[Sunwolf]

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...ent_97295.html



It`s good news week!

[colossians323]

Originally Posted by Sunwolf

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...ent_97295.html



It`s good news week!

The author obviously has not recognized that the recession is over and we are now gaining jobs

[Sunwolf]

I really don`t care,I`m getting rich in Farmtown!

[colossians323]

Originally Posted by Sunwolf

I really don`t care,I`m getting rich in Farmtown!

Panning gold?

[boats1]

I've been unemployed for 6 months. To my family, it's 100% unemployment.

[Darklyte27]

Just had a pretty good interview, so that 14% might be 13.99999 if i get the job!!

Ive been Unemployed for 15 months!

[glockman19]

Unemployment is really closer to 18%. All they count is those who are recieving unemployment benefits. Part time workers and those who dropped off of the public doles.

[mike100]

Originally Posted by glockman19

Unemployment is really closer to 18%. All they count is those who are receiving unemployment benefits. They aren't counting part time workers and those who dropped off of the public doles.

and?...
you can't count grade school children.

ON EDIT, you need to fix your sentence up to read like above ^^^^ makes more sense now, but 1 in 5 is a bit much for me to believe. they had demonstrations and riots in south America 10 years ago when unemployemnt was 8 percent.

[a1c]

Originally Posted by glockman19

Unemployment is really closer to 18%. All they count is those who are recieving unemployment benefits. Part time workers and those who dropped off of the public doles.

Those can't be easily counted, and never have. You have to draw a line somewhere with the criteria you use. We couldn't count them before either. That still makes the index relevant.

[Hoop]

Originally Posted by glockman19

Unemployment is really closer to 18%. All they count is those who are recieving unemployment benefits. Part time workers and those who dropped off of the public doles.

I ran a poll on this site awhile back (if you search the Off Topic section you may find it) and apparently calgunners are 20+ % unemployed.

Also the number of people who answered that they were "full time" in their "chosen profession" was 50%

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...light=employed

200 responses isn't really scientific though, I wish I could get a couple thousand.

[JDoe]

Originally Posted by glockman19

Unemployment is really closer to 18%. All they count is those who are recieving unemployment benefits. Part time workers and those who dropped off of the public doles.

Fox just (30 seconds ago) reported unemployment and underemployment at 17.5%. They said, "one in six Americans are unemployed or underemployed."

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

U-6 = 17.5% for October 2009.

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For more information, see "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

[Synergy]

Originally Posted by JDoe

Fox just (30 seconds ago) reported unemployment and underemployment at 17.5%. They said, "one in six Americans are unemployed or underemployed."

Just take that with a grain of salt, we were told Fox is not a news network! remember?

I laugh at the gov saying the recession is over! People its still going to get worse!

[Hoop]

Originally Posted by Synergy

I laugh at the gov saying the recession is over! People its still going to get worse!

It's going to be like this for 5-6 years, and no amount of windmills and happy press releases from President Facepalm will change that.

[cdtx2001]

If you took into account unemployed, underemployed, and people who've fallen off the map, the true unemployment number would be up around 35%. Of course the govt and media don't want to put out a # like that, it would scare people.

Underemployment is a huge number right now. Hell, I've got a job making half of what I did before (sucks because I can only buy half or none of the guns and ammo I was buying before). How many people do you know taking a job of some kind just so they can make a little more than what unemployment pays? I know a lot of people working some crappy retail job because it's all they can get.

The numbers that the govt spouts, as far as I'm concerned, are just a bunch of BS because it really doesn't reflect what's really going on out there. 10% is a bad number, but it's still a feel good number. That way, the average person can say "Well, 10% is bad, but at least it isn't 15% or 20%."

[ilbob]

Originally Posted by cdtx2001

If you took into account unemployed, underemployed, and people who've fallen off the map, the true unemployment number would be up around 35%.

I don't think it is quite as bad as you maintain. The fact is though that during tough times companies shed expenses (including employees) that they think they can live without.

They try to shed the people they will miss the least, and for the most part, that's what happens. That's why many people are no longer in their preferred employment field. If you are in the bottom quadrille of desirability as an employee in your field, you are at severe risk in these times.

It does not work that way in every case. It is hard to make these kind of judgment calls, and personality issues do come into play, but as often as not, thats the way it plays out. Its one of the reasons a lot of these people are having trouble finding work. Often companies looking for someone would prefer to hire someone who is still working, seeing (perhaps unconsciously) that as a sign that their employer has a high regard for them. The people that the company sheds at the first sign of trouble are seen as less desirable.

The law of the jungle is as merciless in the employment field as in the jungle.

[M. Sage]

Originally Posted by Sunwolf

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...ent_97295.html



It`s good news week!

14% would be a huge improvement for CA. Unfortunately this is a nation-wide projection.

Last time I looked, CA was hitting 20% actual unemployment, not just the people who were still eligible to collect. And that was months ago. Now I can't find a solid, real number.

[RickD6023]

My area is 17 - 20% and stable. No matter - It's UGLY!

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

The IRS and the various states' revenue collection agencies should be able to very easily get a snapshot at any given time of how many people are collecting a paycheck. I don't see, *EVEN DURING GOOD TIMES WHEN THERES NO NEED TO FUDGE THE NUMBERS,* why they don't use this data.

[AJD]

Isn't this an old article? It's dated July 6, 2009.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by boats1

I've been unemployed for 6 months. To my family, it's 100% unemployment.

You and me in the same boat.

Wife's been on disability for 3 years, and I've been on EDD since June.

[rabagley]

Originally Posted by sierratangofoxtrotunion

The IRS and the various states' revenue collection agencies should be able to very easily get a snapshot at any given time of how many people are collecting a paycheck. I don't see, *EVEN DURING GOOD TIMES WHEN THERES NO NEED TO FUDGE THE NUMBERS,* why they don't use this data.

I've seen that called the employment to population ratio. The biggest issue with employment numbers is that they mix any reason why a person might not have a job (retired, playboy, wants to be home with kids, going to school, seeking work, on welfare, etc.) into the "non-employed" side.

The real issue is that there is no "one number" that captures a true count of the unemployed. There are too many categories of people who want to be working but aren't. The unemployment number that gets tossed around is a reasonable proxy for the health of the employment market (current reading: bad) but shouldn't be interpreted literally since most of us know people who are doing something other the job they were educated for so they can pay the bills. Know people who've been unemployed long enough that unemployment has long since run out.

Luckily, that number isn't really necessary. The official unemployment number published by the government is a reasonably useful tool for comparing the health of the employment market to recent times. Can't go too far back because it used to be counted differently. Can't go overseas because they have different stats entirely. Can only compare it to recent history. Within those limits, it is a very useful number, but it isn't the number that lay people think it is or should be.

[Aegis]

This seems to be an old article, but the actual unemployment rate in California is way past 14%.