EPT
Bush is a moron if this is true
| Blogs > {CC}StealthBlue |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
| ||
|
ProbiE
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 08:23 ProbiE wrote: I don't think teenagers with part-time jobs can be counted as part of the labor force. Unemployment rate = unemployed of labor force / labor force. Yep, students != labor force | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
| ||
|
ydg
United States690 Posts
For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were: * On vacation; * Ill; * Experiencing child-care problems; * Taking care of some other family or personal obligation; * On maternity or paternity leave; * Involved in an industrial dispute; or * Prevented from working by bad weather. These persons are counted among the employed and tabulated separately as "with a job but not at work," because they have a specific job to which they will return. But what about the two following cases? George Lewis is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, George does help with the regular chores around his father's farm about 20 hours each week. Lisa Fox spends most of her time taking care of her home and children, but, all day Friday and Saturday, she helps in her husband's computer software store. Under the Government's definition of employment, both George and Lisa are considered employed. They fall into a group called "unpaid family workers," which includes any person who worked 15 hours or more in a week without pay in a family-operated enterprise. Such persons contribute significantly to our productive effort and are an important part of our labor supply, particularly in agriculture and retail trade. However, unpaid family workers who work fewer than 15 hours per week are counted as "not in the labor force." unemployment is the people who are looking for a job but cannot find one and there is actually a trend towards more old-age workers and less towards younger workers | ||
|
Dr.Kill-Joy
United States627 Posts
On June 08 2008 08:11 Jibba wrote: He's also pressuring the oil producing countries to bring the price down, when they're not the ones to blame for the current inflation. It's not even the Exxons or BPs at fault. It's the futures speculators, who are finally starting to get investigated. Yah, Bush went over to Saudi and pretty much got on his knee's and begged them to increase oil production. | ||
|
anImaru
United States106 Posts
So from this you can see how teenagers looking for seasonal (summer) employment does indeed contribute to the unemployment rate. Since summer vacation just started, it is likely that there is a huge influx of students into the labor force who are searching for jobs and thus are counted as unemployed. I wouldn't be surprised if next months unemployments rate drops back to ~5.2%. Don't just call the president a moron when it's you who probably don't understand what exactly the unemployment rate is and/or how students and seasonal employment contribute to it. Also with the talk about high oil prices, as previously mentioned, it isn't really the oil companies' fault. Although OPEC is to blame a little for refusing to pump more oil, for the most part it's futures speculators fault that oil prices so high. Even without speculators, however, oil would still be above $100 a barrel because of a huge global rise in demands (China/India) and stagnating supply. Talking specifically about the US, we are becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil instead of developing our own reserves. Instead of doing productive measures that would raise supply such as allowing drilling in ANWR/off-shore, the Democrats in Congress would rather just play on people's emotions by charging oil companies with a windfall tax. A windfall tax would only further raise prices and hurt supply in the future which anyone who has taken economics can tell you will only mean even higher prices. The average person, however, is stupid and would rather put the blame on some supposed "villain," oil companies in this case, and feel better when the government is punishing the "villain" even if it is clearly wrong. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 08:55 ydg wrote: They count as employed because it pushes the unemployment rate down, but 'Student' is one of the categories that is not included in labor force. The 'Working' label happens to trump all of those non-included ones.actually, students with part-time jobs are employed; + Show Spoiler + For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were: * On vacation; * Ill; * Experiencing child-care problems; * Taking care of some other family or personal obligation; * On maternity or paternity leave; * Involved in an industrial dispute; or * Prevented from working by bad weather. These persons are counted among the employed and tabulated separately as "with a job but not at work," because they have a specific job to which they will return. But what about the two following cases? George Lewis is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, George does help with the regular chores around his father's farm about 20 hours each week. Lisa Fox spends most of her time taking care of her home and children, but, all day Friday and Saturday, she helps in her husband's computer software store. Under the Government's definition of employment, both George and Lisa are considered employed. They fall into a group called "unpaid family workers," which includes any person who worked 15 hours or more in a week without pay in a family-operated enterprise. Such persons contribute significantly to our productive effort and are an important part of our labor supply, particularly in agriculture and retail trade. However, unpaid family workers who work fewer than 15 hours per week are counted as "not in the labor force." unemployment is the people who are looking for a job but cannot find one and there is actually a trend towards more old-age workers and less towards younger workers Unemployment rate is a stupid, purposely deflated number. | ||
|
anImaru
United States106 Posts
On June 08 2008 11:14 Jibba wrote: Unemployment rate is a stupid, purposely deflated number. Clearly you are smarter than all the business executives, economists and politicians who use the unemployment rate to make important decisions. Also even if you say it is deflated, you can still compare it to previous times. Since the method by which it is calculated has not changed, the old data would also be deflated. And in the historical context, a 5.5% unemployment rate is lower than average. | ||
|
nemY
United States3119 Posts
| ||
|
MoNKeYSpanKeR
United States2869 Posts
On June 08 2008 11:14 Jibba wrote: They count as employed because it pushes the unemployment rate down, but 'Student' is one of the categories that is not included in labor force. The 'Working' label happens to trump all of those non-included ones. Unemployment rate is a stupid, purposely deflated number. As long as they haven't changed the formula for determining unemployment drastically or at all it's still accurate for compairing it to the "Unemployment Rate" of other years and generations, so it serves a purpose even if it is deflated and is still a good way to base facts off of. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On June 08 2008 14:25 nemY wrote: All I know is if I don't get a job soon you're gonna start hearing about a TL male porn star. If you can't find a job as a porn star; I'm sure i can find a "position" for you  | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 14:03 anImaru wrote: Clearly you are smarter than all the business executives, economists and politicians who use the unemployment rate to make important decisions. Also even if you say it is deflated, you can still compare it to previous times. Since the method by which it is calculated has not changed, the old data would also be deflated. And in the historical context, a 5.5% unemployment rate is lower than average. I didn't say it wasn't useful in a historical perspective, but you can ask any economist and they will tell you the calculation method has very serious shortcomings. The fact that students get shuttled into the labor force when they work and ignored when they don't is completely arbitrary. Same goes for the 'Discouraged Worker' category. If you haven't been able to find a job in a year and no longer looking, magically you're no longer part of labor? If you've been paid for 1 hour of work in the past week (mowing the lawn, sperm bank donation), now you're part of the labor force? It's precise, but not accurate. It should be pretty easy to look around most communities in the country and realize the unemployment rate is not a cool, low 5.5%. EDIT: In some respects, the last 15 years aren't quite as comparable to the eras before it because of the large increase in illegal immigrants. I have no idea whether that pushes it up or down, but that's about 2% of the labor force that goes unreported. | ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
 | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
| ||
