Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Americans tend to lack perspective when complaining about the job market. The current unemployment rate is 6.6% in the US
From this week's Economist here is a list of other Western countries with higher rates:
Britain 7.2%
Canada 7.0%
Euro area 12.0%
France 10.9%
Germany 6.8%
Netherlands 8.6%
Italy 12.9%
Spain 25.8%
Sweden 8.6%
People who gave up looking for a job aren't included. People who got a job that pays lower than their previous one aren't included. So unemployment consists of people actively seeking employment.
People who got a job that pays lower than their previous one aren't included.
I hear this a lot, but can someone please explain why people who have jobs (part time workers who want more hours, the underemployed) should be included in unemployment percentages? They definitely have a place in the analysis of indicators of economic health, but ... they're not unemployed.
I hear this a lot, but can someone please explain why people who have jobs (part time workers who want more hours, the underemployed) should be included in unemployment percentages? They definitely have a place in the analysis of indicators of economic health, but ... they're not unemployed.
Read up on the calculations U6 is the most accurate..........it shows UE, gave up, and underemployed. It shows the real barometer that's why you should look at it. Check it out
We will never really have as serious as a problem as we did in the 1930's. Make no mistake the problems now vs then are hardly anything. Back then people really could starve and might not have clothing. Today no one really starves in the country. Yes food supply and quality can be debatable but that is not the argument.
"Look no further than Detroit, it looks like Beirut."
Actually Beirut is nowhere near where it was during the war. Much was rebuilt. Yes you can have violence here and there but the same could be said about many other places. To be fair to Detroit the place is huge...really really huge. You can fit Manhattan, Boston and San Francisco in it and still have room left over. It is no wonder why some have argued to shrink the city and concentrate areas where redevelopment is more cost effective. Do do this in any city would be a huge task. There are many cities across the country and world that are like it but on a smaller scale. Some can redevelop
The worst place in the USA without question is East St Louis. Detroit I'd feel ok given people are trying to make it work. East St. Louis I wouldn't go in unless I was in a tank! East St. Louis, Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks yes I was referring to Lebanon in the 80's when an acquaintance grew up there, a metaphor.
My relatives and old SM grew up in St. Charles, just to avoid the bangers in East St Louis.
Read up on the calculations U6 is the most accurate..........it shows UE, gave up, and underemployed. It shows the real barometer that's why you should look at it. Check it out
But why should we consider employed people in the unemployment stats? Why do you consider that more accurate, instead of a different type of inaccurate?
But why should we consider employed people in the unemployment stats? Why do you consider that more accurate, instead of a different type of inaccurate?
As I stated it's a much better barometer of the health of the job market, and the economy as a whole. I can't explain it better than that. Read some articles inform yourself.
Like I have said before, we are down a million jobs since 2008, and at current rates, it will take 5 years to make that all back. And I'm not even considering how many more jobs are needed because of population growth.
Mainstream economists generally agree 200,000 jobs a month are needed just to keep up with population growth.
But why should we consider employed people in the unemployment stats? Why do you consider that more accurate, instead of a different type of inaccurate?
The issue is U3 only shows out of work employees looking for work. Theoretically it can be 0 because people think economic conditions are bad and dropped out or people have part time work because that is all they can find but are actively seeking for full time work. That 0 is a loaded number and we would all agree on that.
Yes, a 0 U3 unemployment number is an extreme that would likely never happen but for argument sake, it makes the best impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teckeeee
And they agree we don't need $11 jobs, or $8 at W mart.
An $11 an hour job would get you close to living wage so I would imagine economists would rather that than minimum wage or barely higher. It's still lots wage but it is a several thousand a year increase.
People who gave up looking for a job aren't included. People who got a job that pays lower than their previous one aren't included. So unemployment consists of people actively seeking employment.
for purposes of comparing the US job situation to other western countries that would be irrelevant because you can assume the same for other countries as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
