Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Mar '11 15:39
    Paul Craig Roberts claims our government lies about the unemployment numbers.

    http://www.rense.com/general92/liec.htm

    Is he right?
    If so what other economic numbers is our government lying about?
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    01 Mar '11 15:52
    Isn't it grand how he uses other unemployment figures from the government to argue that the government is lying?

    The unemployment rate and the participation rate are not interchangeable and are meant to inform on different things. Simple.
  3. 01 Mar '11 15:56
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Isn't it grand how he uses other unemployment figures from the government to argue that the government is lying?

    The unemployment rate and the participation rate are not interchangeable and are meant to inform on different things. Simple.
    unemployed is unemployed. simple.
  4. 01 Mar '11 16:38
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    unemployed is unemployed. simple.
    Someone who is very wealthy, who does not want to work and has no need to work is not unemployed.
  5. 01 Mar '11 17:11
    Originally posted by lausey
    Someone who is very wealthy, who does not want to work and has no need to work is not unemployed.
    I dont think any one is talking about the miniscule amount of people who fit into that category here.
  6. 01 Mar '11 17:40
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I dont think any one is talking about the miniscule amount of people who fit into that category here.
    You just called them unemployed when you equated unemployment to (lack of) participation.
  7. 01 Mar '11 17:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You just called them unemployed when you equated unemployment to (lack of) participation.
    wrong. I was equating the people who are long term unemployed who have gave up looking, no longer collect, who have just dropped out. ( thats the lack of participation I am referring too)
    If you count all these people who are out of work the true unemployment rate is in the mid teens.
  8. 01 Mar '11 17:45
    I think they should give things accurate names:

    Unemployment means not employed. If you don't have a job (for whatever reason) you are unemployed.

    If they want to give a rate of people actively looking for employment, then call it the actively looking for employment numbers.

    Any very small segments of the population will not make much of a difference in the numbers even if they are taken into account.
  9. 01 Mar '11 18:17
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    wrong. I was equating the people who are long term unemployed who have gave up looking, no longer collect, who have just dropped out. ( thats the lack of participation I am referring too)
    If you count all these people who are out of work the true unemployment rate is in the mid teens.
    Sure, there are other ways to define the unemployment rate, and methods vary significantly from country to country. But they are all arbitrary and to suggest that there is One True Way is at best absurd and at worst dishonest.
  10. 01 Mar '11 18:31
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I think they should give things accurate names:

    Unemployment means not employed. If you don't have a job (for whatever reason) you are unemployed.

    If they want to give a rate of people actively looking for employment, then call it the actively looking for employment numbers.

    Any very small segments of the population will not make much of a difference in the numbers even if they are taken into account.
    A large part of the people in this category are students, housewives and pensioners. I'm sure many of them will object to being tagged "unemployed".
  11. 01 Mar '11 18:53
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    A large part of the people in this category are students, housewives and pensioners. I'm sure many of them will object to being tagged "unemployed".
    So what? The reason for unemployment is not important, it is the fact that they are unemployed that's important.

    Perhaps they could make a category: unemployed but wants to be employed. I think that's the most useful stat.
  12. 01 Mar '11 18:57
    Originally posted by Eladar
    So what? The reason for unemployment is not important, it is the fact that they are unemployed that's important.

    Perhaps they could make a category: unemployed but wants to be employed. I think that's the most useful stat.
    They have that category and they call it "the unemployed".
  13. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    01 Mar '11 21:05
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    unemployed is unemployed. simple.
    Yes, they are.

    But you just don't know what unemployed means. Simple.
  14. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    01 Mar '11 21:06
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    They have that category and they call it "the unemployed".
    Amazing how many people have read the word so many times in the newspaper and still don't know what it means.
  15. 01 Mar '11 21:09
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Yes, they are.

    But you just don't know what unemployed means. Simple.
    hmmm... out of work?