gerrychampoux: I'm sure all this September hiring had nothing to do with retailers hiring temporary employees for Halloween, Thanksgiving, Black Friday and the overall Christmas shopping season.

And Valentine's day

TheRedMonkey: Or is it because of seasonal hires?

If only they could apply some adjustment for things that happen seasonally?

"Seasonal re-factoring"
"time of year adjustment"

Lurking Fear: Huh, because these same methods and numbers work just fine during republican administrations. I wonder what could possibly be different...

It's a conspiracy!

I believe the difference between U3 and U6 has been covered, and suddenly U6 is the Republitard talking point.

The fact is, unemployment is going down like subby's mom at the truck stop.

jst3p: theknuckler_33: bulldg4life: coeyagi: 1. 30% of Hillary voters support Romney
2. Silent majority
3. I don't remember what #3 was.

I'm kinda upset because, as I sit here, I can't remember what #3 was either....

I've got "let me give you some statisticals
1) 30% of hillary supporters for mccain
2) silent majority
3) palin?

------
I do seem to remember the "if there were three parties, would every state get three senators"

I think it was '7 out of 10 undecideds'?

[www.madmann.com image 750x600]

I wonder what ever happened to pdx...

olddinosaur: Suspicious?

Not really, I would say it is more like business as usual.

*favorite - red*
"Paranoid idiot unaware of the "hostile media effect""

RyogaM: Clinton unemployment:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%
Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.2%
1-2009 7.7%

Your numbers are off a tad:

1-1993 7.3%
1-1997 5.3%
1-2001 4.2%

Bush

1-2001 4,2%
1-2005 5.3%
1-2009 7.8%

OrygunFarker: [i1151.photobucket.com image 511x327]

It is a little be clear on this chart:

RyogaM: 1-2009 7.8%

Thanks for the correction.

The last one is small difference but having it match today's number eliminates a key speaking point for Conservatives.

SomeAmerican: The case for no recovery at all, showing employed people as a percent of the civilian population, with the size of the civilian population determined by the US census:



If you ignore the increasing population of retiring people.

PerilousApricot: downstairs: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Your claim is that you are employed but not REALLY employed because you don't make as much money as you would like?

Hell, if that's the metric, the employment percentage rate of the WORLD is microscopic.


Read my second post.  I'm not bitter here, this has nothing to do with what I "want".  I'm saying I'm worth $X and making <$X.  That's not good for the economy.  Hell, take me out of the equation if you have a problem with me making this personal.  Lots of people are in my situation.

By that metric, *everyone* is unemployed. I'm a grad student, I make a grad student salary, and my current salary and my potential job offers all pay less than what I'm worth. I'm sure if you asked anyone, they would say that they're making less than they're worth.

Serious question, in the ideal world where people like you (or I) were counted as "unemployed", how would you even quantify "how much someone's worth"?

I'm not an economist, so I can't give you a specific formula (though I'd hope one could be created.)  At best, I'm giving everyone here anecdotal evidence of someone that is being hurt deeply by the economy at this specific moment, and is not counted in any stats.  No bitterness, no blame... just saying the stats aren't accurate.  The stats including me or being more accurate doesn't HELP me, so this really isn't a personal thing.
 
I guess I'm going to kinda frustrate you with my answer to your honest question... in that its really going to boil down to something close to "I don't know".  But I'll give it a try...
 
Ok, you have your unemployment figures.  That's the base.
 
Then, I think you need to take average or median salaries for people with X experience in Y industry at Z position/job.  Then count the people with said qualities and see what they're making.
 
Lets say for arguments sake I have 11 years experience in IT management of some sort.  We can get close to saying I should probably be making $80k - $100k (I'm pulling the numbers out of my arse, but I'm close... but that doesn't matter.  Call it $25k if you want.)
 
Now by "should be making" what I mean is in a healthy economy.  A normal economy.  Not a boom or bust.  I do believe we can come up with this number in real time.
 
But we aren't in a healthy economy.  So now I'm working at a car wash (using a poster's comment above) making, what, $20k full time?
 
So at the very least notch me as one person "underemployed".  Or better yet, use the $90k - $20k to come up with the fact that I'm $70k underemployed.
 
Ok, none of this is perfect.  And it may take so much work its an exercise in futility.  I don't know.  I'm just saying the situation exists:
 
In a healthy economy someone WOULD hire me for $90k because of my experience/skillset.  But because the economy is farked I can only make $20k.
 
Again not perfect, and I'm not claiming the above is a complete scientific formula.  But SOMETHING like this should be included in any stats dealing with how people are doing.
 
/Also, none of the above is my specific situation.

Kit Fister: So, two honest questions:

1. How do we view/account for UNDERemployment as well as Unemployment? Or is someone with a shiatload of experience and qualifications and a degree losing their job in their industry and being forced to work part time at Home Depot not counted?

2. What percentage of the jobs filled are with people overqualified for their jobs?

It's great to throw out all these statistics, but unless you're growth also includes an upward trend in pay and so forth, then there's also something wrong.

Also, our economy and level of consumerism cannot be sustained if the population continues to trend downwards in pay scale and such.

The U3 is just one indicator. It isn't the GDP, poverty rate, average income, mean income, foreclosures etc... etc... It is just one indicator but it has been measured the same way historically and also across other countries. It is 7.6% in Canada for instance. It was 7.7% in October 1976 in the US for another example. It generally reflects how hard it is to get work if you want work. That's it. It is a limited indicator but it is pretty darn accurate and good for comparative purposes.

What is really interesting is that it is the economic indicator that the GOP latched on to very aggressively when Obama took over as proof that the DNC were farking everything up. Also, it was one of the last indicators the GOP was clinging to when all the other indicators were improving. There are still other indicators (food stamps for instance) that you can use to show Obama sucks but this was the last one they have been using consistently.

In summary, it is becoming easier for Americans who want work to find work today. Also the rate at which the rate is dropping is also hopeful. However, the U3 by itself does not indicate the health of the economy.

GORDON: I'm guessing not, but it is nice to hope some of those people aren't completely naive.

Soooo.... you realize, there's not just one, but TWO whole threads discussing why your understanding of this situation is wrong, bad, and foolish, right?