Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    3:26 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: How many people are actually unemployed in this country? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,609
Points:2,851,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 11:06:29 AM

How many people are actually unemployed in this country?

Look off to the far right side of the chart to see the hopefully not ever-increasing numbers of unemployed in this country.

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707

Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

If the "State of the Union is stronger (and getting stronger)" it will show up in these numbers. Use this topic to post links and opinions regarding Obama's (and Congress') handling of the economy as it relates to employment in this country.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:52:46 PM

The adults in the country are having a conversation. If you're not following along, that's your ignorance showing. There is no "excuse making" in my post. The population has increased by ten million. As about 60% of the adults in the nation work, we needed six million new jobs. Reported employment numbers show an increase of much less than that. The rest of the employment numbers are just smoke and mirrors.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 4:59:41 PM

"And the number of people employed in the country clearly is not keeping up with population growth."

LOL!!! Wow, what a fantastic excuse! Which talking head are you parroting?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,609
Points:2,851,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 2:15:36 PM

The longer Obama is president the better Bush Jr. looks.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 12:52:49 PM

And the number of people employed in the country clearly is not keeping up with population growth. Not even close. So Liberals and 0bama apologists continue to attempt to lie with statistics while the truth is staring us in the face - there is a tremendous segment of under-employed people in this country, yet the southern border remains open to all comers based on some strange notion that we need those people here.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 10:47:59 AM

From the link in the OP;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638

It can't be debated. In the past year since the thread was started unemployment is clearly trending down - regardless of which metric one wishes to use ('Official' vs. 'Actual').
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2014 11:23:45 AM

About 68,000 fewer people are employed in the entertainment industries, according to this BLS report.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 9/11/2014 11:25:08 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,567
Points:13,485
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:52:42 AM

Wow. I think it would be simple to understand.

The Left loves to tout the "unemployment" rate. However, that isn't the number they like to pretend it to be.

The number that needs to be looked at is the Labor Participation Rate: In other words, how many people are actually working.

So, in Jan 2009, there were 142,187,000 employed.

Then, in October 1012, there were 143,384,000 employed.

A net gain of 1.1 million people participating in the labor force.

What's wrong with that? Why would that be a bad thing?

Again. It's simple. The population of the US increased by 9.2 million people.

To keep pace, the labor market need to add 6 million jobs, yet the "unemployment rate" declined.

And that's really not the entire problem. We reached "peak employment" - the largest number of people in the labor force in March 2007.

In order for the Labor Participation Rate to remain constant, we would have had to add 8.6 million jobs by Oct '12, but the number of jobs decreased by 3 million from March of 2007 until October of 2012.

So, more people, less jobs does not equal a "lower unemployment rate" unless you fudge the numbers.

So, suppose a person gets laid off and can't find a job within 12 months. So, they stop looking. The Government simply drops them from the official Unemployment Rate, and they simply disappear.

So, to summarize:

There are less jobs.

There are more people.

The Labor Participation Rate - the number of people working - has declined.

We are at least 9 million to 10 million jobs behind where we were in '07.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:39:50 AM

"While I think it is getting a little bit better than it was 2 years ago, it's still not what I would call "great" or even "mediocre"."

You're about 2 years behind. 4 years ago it was better than 2 years previous, but not yet mediocre. It is definitely mediocre now, and trending positive.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 30, 2014 9:37:17 AM

"Yep, they do except it's not a pretty picture ...."

How is a consistently declining unemployment rate "not a pretty picture"?

While not perfect, it certainly isn't ugly...
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,633
Points:3,399,345
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jun 28, 2014 11:05:09 PM

I understand that "real" unemployment rates are somewhere between 8 and 14% right now, not the 6% Obama want's to tout. The problem is that those who have been unemployed over 6 months have not been dropped from the unemployment rolls and no longer are counted. And it is not that they're necessarily lazy or "not trying", it's still a very tough labor market. While I think it is getting a little bit better than it was 2 years ago, it's still not what I would call "great" or even "mediocre".
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,806
Points:2,363,300
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 10:38:46 PM

All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants - Number of U.S.-born not working grew by 17 million




" Actual or Offcial , they both paint the same picture kiddo."

Yep, they do except it's not a pretty picture ....



[Edited by: reb4 at 6/27/2014 10:41:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 2:50:11 PM

"I made the point, months ago in this thread, that the "actual" unemployment number is ten million above the "official" unemployment number, and that gap has not gotten any smaller. Since the "actual" number is fully twice the "official" number, and you posted the numbers, you should be able to deduce that the "official" numbers are highly erroneous."

'Actual' or 'Offcial', they both paint the same picture kiddo.

"Perhaps if you looked at what is actually happening in this country you could get past your obvious love of 0bama and your obvious partisan views."

Like when I voted for W? Feel free to wipe that egg off of your face ;)

And for the hundredth time, no, I do not agree with everything that Obama has done. Clearly he is fallible, but not the anti-Christ you and those of your ilk like to make him out to be. Neither was W....
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 2:08:00 PM

I made the point, months ago in this thread, that the "actual" unemployment number is ten million above the "official" unemployment number, and that gap has not gotten any smaller. Since the "actual" number is fully twice the "official" number, and you posted the numbers, you should be able to deduce that the "official" numbers are highly erroneous.

Perhaps if you looked at what is actually happening in this country you could get past your obvious love of 0bama and your obvious partisan views. That's why no one takes your posts seriously.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 6/27/2014 2:08:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 1:48:30 PM

"No, you posted the unemployment data on June 10 at 1:15PM. I "analyzed" it at 1:37PM."

Exactly. Thank-you. Your analysis showed positive results from 'my' data. Perfect.

"You claim that the data show the economy is getting better."

Most rational people without a political axe to grind would agree that 3+ million jobs added in just over a year would be a positive sign.

"I say "not much better" and "the data from the BLS is highly suspect" (and contains the letters BLS plus a few more)."

Of course you do - that is the only thing you could possibly say without agreeing that your hated Obama is not making a negative impact... Which is why none of your posts are taken seriously. You can't get past your own partisan views.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 1:39:03 PM

No, you posted the unemployment data on June 10 at 1:15PM. I "analyzed" it at 1:37PM.

You claim that the data show the economy is getting better.

I say "not much better" and "the data from the BLS is highly suspect" (and contains the letters BLS plus a few more).
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 1:27:09 PM

"The economy is still fairly stagnant, most of the "new" jobs are getting outsourced out of the country or sucked up by immigrants (did you see the new post or not?)."

3.2 million net jobs gained since 2/28/13 is stagnant? Do you even know the meaning of outsourced?

"So don't try to put words in my mouth..."

You posted the positive data, not me...
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 1:18:25 PM

No, I don't support 0bama or anything he has done to this country. The economy is still fairly stagnant, most of the "new" jobs are getting outsourced out of the country or sucked up by immigrants (did you see the new post or not?).
The Department of Labor Statistics continues to lie with statistics, nothing they report can be taken with any accuracy. There are millions of people who want to work full-time but can't find suitable employment. Many of them remain on welfare programs (hey, it beats starving) when they would really rather not be.

So don't try to put words in my mouth, you have enough trouble choosing your own.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 6/27/2014 1:18:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 11:37:31 AM

"Oh, and everyone know that unemployment will never reach "zero" and that at about 5% most economists consider to be "full employment"."

Outstanding - finally, some realistic info from you.

"I put up a red herring and you failed to spot it."

I saw '0 percent unemployment' - why would I need to dig further into your erroneous, fictional calculations?

"The decline in unemployment from the date in 2013 to the date in 2014 should be calculated as 22,344,803 - 19,057,431 = 3,287,372 a substantial decrease..."

So then you now approve of Obama on this subject, given the substantial decrease. Understood.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 11:30:02 AM

Oh, and everyone know that unemployment will never reach "zero" and that at about 5% most economists consider to be "full employment".

I don't agree with them at that number. Currently North Dakota is at about 2.5% and I'm surprised it's listed as that high.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 11:28:32 AM

I have given up responding to your "debates"? I put up a red herring and you failed to spot it.

The decline in unemployment from the date in 2013 to the date in 2014 should be calculated as
22,344,803 - 19,057,431 = 3,287,372
a substantial decrease, at a rate which if continued would eliminate unemployment in 6.79 years, not 43.48 years. I posted the fact that I had posted a red herring on my whiteboard that day, June 10, it's still there, and you failed to take the ball and run with it.

Don't accuse me of not responding to the debate, you get a great big FAIL in this one.

:)
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 11:17:01 AM

"You can draw your own conclusions."

I have concluded that you once again have given up responding to our debates, since you couldn't answer when unemployment was last at zero...

The status-quo remains intact. Time to initiate the next smoke screen.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 27, 2014 10:44:41 AM

The Center for Immigration Studies has done an exhaustive scholarly report on how immigration affects employment of natives. The title describes the results:
Study: All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants
"According to a major new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), net employment growth in the United States since 2000 has gone entirely to immigrants, legal and illegal. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, CIS scholars Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler found that there were 127,000 fewer working-age natives holding a job in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000, while the number of immigrants with a job was 5.7 million above the 2000 level."

"The supply of potential workers is enormous: 8.7 million native college graduates are not working, as are 17 million with some college, and 25.3 million with no more than a high school education.
According to the study, 58 million working-age natives are not employed."

The study reaches three conclusions. See link.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Some here will draw erroneous conclusions, such as "immigrants will do jobs Americans won't do" and "they're here, it's a reality, might as well let them work and become citizens" and "we're a nation if immigrants, how can you be against it now"

Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,484
Points:2,062,365
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Jun 25, 2014 9:10:06 PM

Put me in this group
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 25, 2014 2:39:26 PM

"At that rate, it will take 43.48 years (each year being 16 months) to reduce unemployment to zero."

When has it EVER been zero?

Gotta love hyperbole... too bad there is no Nobel for that category.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,305
Points:2,975,710
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 1:37:56 PM

"Um, the Recession didn't just stop his first day in Office." Nope. It did end, by official statistics (the economy stopped shrinking and began to grow) in Summer 2009. Since then, it's all been good, right?

2/28/13:
Official Unemployed: 12,299,707
Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803 ----> difference of 10,045,096

6/10/14:
Official Unemployed: 9,533,290
Actual Unemployed: 19,057,431 ---> difference of 9,524,141

10,045,096- 9,524,141 = 520,955 fewer unemployed now than Feb.2013. Out of 22 million plus unemployed, an astounding reduction of 2.3%!

At that rate, it will take 43.48 years (each year being 16 months) to reduce unemployment to zero.

Wonderful! Barack 0bama is an economic Genius! He should win a Nobel Prize for Economics!

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 6/10/2014 1:38:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 1:15:36 PM

"That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office."

Um, the Recession didn't just stop his first day in Office. What is with this ridiculous propaganda?

"So why does the "official unemployment rate" keep going down?"

Simple - people are getting jobs. Stop making it a complicated conspiracy theory.

2/28/13:

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707

Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

6/10/14:

Official Unemployed: 9,533,290

Actual Unemployed: 19,057,431

Bottom Line. Need me to do the math for you? I75 had a hard time figuring this one out too ;)
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,576
Points:43,640
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 11:12:24 AM

We've had somewhat of a jobless recovery in many regions driven by many with 2, 3 or more jobs and/or underground economy jobs and side businesses keeping the economy going.

A rising tide does not lift all boats. Many of those that were unemployable during the recession are still unemployable, or even more unemployable since they've been out of the labor force for so long.

Since many issues are structural not cyclical in nature, many businesses and job seekers will have to make some major changes to adapt to the changing economy.

Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,450
Points:1,979,230
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 10:55:58 AM

teacher_tim said: "Why don't they just get it over with and announce that they have decided that all workers immediately leave the labor force the moment that they lose their jobs? That way we could have an unemployment rate of "0.0 percent" and Obama could be hailed as a great economic savior."

That's totally unnecessary.

If the unemployment rate was 25%, Obozo's sycophants would STILL hail him as an economic savior.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,576
Points:43,640
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 10:21:07 AM

BLS: In 20% of American Families, No One Works

<<In 2013, there were 80,445,000 families in the United States and in 16,127,000—or 20 percent--no one had a job.>>
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,896
Points:817,225
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 9:49:57 AM

"The number of working age Americans that do not have a job has increased by nearly 10 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House.

In January 2009, the number of "officially unemployed" workers plus the number of Americans "not in the labor force" was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million. That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office. So why does the "official unemployment rate" keep going down? Well, it is because the federal government has been pretending that millions upon millions of unemployed workers have "left the labor force" over the past few years and do not want to work anymore. The government says that another 347,000 workers "left the labor force" in December. That is nearly five times larger than the 74,000 jobs that were "created" by the U.S. economy last month. And it is important to note that more than half of those jobs were temporary jobs, and it takes well over 100,000 new jobs just to keep up with population growth each month. So the unemployment rate should not have gone down. If anything, it should have gone up.

In fact, if the federal government was using an honest labor force participation rate, the official unemployment rate would be far higher than it is right now. Instead of 6.7 percent, it would be 11.5 percent, and it has stayed at about that level since the end of the last recession.

But "6.7 percent" makes Obama look so much better than "11.5 percent", don't you think?

The labor force participation rate is now at a 35 year low, and the only way that the federal government has been able to get the "unemployment rate" to go down is by removing hundreds of thousands of Americans out of the labor force every month.

Why don't they just get it over with and announce that they have decided that all workers immediately leave the labor force the moment that they lose their jobs? That way we could have an unemployment rate of "0.0 percent" and Obama could be hailed as a great economic savior.

Of course the truth is that the employment crisis in the United States is about as bad now as it was during the depths of the last recession.

If you want a much more accurate reading of the employment picture in America, just look at the employment-population ratio. The percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job continues to stagnate at an extremely low level. In fact, the percentage of working age Americans that are employed has stayed between 58.2 percent and 58.8 percent for 52 months in a row..."[L=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-13/text deleted to source[/L]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 9:38:27 AM

"Perhaps you could just answer the question instead of suggesting a search through four pages of posts to look for a missing link."

Or you can do your own search, since this information has already been provided? Simply Google "Nobel Laureate income inequality" to see what Robert Schiller, Joseph Stiglitz, Tyler Cowen, Erik Brynjolfsson and others have put out there for your edification. There is a lot of good reading material out there, I would hate to limit you to just one or two sources...

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 6/10/2014 9:38:54 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,576
Points:43,640
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 8:16:44 AM

<<Too many people are willfully unemployed, that it, they took themselves out of the job market.>>

In our non immediate family alone we have dozens of able bodied working age relatives that are willfully unemployed or under-employed.>Like much of our local working age populations many have made themselves unemployable as well.Since the things that make them unemployable are preventable and/or can be changed, even the ones looking for work are effectively willfully unemployed or under-employed.

>More and more are only working part-time, temporary and seasonal jobs since they receive handouts with no time limits or work requirements - $X,000 tax credits, medicaid, paid daycare, subsidized housing, WIC, HEAP, Emergency HEAP, free breakfasts/lunches, free furnaces, boilers, water heaters, free cell phones minutes, local, private and family assistance.

>More and more that are officially unemployed, or under-employed working in the booming multi-trillion dollar underground economy.As more and more customers have less and less buying power, cash, savings, equity, credit etc, they're hiring more and more cash/barter workers.>These workers are undercutting the prices of legit businesses, hurting them and their employees.

Speaking of willful under-employment, last month alone my sister had to replace 7 workers since they turned down various hours, days, shifts, full time and over-time during her busy tourist season.

I should add that since so many are unemployable, not seriously looking for work, or unable/unwilling to work many hours, days and shifts that many jobs are filled by workers that already have 1, 2 or 3 jobs.

>We have more and more younger working age customers on disability and/or with 2 or more household members on disability.>Job quality was much better in many regions during the recession, so I don't blame many for doing what they're doing.

Many have so many strikes against them and/or they're so old and unhealthy that they'll never recover even part of what they've lost.


[Edited by: MarkJames at 6/10/2014 8:17:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,967
Points:3,706,890
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 3:04:04 PM

"Check out my links in the 'Wealth Distribution' thread from noted economists and Nobel Laureates..."

Perhaps you could just answer the question instead of suggesting a search through four pages of posts to look for a missing link.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 1:00:16 PM

"Too many people are willfully unemployed, that it, they took themselves out of the job market."

Can you quantify this?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 12:59:51 PM

"How are the 1% doing that?"

Check out my links in the 'Wealth Distribution' thread from noted economists and Nobel Laureates...
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,896
Points:817,225
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 12:57:44 PM

Too many people are willfully unemployed, that it, they took themselves out of the job market.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,967
Points:3,706,890
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 12:19:50 PM

"Why would the 1% keep a strangle-hold on the income of the 99%, thus limiting their customer base?"

How are the 1% doing that? Bad economic policy is what puts a stranglehold on the income of everyone.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 11:46:22 AM

"All are 40 somethings and tell me they're having a hard time finding well paying full-time jobs due to their age."

Even in good economic times, this is still the case...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 11:45:31 AM

"Why would that nasty 1% want to destroy its customer base by putting the 99% out of work?"

Hence my question regarding income inequality... Why would the 1% keep a strangle-hold on the income of the 99%, thus limiting their customer base?
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,967
Points:3,706,890
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 11:28:12 AM

"the share of Americans who are employed is stalled below 59 percent, well below the 63.3 percent peak in March 2007 and 64.7 percent of April 2000"

--William Spriggs, chief economist for the AFL-CIO.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,576
Points:43,640
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 11:08:58 AM

I'm currently performing commercial work for 2 businesses eliminating large percentages of their workers.

Volume is up, however margins are razor thin and operational costs have skyrocketed, hence the job cuts.

Due to the over-supply of qualified and over-qualified job seekers they attract and retain much better performing workers, so they need fewer workers overall.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,576
Points:43,640
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 10:59:00 AM

I'm currently in negotiations with 3 pre-tax seizure homeowner customers - all in a financial bind due to under-employment.

All were working more jobs, better jobs and more hours during the recession.

All are 40 somethings and tell me they're having a hard time finding well paying full-time jobs due to their age.

Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,967
Points:3,706,890
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 9:13:10 AM

<<"btc1 said, "Problems are with what the 15 is doing to destroy jobs here."

What does that mean?"

Too difficult to figure out that "15" is "1%" in the context of his post? He just slipped on the 'Shift' key...>>

Yes, it was too difficult for me, too. After all he could have used the "edit" button to fix it.

Now that I understand his post, I will ask a question. Why would that nasty 1% want to destroy its customer base by putting the 99% out of work? The unemployed don't buy houses, cars, plasma TV, rent hotel rooms, etc.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 9:00:28 AM

"We had 3 laid off last week."

It is a good time to be laid-off, in comparison to 6 years ago...

Not every company gets it right, even in better economic conditions.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 8:59:12 AM

"btc1 said, "Problems are with what the 15 is doing to destroy jobs here."

What does that mean?"

Too difficult to figure out that "15" is "1%" in the context of his post? He just slipped on the 'Shift' key...
Profile Pic
hero4hire
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:1,377
Points:423,465
Joined:Jul 2013
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 7:23:13 AM

We had 3 laid off last week.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:15,845
Points:3,522,325
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 5:32:07 AM

Much TOOO MANY
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,652
Points:2,249,985
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 1:53:17 AM

Sneakers: <<<"I'm 59 and I have a brother that's 63. Both of us are drawing a pension. Are you going to count us as unemployed?">>>

--I for one would not, but on the other hand, I would count the unemployed person that has exhausted their unemployment benefits as "unemployed", unlike how the government does it.
Profile Pic
Sneakers55
Champion Author Houston

Posts:61,446
Points:2,613,835
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 1:40:13 AM

On Mar 10, 2014 9:54:57 AM, teacher_tim wrote:

>Actual unemployed is a separate number from the contrived
>Unemployment rate.

The so-called "contrived unemployment rate" requires that you be seeking work. To be seeking work, you only have to make one application in the last four weeks.

>A truer picture can be found by looking at the number of working
>age Americans who are NOT working.

I'm 59 and I have a brother that's 63. Both of us are drawing a pension. Are you going to count us as unemployed?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,609
Points:2,851,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2014 12:22:59 PM

btc1 said, "Problems are with what the 15 is doing to destroy jobs here."

What does that mean?
Post a reply Back to Topics