Unemployment down again

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-05 02:21pm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Hopefully, it will continue to recover steadily.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-05 02:53pm

5.9% is well below the 30 year average anyway. Here's to seeing it drop into the low 4's once again! *raises glass

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-05 04:39pm

To all those bitching about the jobless recovery: I told you so.

It takes time for unemployment to drop even when the rest is on the up swing. Now we're seeing that catch up. Looks like the economy really is turning around.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-05 04:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:To all those bitching about the jobless recovery: I told you so.

It takes time for unemployment to drop even when the rest is on the up swing. Now we're seeing that catch up. Looks like the economy really is turning around.

it never was really that bad, relatively. Unemployment peaked at 6.4%. A very shallow recession compared to the double digit unemployment figures we had during the recessions in the early 90's or the late 70's/early 80's.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-12-05 05:06pm

These numbers still don't reflect true unemployment.

8.9 million, for example were unemployed during August, but 4.8 million more did not seek employment within the last month (also known as discouraged unemployed) and weren't counted. The true unemployment figure for August was 9.1%, instead of the official gov't figure of 6.1

It's one of the ways the government pulls a Harken by cooking the books. This isn't even counting the underemployed/overqualified workers who are flipping burgers because they can't find work in their respective fields.

Australia is another country that pulls similar tricks to deceive people on true unemployment figures.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-05 05:15pm

If you're not seeking work, you're not part of the labor force for the purposes of employment statistics. This is how the U.S. has been doing employment statistics for years now.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-12-05 05:20pm

Durran Korr wrote:If you're not seeking work, you're not part of the labor force for the purposes of employment statistics. This is how the U.S. has been doing employment statistics for years now.

I'm not pinning this on the current administration and DoL people exclusively. You'd have to be some sort of crazy drunk to think that discouraged unemployed shouldn't be a factor in the figures. It's being deceptive whether you like it or not.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-05 07:28pm

Hamel wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:If you're not seeking work, you're not part of the labor force for the purposes of employment statistics. This is how the U.S. has been doing employment statistics for years now.
I'm not pinning this on the current administration and DoL people exclusively. You'd have to be some sort of crazy drunk to think that discouraged unemployed shouldn't be a factor in the figures. It's being deceptive whether you like it or not.

You may have a case there; however, for the purposes of comparing current unemployment levels with levels from past years, 5.9 is the statistic that matters, and 5.9 isn't so bad.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-05 07:52pm

Hamel wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:If you're not seeking work, you're not part of the labor force for the purposes of employment statistics. This is how the U.S. has been doing employment statistics for years now.
I'm not pinning this on the current administration and DoL people exclusively. You'd have to be some sort of crazy drunk to think that discouraged unemployed shouldn't be a factor in the figures. It's being deceptive whether you like it or not.

Then naturally every other statistic is going to be higher (though perhaps not proportionally so). If the worse that can be said is that some people aren't looking for jobs then we're doing damn good.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-12-06 05:06am

[democrat] NO! THE ECONOMY IS BAD! BAD!! BAD!!! [/democrat]

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-06 10:06am

Do you suppose all the reservists who've been activated have had an impact on the unemployment percentage? Mainly, do you suppose some people have found at least temporary jobs filling in for people who were called up?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-12-06 02:28pm

Durran Korr wrote:If you're not seeking work, you're not part of the labor force for the purposes of employment statistics. This is how the U.S. has been doing employment statistics for years now.

If your UI insurance has run out , you are no longer unemployed wether you are seeking work or not. Unemployement is far higher than the numbers indicate. Although, I agree for most parts of the country there is light at the end of the tunnel.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-12-06 02:31pm

Tsyroc wrote:Do you suppose all the reservists who've been activated have had an impact on the unemployment percentage? Mainly, do you suppose some people have found at least temporary jobs filling in for people who were called up?

No, I think most places simply made do. Sure, some folks got temp jobs because of it, but if your temp job occurs while you have a open claim, then I think you are still counted on the unemployment statistics. Not sure about that though.

What I am curious about is how many Reservists were helped by being activated. ie) Being activated kept them from suffering through lay offs.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2003-12-06 05:50pm

British unemployment is about 3.4%. *smug grin*

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2003-12-06 05:57pm

Well, at least I can now get a better job than $7/hr so I can pay for my car.