Will he be telling that to all the unemployed who were taken out of the unemployment numbers because they still can’t find work. They add 3 or 4 points to the real unemployed statistic.
We do count the number of people who either haven’t worked long term or who are employed part-time but would like full-time work. It’s called U-6. However, the official employment rate that you hear on the news has always been U-3. The BLS has not changed the way they calculate unemployment to accommodate Obama. Sorry, conservative conspiracy theorists.
Tigger: those unemployed that “aren’t counted”, actually are; and that percentage has dropped from 17.4% to 14%, still not great, but 3% is a decent improvement, after all, it’s enough at a three percent majority to get number of morons elected, so they can claim the same percentage through filibuster to paralyze the Senate.
No federal or state agency knows the true number of unemployed. Many of the above comments are correct. After 27 months, with benefits exhausted long ago, I am still actively looking. I have spoken with many who have been unemployed up to four years. And, among other reasons, like age discrimination, it is true that if one is out for a couple of years, H.R. “specialists” decide that there MUST be a reason that you haven’t been hired yet, and will not bother to interview you, despite your experience and good references. We are at a point where the unemployed, and the under-employed, are now simply being used as another political kick-ball, to hurl blame against the other party. There are actions congress can take to entice formerly US-based businesses BACK to US soil, but congress does nothing. They are now part of the wealthy elite, and if we can’t keep up, well, that’s just too bad.
There is no such thing as the “1%”? Basic math 101: out of any ranking of things from high to low, there is always a top 1%. There is a top 1% when you measure people by height, weight, net worth, or annual income, or number of warts. “The 1%” is shorthand for the wealthiest 1% of Americans or the 1% with the highest incomes. It is a misleading phrase, as you really have to look at the top 0.1% to see how much America has changed in the last 40 years or so. The idea goes back at least to 1896, the phrase was used by Will Rogers in 1931, Harry Truman (I suppose he’s one of those Left Wingers you speak of) used it in 1950s). Quoting from another source: Today, “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as “Reaganomics” or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the “supply-side economics” is the trickle-down idea: “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”56
Supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory are essentially the same thing; you are probably correct that there is no one today who actually champions “trickle-down” principles who calls them trickle-down. They use a different name now. But the idea is embodied in the term “job creator” among others. So the claim that there is no such thing as “trickle-down economics” is simple incorrect. It is rather like saying that there is no such thing as bigotry because no one calls himself a bigot. But you are correct that no one has ever called himself a believer in trickle-down economics.
I was not trying to be smart, Tigger, I was just reporting what I have often heard, and for many years, from conservative people like my father, and some of my co-workers, that unemployed people are just lazy, and those who are willing to work can always find something to do. I don’t believe that myself. I think many people lose their jobs and have trouble finding new ones through no fault of their own. Which is why I think that those of us who are more fortunate have a moral obligation to support (as your friends are doing) those who are out of work, if they are not abusing that generosity. I don’t know what you call that, I call it being liberal. And if you read my posting (which you don’t seem to) you would see that I agree with you that the official unemployment figures are too low, especially when you consider the under-employed. I think the figure has always been counted incorrectly. In a sense, your figures are way too low, actually. Only about 45% of Americans are actually employed. Most of the rest are children, the disabled, the retired, the imprisoned, etc., as well as those looking for work, or might start looking for work if there were more job opportunities out there, or they could get to the places where jobs are available. Of course what I was actually talking about, if you were paying attention, is the fact that people who have been unemployed for more than a few months are stigmatized by employers who are very reluctant to hire (even when they are hiring) people who have been unemployed for a long period. Employers, and especially conservative employers who think being unemployed is a moral failing rather than a misfortune, presume that someone who has been without work for a long time, or who blames others for his situation rather taking “personal responsibility” for his predicament, will not make a good employee. You say I am not as smart as I think I am. What gives you the idea that I think I am smart? I don’t claim to be “smart”, whatever that means. In fact, I think I am terribly slow at times.
Reality,really? almost 10 years ago
Will he be telling that to all the unemployed who were taken out of the unemployment numbers because they still can’t find work. They add 3 or 4 points to the real unemployed statistic.
Christopher Shea almost 10 years ago
We do count the number of people who either haven’t worked long term or who are employed part-time but would like full-time work. It’s called U-6. However, the official employment rate that you hear on the news has always been U-3. The BLS has not changed the way they calculate unemployment to accommodate Obama. Sorry, conservative conspiracy theorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_statistics
moosemin almost 10 years ago
This rocket has only risen 1% of it’s potential journey. Something must be holding it back.
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
Tigger: those unemployed that “aren’t counted”, actually are; and that percentage has dropped from 17.4% to 14%, still not great, but 3% is a decent improvement, after all, it’s enough at a three percent majority to get number of morons elected, so they can claim the same percentage through filibuster to paralyze the Senate.
Enoki almost 10 years ago
Don’t mind all the strings holding that thing up…
moosemin almost 10 years ago
No federal or state agency knows the true number of unemployed. Many of the above comments are correct. After 27 months, with benefits exhausted long ago, I am still actively looking. I have spoken with many who have been unemployed up to four years. And, among other reasons, like age discrimination, it is true that if one is out for a couple of years, H.R. “specialists” decide that there MUST be a reason that you haven’t been hired yet, and will not bother to interview you, despite your experience and good references. We are at a point where the unemployed, and the under-employed, are now simply being used as another political kick-ball, to hurl blame against the other party. There are actions congress can take to entice formerly US-based businesses BACK to US soil, but congress does nothing. They are now part of the wealthy elite, and if we can’t keep up, well, that’s just too bad.
Doughfoot almost 10 years ago
There is no such thing as the “1%”? Basic math 101: out of any ranking of things from high to low, there is always a top 1%. There is a top 1% when you measure people by height, weight, net worth, or annual income, or number of warts. “The 1%” is shorthand for the wealthiest 1% of Americans or the 1% with the highest incomes. It is a misleading phrase, as you really have to look at the top 0.1% to see how much America has changed in the last 40 years or so. The idea goes back at least to 1896, the phrase was used by Will Rogers in 1931, Harry Truman (I suppose he’s one of those Left Wingers you speak of) used it in 1950s). Quoting from another source: Today, “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as “Reaganomics” or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the “supply-side economics” is the trickle-down idea: “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”56
Doughfoot almost 10 years ago
Supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory are essentially the same thing; you are probably correct that there is no one today who actually champions “trickle-down” principles who calls them trickle-down. They use a different name now. But the idea is embodied in the term “job creator” among others. So the claim that there is no such thing as “trickle-down economics” is simple incorrect. It is rather like saying that there is no such thing as bigotry because no one calls himself a bigot. But you are correct that no one has ever called himself a believer in trickle-down economics.
Enoki almost 10 years ago
You’re right Rad-ish. It’s called Big Government and what’s keeping it from rising is red tape.
Doughfoot almost 10 years ago
I was not trying to be smart, Tigger, I was just reporting what I have often heard, and for many years, from conservative people like my father, and some of my co-workers, that unemployed people are just lazy, and those who are willing to work can always find something to do. I don’t believe that myself. I think many people lose their jobs and have trouble finding new ones through no fault of their own. Which is why I think that those of us who are more fortunate have a moral obligation to support (as your friends are doing) those who are out of work, if they are not abusing that generosity. I don’t know what you call that, I call it being liberal. And if you read my posting (which you don’t seem to) you would see that I agree with you that the official unemployment figures are too low, especially when you consider the under-employed. I think the figure has always been counted incorrectly. In a sense, your figures are way too low, actually. Only about 45% of Americans are actually employed. Most of the rest are children, the disabled, the retired, the imprisoned, etc., as well as those looking for work, or might start looking for work if there were more job opportunities out there, or they could get to the places where jobs are available. Of course what I was actually talking about, if you were paying attention, is the fact that people who have been unemployed for more than a few months are stigmatized by employers who are very reluctant to hire (even when they are hiring) people who have been unemployed for a long period. Employers, and especially conservative employers who think being unemployed is a moral failing rather than a misfortune, presume that someone who has been without work for a long time, or who blames others for his situation rather taking “personal responsibility” for his predicament, will not make a good employee. You say I am not as smart as I think I am. What gives you the idea that I think I am smart? I don’t claim to be “smart”, whatever that means. In fact, I think I am terribly slow at times.