U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary of the civilian labor force

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers

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

U-3 -- Offical Unemployment Rate currently 10.2%

U-6 -- Total Unemployment Rate currently 17.5%

oneodd1: jgbrowning: Did you know that the cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade? That employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008?

And at what rate did auto insurance premiums rise?

http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/auto/
1997 $705
2006 $817

Adjusted for inflation $705 (1997) = $882. That means that auto insurance rates didn't, on average, keep up with inflation.

tricycleracer: Is it time to face the fact that there simply aren't enough jobs in the country?

/Service industries based on disposable-income are a thing of the past.
//Wal-Martians are change their own oil now!

We need more professional house shooters.

jgbrowning: oneodd1: jgbrowning: Did you know that the cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade? That employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008?

And at what rate did auto insurance premiums rise?

http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/auto/
1997 $705
2006 $817

Adjusted for inflation $705 (1997) = $882. That means that auto insurance rates didn't, on average, keep up with inflation.

Yup. And the significant difference between auto insurance and health insurance is your ability to buy it off the shelf. There are others but they may not necessarily fit my preconceived notions.

neilio42: I agree with you to an extent. But there would be a transistion phase. I'm not sure how the contracts with the insurance works. Could a company quit on their insurance immediately? But the insurance companies would drop employment sooner in anticipation. I believe it could possibly temporarily add to unemployment.

I think there would be increased unemployment during a transition as well - transitions are always more chaotic than non-transition periods. However, any newly unemployed (along with the rest of the citizenry) would have health care. Also, all the other businesses would suddenly have significantly more capital (through reduced overhead) which would, IMO, act as a stimulus on that side.

jgbrowning: neilio42: jgbrowning: Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

It is possible to think "We need universal healthcare" and still think "I'm not sure if we can afford it now." One thing I never hear in the UH argument is "How many more jobless claims will we have when Aetna, Blue Cross, United Healthcare, etc. reduce their payroll?"

One thing I never hear from those against UH is how much money businesses would save by not being required to pay for employee health insurance. How much do you think, on average, health insurance places a burden upon business?

Did you know that the cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade? That employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008?

And to answer your question, running a UHC system requires administrative people as well so there would not be a total loss of jobs. The amount of jobs that would be lost would be those jobs that are, effectively, not actually needed to provide health insurance.

You do realize that businesses SAVE money by covering your health insurance, right? That's effectively wages they don't get taxed on. If people got insurance from somewhere else (like the government), either everyone who had insurance from their job takes a huge effective pay cut, or everyone gets a large increase in wages that suddenly costs the company more.

Gosling: All I'm going to say is this:

A) 10.2% sucks.
B) 10%, when you get right down to it, is an arbitrary number. The difference between 9.7% and 10.2% is 0.5%. It's the old 'on sale for $19.95' gambit working in reverse.
C) What's your plan for having it lower by now?

C) What are Shovel Ready Projects, Alex?

/What do you mean that's been tried?

You got an $800 billion economic stimulus package. What else do you peons want from us??

GoldSpider: You got an $800 billion economic stimulus package. What else do you peons want from us??

I want them to quit spending all the farning money!!!

oneodd1: Yup. And the significant difference between auto insurance and health insurance is your ability to buy it off the shelf. There are others but they may not necessarily fit my preconceived notions.

You can buy health insurance off the shelf right now. It's harder to buy than auto insurance, but that's because health is a more complex thing that autos.

And, to be honest, the greater part of your auto insurance expenses it to provide health care in the event of an accident. In addition, something like 14% of people drive without insurance - even when auto insurance is rather inexpensive (especially when compared to health insurance) and where there is (typically) negative reinforcement for doing such.

wet_dream: GoldSpider: You got an $800 billion economic stimulus package. What else do you peons want from us??

I want them to quit spending all the farning money!!!

But then they'd pay people not to farn.

/Those farners in the Midwest are always complaining.

wet_dream: GoldSpider: You got an $800 billion economic stimulus package. What else do you peons want from us??

I want them to quit spending all the farning Farking money!!!

FTFM - damn fast typing...

jgbrowning: neilio42: I agree with you to an extent. But there would be a transistion phase. I'm not sure how the contracts with the insurance works. Could a company quit on their insurance immediately? But the insurance companies would drop employment sooner in anticipation. I believe it could possibly temporarily add to unemployment.

I think there would be increased unemployment during a transition as well - transitions are always more chaotic than non-transition periods. However, any newly unemployed (along with the rest of the citizenry) would have health care. Also, all the other businesses would suddenly have significantly more capital (through reduced overhead) which would, IMO, act as a stimulus on that side.

Agreed. But eventually. For your logically debate you are being added to the favorites list, sir.

SurahAhriman: You do realize that businesses SAVE money by covering your health insurance, right? If people got insurance from somewhere else (like the government), either everyone who had insurance from their job takes a huge effective pay cut, or everyone gets a large increase in wages that suddenly costs the company more.

They don't save money when health insurance has been increasing at 4 times the rate of inflation and wages. They'd be better off paying higher wages (and higher total tax burden) than "saving" by paying for insurance (and getting a small tax benefit) that's so dramatically increasing in cost when compared to inflation and wages.

The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,400 a year. The employer pays for about $9,700 of that amount.

The delta for the average situation would be a reduction in per-employee cost of $9,700 minus the "tax savings" via providing the service minus any additional increase in wages. If that total is positive (and I believe it will be) it would be a win for business, while also being a win for individuals.

Came for the rampant knee-jerkers trying to turn this into a political issue.

Leaving satisfied.

jgbrowning: You can buy health insurance off the shelf right now. It's harder to buy than auto insurance, but that's because health is a more complex thing that autos.

And, to be honest, the greater part of your auto insurance expenses it to provide health care in the event of an accident. In addition, something like 14% of people drive without insurance - even when auto insurance is rather inexpensive (especially when compared to health insurance) and where there is (typically) negative reinforcement for doing such.

I am aware you can buy your own health insurance but I'm willing to bet that if insurance wasn't covered 75% (give or take) by an employer people wouldn't be so ignorant as to the cost. If people weren't so ignorant of the cost they would be able to comparison shop and get deals. If they could get deals (more than one-offs that happen now) the medical field would have to be competitive and we'd do away with $30,000 for five minutes of service in the ER.

jgbrowning: SurahAhriman: You do realize that businesses SAVE money by covering your health insurance, right? If people got insurance from somewhere else (like the government), either everyone who had insurance from their job takes a huge effective pay cut, or everyone gets a large increase in wages that suddenly costs the company more.

They don't save money when health insurance has been increasing at 4 times the rate of inflation and wages. They'd be better off paying higher wages (and higher total tax burden) than "saving" by paying for insurance (and getting a small tax benefit) that's so dramatically increasing in cost when compared to inflation and wages.

The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,400 a year. The employer pays for about $9,700 of that amount.

The delta for the average situation would be a reduction in per-employee cost of $9,700 minus the "tax savings" via providing the service minus any additional increase in wages. If that total is positive (and I believe it will be) it would be a win for business, while also being a win for individuals.

I agree with 100% of this.

oneodd1: jgbrowning: You can buy health insurance off the shelf right now. It's harder to buy than auto insurance, but that's because health is a more complex thing that autos.

And, to be honest, the greater part of your auto insurance expenses it to provide health care in the event of an accident. In addition, something like 14% of people drive without insurance - even when auto insurance is rather inexpensive (especially when compared to health insurance) and where there is (typically) negative reinforcement for doing such.

I am aware you can buy your own health insurance but I'm willing to bet that if insurance wasn't covered 75% (give or take) by an employer people wouldn't be so ignorant as to the cost. If people weren't so ignorant of the cost they would be able to comparison shop and get deals. If they could get deals (more than one-offs that happen now) the medical field would have to be competitive and we'd do away with $30,000 for five minutes of service in the ER.

I think you went a little over the line on this one. Companies have people that comparison shop already. The buying of group policies is the only advantage people have. That would go away if the shopped individually.

The counter to your last point: you don't pay $30,00 for 5 minutes in the ER. You pay $10,000 for your 5 minutes, and $10,000 each for the next two guys that don't ever pay their bill. Most hospitals don't make money, anyway.

Obama can easily fix the unemployment numbers simply by hiring 8-10 million more Czars.



what a Czar might look like.

neilio42: I think you went a little over the line on this one. Companies have people that comparison shop already. The buying of group policies is the only advantage people have. That would go away if the shopped individually.

The counter to your last point: you don't pay $30,00 for 5 minutes in the ER. You pay $10,000 for your 5 minutes, and $10,000 each for the next two guys that don't ever pay their bill. Most hospitals don't make money, anyway.

I was referencing the dead college kid thread. I worked in an ER for a while and have family in many aspects of the medical profession so I have a little knowledge of what goes on there.

If you look at the average cost for a family of four (from above) you see that it's 13,000 give or take. I can't imagine being unable to find very similar coverage privately for cheaper than that. Unfortunately I can't take my employers contribution with me. I bet the "group discount" isn't as great as you think.

jfsimpson: BravadoGT: But Obama told us if we all went into deeper debt to pay for his stimulus boondoggle it would keep unemployment below 8%! What gives?

Obama lied.

So, does this mean that my "When Clinton Lied/No One Died" bumper sticker is still accurate?

the opposite of charity is justice: ptelg: Note: European unemployment is 10% during the good years.

That being said.

mynameismark: Imagine how high it would be if we had done nothing.

15%? 20?

Your numbers smell like they're from your ass. Can you substantiate that?

Typically if a person had citations for the question they're asking then they wouldn't need to ask.

We'll never know because it didn't happen. Saying anything else is a wild ass guess.

Below is the famous "With stimulus/without stimulus" chart with an added bonus of what the unemployment rate actually was. What conclusions can we draw from this? Did the stimulus not work? Or is it working and things are far, worse than even the POTUS' Economic Advisors thought? I'm not saying anything either way, just food for thought.

jgbrowning: ptelg: jgbrowning: Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

Consider for a moment that the rest of the 1st world aren't fatasses plagued with all the ailments that come with that.

Consider for a moment that I responded to you, but then changed my mind because I realized that if you actually believed in what you wrote, responding to you would be a waste of time.

So I'm wrong in thinking that the overall health of a population will not influence how much that population spends in health care?

Not saying either way, just food for thought.

ptelg: Below is the famous "With stimulus/without stimulus" chart with an added bonus of what the unemployment rate actually was. What conclusions can we draw from this? Did the stimulus not work? Or is it working and things are far, worse than even the POTUS' Economic Advisors thought? I'm not saying anything either way, just food for thought.

The up-to-date chart above tells me that the White House had absolutely no idea what they were dealing with they they rammed through the stimulus.

ptelg: jgbrowning: ptelg: jgbrowning: Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

Consider for a moment that the rest of the 1st world aren't fatasses plagued with all the ailments that come with that.

Consider for a moment that I responded to you, but then changed my mind because I realized that if you actually believed in what you wrote, responding to you would be a waste of time.

So I'm wrong in thinking that the overall health of a population will not influence how much that population spends in health care?

Not saying either way, just food for thought.

Food for thought eh? YOur a farking moron. People like you are the reason why the government should be running everything. Imagine if this idiot had the ear of the president. He'd probably tell him smoking has positive affects on helth.

Total unemployed (new window), 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 17.5%

But at least the S&P is up around 10,000 again.

Too bad the P/E Ratio (new window) is approaching 140.

ptelg: Did the stimulus not work?

That is the ever present problem. Those who were in favor of the stimulus will say we didn't do enough. Those who were against it will say it didn't do anything. We will never know.

Since we can't know, they are already talking about another one.

Unemployment in Denmark is at 4%...so yeah, we're doing terribly subby.

FarkIlk01: Total unemployed (new window), 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 17.5%

But at least the S&P is up around 10,000 again.

Too bad the P/E Ratio (new window) is approaching 140.

Oh no, THAT doesn't matter - as evidenced today, when Wall St's indicators fail, they just move the goalposts.

The market was ALLEGEDLY up today because the 3-month indicators look slightly less horrible than expected. So you see, the 1-month indicator is no longer the measure used. Before you know it, the market will be up 10% as the "GDP is so much higher than it was in 1956".

FarkIlk01: ptelg: Did the stimulus not work?

That is the ever present problem. Those who were in favor of the stimulus will say we didn't do enough. Those who were against it will say it didn't do anything. We will never know.

Since we can't know, they are already talking about another one.

If/when they do it will make for some great economic research.

Gosling:
All I'm going to say is this:

A) 10.2% sucks.
B) 10%, when you get right down to it, is an arbitrary number. The difference between 9.7% and 10.2% is 0.5%. It's the old 'on sale for $19.95' gambit working in reverse.
C) What's your plan for having it lower by now?

I've been told, it is to send every voter for the GOP to concentration camps and kill them in ovens. This will reduce the population of the country by 15% and there be lots of jobs then, if the wussy libtards can handle a real day's work.

limeyfellow:

I've been told, it is to send every voter for the GOP to concentration camps and kill them in ovens. This will reduce the population of the country by 15% and there be lots of jobs then, if the wussy libtards can handle a real day's work.

you know I thought about taking the far left 10% and far right 10% and put them in the camps and I think everyone would be better off

Maybe the same camp.. let them fight it out on TV would be an interesting reality show

I still think Obama will get a second term. Millions of Americans will vote for him for trying to get the economy out of the recession during his second term in the 2012 elections. As a Republican, I would too.

Still the Democrats will have to spend billions of dollars to have the most important issue/concern in 2012 for Americans should be Sarah Palin in Right Wing Teabagging Christians just like Bush in 2004 where American's major concerns were moral values. The federal government should consider siezing some churches for teaching to hate Obama, think evolution is a fruad, and healthcare for all is awful before terrorists attacks happen. Maybe Obama should imprison Sarah Palin or send her to the nuthouse.

trippdogg: Looking for a job?
1. Are you willing to relocate
2. Are you flexible as to position and salary
3. Do you have marketable skills?


And this is where the fail arrives. A growing majority of Americans do not. We had best remove H1-B restrictions so at least we can get some smart foreigners in here to pay the taxes for our programs.

We have a culture that doesn't appreciate intelligence, where the bottom third of college students end up with education degrees, and we worry more about kid's self esteem than pushing them into achievement with school work/tough grading scales. How do you expect the country to achieve in the future?

At this rate we will have 110% unemployment by 2031! Even the unemployed will be unemployed!

aneki: trippdogg: Looking for a job?
1. Are you willing to relocate
2. Are you flexible as to position and salary
3. Do you have marketable skills?


And this is where the fail arrives. A growing majority of Americans do not. We had best remove H1-B restrictions so at least we can get some smart foreigners in here to pay the taxes for our programs.

We have a culture that doesn't appreciate intelligence, where the bottom third of college students end up with education degrees, and we worry more about kid's self esteem than pushing them into achievement with school work/tough grading scales. How do you expect the country to achieve in the future?

Seconded.

I've had 2 openings for decent DBAs for almost a year. Still haven't found one worth keeping.

Time to step it up people!

Boy, it hasn't been this bad since Reagan.

rohar: aneki: trippdogg: Looking for a job?
1. Are you willing to relocate
2. Are you flexible as to position and salary
3. Do you have marketable skills?


And this is where the fail arrives. A growing majority of Americans do not. We had best remove H1-B restrictions so at least we can get some smart foreigners in here to pay the taxes for our programs.

We have a culture that doesn't appreciate intelligence, where the bottom third of college students end up with education degrees, and we worry more about kid's self esteem than pushing them into achievement with school work/tough grading scales. How do you expect the country to achieve in the future?

Seconded.

I've had 2 openings for decent DBAs for almost a year. Still haven't found one worth keeping.

Time to step it up people!

Oh I hear you. I've hired two programmers in the last year, entry level. I give them a compiler and ask them to take in a string as input and return it reversed. Then I ask them to print the numbers from 1 to 100 and identify the multiples of 3 and 5. I haven't had a US programmer grad pass it yet.

/it makes me weep.

aneki: Oh I hear you. I've hired two programmers in the last year, entry level. I give them a compiler and ask them to take in a string as input and return it reversed. Then I ask them to print the numbers from 1 to 100 and identify the multiples of 3 and 5. I haven't had a US programmer grad pass it yet.

/it makes me weep.

That's what you ask? That makes me feel sadistic. My question is for a function that takes a string of numbers 1-9 and another number and return the string made into a formula that creates the second number. They can only use + and * in the result formula.

// ie given "123" and 7 you should return "1+2*3"

palan: aneki: Oh I hear you. I've hired two programmers in the last year, entry level. I give them a compiler and ask them to take in a string as input and return it reversed. Then I ask them to print the numbers from 1 to 100 and identify the multiples of 3 and 5. I haven't had a US programmer grad pass it yet.

/it makes me weep.

That's what you ask? That makes me feel sadistic. My question is for a function that takes a string of numbers 1-9 and another number and return the string made into a formula that creates the second number. They can only use + and * in the result formula.

// ie given "123" and 7 you should return "1+2*3"

Damn, maybe I should get into programming. Those aren't terribly complex tasks and I'm just a lowly unix admin

palan: aneki: Oh I hear you. I've hired two programmers in the last year, entry level. I give them a compiler and ask them to take in a string as input and return it reversed. Then I ask them to print the numbers from 1 to 100 and identify the multiples of 3 and 5. I haven't had a US programmer grad pass it yet.

/it makes me weep.

That's what you ask? That makes me feel sadistic. My question is for a function that takes a string of numbers 1-9 and another number and return the string made into a formula that creates the second number. They can only use + and * in the result formula.

// ie given "123" and 7 you should return "1+2*3"

I don't have much time, so my questions are short. Something like "could you explain an implementation of temporality in your DBMS of choice? please include constraints". Then there's a bunch of stammering and pseudo words.

From what I've seen, the unemployment rate should be expected.

aneki: rohar: aneki: trippdogg: Looking for a job?
1. Are you willing to relocate
2. Are you flexible as to position and salary
3. Do you have marketable skills?


And this is where the fail arrives. A growing majority of Americans do not. We had best remove H1-B restrictions so at least we can get some smart foreigners in here to pay the taxes for our programs.

We have a culture that doesn't appreciate intelligence, where the bottom third of college students end up with education degrees, and we worry more about kid's self esteem than pushing them into achievement with school work/tough grading scales. How do you expect the country to achieve in the future?

Seconded.

I've had 2 openings for decent DBAs for almost a year. Still haven't found one worth keeping.

Time to step it up people!

Oh I hear you. I've hired two programmers in the last year, entry level. I give them a compiler and ask them to take in a string as input and return it reversed. Then I ask them to print the numbers from 1 to 100 and identify the multiples of 3 and 5. I haven't had a US programmer grad pass it yet.

/it makes me weep.

I call bullshiat on this. There is no way a grown man/woman shouldn't be able to point out the multiples of 3 and 5 from 1 to 1000, much less 1 to 100. They teach divisibility rules in elementary school for Christ's sakes.

/I don't know enough about computers to say about the compiler part
//but I'm studying to be an actuary

That_Dude: I call bullshiat on this. There is no way a grown man/woman shouldn't be able to point out the multiples of 3 and 5 from 1 to 1000, much less 1 to 100. They teach divisibility rules in elementary school for Christ's sakes.

There is a small difference between picking out the one that doesn't match and programmaticly displaying the answer.

rohar: palan: aneki: Oh I hear you. I've hired two programmers in the last year, entry level. I give them a compiler and ask them to take in a string as input and return it reversed. Then I ask them to print the numbers from 1 to 100 and identify the multiples of 3 and 5. I haven't had a US programmer grad pass it yet.

/it makes me weep.

That's what you ask? That makes me feel sadistic. My question is for a function that takes a string of numbers 1-9 and another number and return the string made into a formula that creates the second number. They can only use + and * in the result formula.

// ie given "123" and 7 you should return "1+2*3"

I don't have much time, so my questions are short. Something like "could you explain an implementation of temporality in your DBMS of choice? please include constraints". Then there's a bunch of stammering and pseudo words.

From what I've seen, the unemployment rate should be expected.

I have about 45 minutes, and it's not enough for them to answer it. But, it's the point. I want to see how well they handle a problem. I actually forgot to mention that there's a 3rd operation, they can combine 2 digits to a larger number. I'm not sure if the problem can be done in P-time.

oneodd1: That_Dude: I call bullshiat on this. There is no way a grown man/woman shouldn't be able to point out the multiples of 3 and 5 from 1 to 1000, much less 1 to 100. They teach divisibility rules in elementary school for Christ's sakes.

There is a small difference between picking out the one that doesn't match and programmaticly displaying the answer.

Besides, if you're that smart and just starting a career, you'd think you'd look around:

From salary.com
$63k for Actuary I
$68k for Data Architecht I

I'm not sure I'd trust an Actuary that didn't do the cost/benefit analysis ;)

winterwhile: All2morrowsparTs

Boy, it hasn't been this bad since Reagan Carter.

now you are correct, facts must insult you

Your facts are wrong; FTA:

"The unemployment rate has hit double digits for the first time since 1983 - and is likely to go higher."

If we go by your logic, This is Bush's fault, in which we can agree on something.

winterwhile: All2morrowsparTs

Boy, it hasn't been this bad since Reagan Carter.

now you are correct, facts must insult you

BTW You gotta love this logic...2 years into the Gipper's Administration and the unemployment rate is Carter's fault.

9 months into Obama's administration it's like we were at full employement on January 19th.

US may not have European health care yet, but we already have European unemployment: Jobless rate reaches 10.2 percent

...at least the Eurotrash can plase themselves with state-sponsored health care, state-produced adult programing, and let us not forget the delish nude beaches and awesome absinthe.