently look for work (meaning they are unemployed) are NOT counted in the unemployment statistic.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So, the unemployment rate quoted by the government is not the true rate of people who are unemployed.

Yes, it is a cause for alarm for the people in this country who don’t have a job or are underemployed.

The 5.5% is not an accurate reading. It doesn’t take into account the underemployed and/or the people who have run out their unemployment benefits.

Also, many of the European countries that supposedly have higher unemployment rates than we do are what you would call “socialist” countries. The reason why this is important is that in those countries people who are unemployed don’t get six months of benefits and are then told, “too bad, so sad, you are now on your own”. Most of those countries have programs wherein the unemployed are giving a stipend to live off of until they find another job. It may not be what they were previously making, but it’s enough to keep them from going into the poor-house.

Even that number is inflated, idiot troll. How many of those people who do have a job have a job that makes as much as the job they had 9 years ago? Many people I know have a job making significantly less than they did before Bush took office. And several people I know are working two jobs just to make up the salary of one livable job. So, not only do we have a large unemployment problem, we also have a large under-employment problem.

Yesterday, you get pretty excited about me posting a link to snopes (the complete link with the disclaimer) and you accuse me of lies of omission because I somehow expect the casual reader won’t scroll down to get to the disclaimer.

You cry out that I’m a fraud and a liar and I owe you an apology and I should eat a ‘crow omelet’. (I thought it was a little over the top, but okay).

I came around (mostly due to Gregor’s post) that the information I linked to didn’t accurately back my claim and conceded the point.

So, here we are, on a thread lamenting unemployment that ‘omits’ the most universal measure; the rate (I suggest because it’s relatively low and stable).

I haven’t called anybody a fraud. I haven’t accused TP with ‘lies of omission’. I’m not asking anyone to eat crow omelettes or apologize.

I just offered other information to refute the sentiment.

I’m here trying to get a better understanding, resist my own partisanship, and add to the discussion, if I can.

I’m offering an olive branch. I’m willing to fore go the insults and partisanship in the hopes of having a more meaningful discussion.

There’s a decent chart in this link that compares unemployment rates around the world for comparasion (you have to scroll down)

Good doggie!

I knew you could learn!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

If the current U.S. unemployment is 5.5% and few countries have a lower rate, is there really that much cause for alarm?

It’s because it is still historically low (and relatively stable) at 5.5%, despite the alarmism.

Here’s a more accurate picture:

http://www.reutersfxhub.com/fxhub/forex-news-detail.jsf?newsId=24517&pageId=0&title=US%20June%20payrolls%20fall%2062,000;%20unemployment%20rate%20steady%20at%205.5%20pct

However, when reporting jobs lost we re-set the standard back to zero. For the month of June, it was recently reported that the economy lost 62,000 jobs. Through the first six months of this year the economy has shed nearly 500,000 jobs.

I think everyone would agree that is a devastating number.

If we compare the job loses against the “job creation” standard we get a much more meaningful picture of the economy. Add the 500,000 jobs lost to the 600,000 jobs, require through the first six months, to absorb new labor market entrants and you quickly see the economy is short nearly 1.1 million jobs.

When you show the impact of our recent college graduate’s inability to find a job, added to dad’s layoff, the human toll comes into clear focus. The inability to pay off student loans and the mortgage will ripple throughout the economy.

While our infrastructure is in desperate need of repair or replacement, we have at least a million people looking for work.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/03/6th-straight-month-of-job-losses/

Also from the same linked article:

Not counted, however, are those who have simply given up looking for work. These can include persons who might look for work if jobs were more plentiful or if better jobs were available. The unemployment rate would be higher if such persons were counted.

and

Here are the various rates for January 2008:
Official unemployment rate: 4.9%

Rate counting above, plus “part time for economic reasons:” 9.0%

…and we’ve lost, what — Keith says 350,000 since these stats were compiled? And added probably half a milliion to the workforce?

And they’re still claiming an “unemployment rate” of 5.5%?

Can someone explain this to me?

Yup, only in Bush’s United Snakes: Land of thieves. Home of the slaves.

Time to vote for change, folks, come November.

WaltTheMan Says:

The US DOL does not count those who have been unemployed for over 6 months as they are off unemployment benefits. They are still unemployed!

Not quite. According to FactCheck.org, “The rate is based on a huge survey and counts those who are out of work whether they get benefits or not.”

The number of unemployed persons was little changed in April. U-3, the official unemployment rate as a percent of the civilian labor force, was 4.5%. Itis only modestly elevated from one year earlier, when it was 4.3%.

U-6, the broadest measure of total unemployed*, was also little changed ar 8.2%. It is up from 7.9% one year ago.
_______
* U6 includes U3, plus marginally attached workers, those working part time who want a full time position, plus marginally attached workers. It is the broadest measure of Unemployment.

8.2% unemployed!

Why do people always get lazier under Republicans (sarc)?