Originally posted by whodeyyou can only fix potholes for so long
Well according to Obama his stimulus plan will create over half a million jobs. I assume that this is measurable at least in a four year span. Of course, if over half a million jobs are created, can they trace it back to the stimulus plan? That is a whole other thread altogether.
Originally posted by FMFGeorges Perec. What fun it must have been to translate.
Someone wrote a novel a few years back called "e" that didn't have the letter e in it. How such a jape ever got further than a tipsy and wistful chat in a bar with a publisher, I will never know. It happened during the Clinton administration.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYour thread should have been entitled "US unemployment rises - by less than expected".
US loses fewer jobs than expected
The US economy lost 247,000 jobs in July, far fewer than analysts had expected, official figures show.
With fewer workers being laid off, the unemployment rate fell to 9.4%, down from 9.5% in the previous month, the first drop since April 2008.
Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8189506.stm
A sign of recovery? Is the stimulus package working or would this have happened anyway? Discuss.
As you stated in the first sentence, unemployment did not drop at all!
Originally posted by WajomaBut if you borrow from someone outside of the economy you're considering...
Some basic economics explained basically for those that only have a basic understanding:
"If you want to understand why “stimulus” programs do not work in the sense of generating economic growth, try the following experiment at home or at your place of business.
Go up to someone and hand them $20 and tell them that by giving them this money, you intend ...[text shortened]... continued "
http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-please-try-this-at-home.html
Why do I even have to explain this?
Originally posted by howardgeeThen you do not understand how unemployment is calculated. Try again, and maybe read the next sentence of the article.
Your thread should have been entitled "US unemployment rises - by less than expected".
As you stated in the first sentence, unemployment did not drop at all!
Originally posted by whodeyNo, it is not measurable.
Well according to Obama his stimulus plan will create over half a million jobs. I assume that this is measurable at least in a four year span. Of course, if over half a million jobs are created, can they trace it back to the stimulus plan? That is a whole other thread altogether.
Originally posted by howardgeeHere are some factors which can contribute to a drop in unemployment, even if the amount of jobs is lower.
You do not understand the English language!
Unemployment rose.
The rate of unemployment rising dropped.
Get it right.
- Seasonal adjustments: there is not as much work in every month of the year. Usually unemployment figures are adjusted to incorporate this effect. This is likely to be a major factor in the drop of unemployment.
- Old people who previously were looking for a job decided to retire early.
- People who previously were looking for a job decided to go to college/university instead.
- Unemployed people dying.
- ...
Originally posted by FMFClassic!
It will be interesting to see how the familiar fumbling fulminating furious far right fuddy duddies, whose feisty fickleness and fatuousness are so fuelled by this free for all, fool empowering Forum, will fare in the face of this felicitous news. Encouraged? Unconvinced? Deflated? Defiant?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra...government fudging the figures beyond belief!
Here are some factors which can contribute to a drop in unemployment, even if the amount of jobs is lower.
- Seasonal adjustments: there is not as much work in every month of the year. Usually unemployment figures are adjusted to incorporate this effect. This is likely to be a major factor in the drop of unemployment.
- Old people who previously wer ...[text shortened]... ooking for a job decided to go to college/university instead.
- Unemployed people dying.
- ...
Apologies for my earlier posts, you were right - I did not read the crucial % drop.
Man, that's some massaging of the figures, when 200,000 plus people LOSE their jobs, and the unemployment rate actually drops!!!!
Originally posted by howardgeeUsually governments have pretty strict conditions on what is exactly an "unemployed" person, and as stated somewhere else in the topic, more leniant criteria place the figure at 16% or so (but also show a drop in the last month). However, as long as the criteria remain constant, it's still possible to track changes in unemployment relative to some other point in time.
...government fudging the figures beyond belief!
Apologies for my earlier posts, you were right - I did not read the crucial % drop.
Man, that's some massaging of the figures, when 200,000 plus people LOSE their jobs, and the unemployment rate actually drops!!!!
Originally posted by KazetNagorrayes
Usually governments have pretty strict conditions on what is exactly an "unemployed" person, and as stated somewhere else in the topic, more leniant criteria place the figure at 16% or so (but also show a drop in the last month). However, as long as the criteria remain constant, it's still possible to track changes in unemployment relative to some other point in time.
Just as you have a "consumer confidence index", I see the unemployment number as a "joblessness index".
The main point is to see how fast the unemployment number is rising or falling, and to compare it with the current recession with previous ones. The important thing is that you use the same measure every time so that you're always comparing apples to apples.
The "true" unemployment is always going to be higher than the official rate because it doesn't measure people who are no longer actively looking for work - and it doesn't consider people working part time who'd rather be working full time. But these things are extremely hard to accurately measure.
It's also much better to look at the overall trend for the past few months rather than focus on any one month. The latest number seems to say the rapid net loss of jobs has slowed to a trickle or stopped - but it could also be a blip. Time will tell.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI remember Haggie Thatcher changed the way the figures were calculated something like 80 times in 4 years!
Usually governments have pretty strict conditions on what is exactly an "unemployed" person, and as stated somewhere else in the topic, more leniant criteria place the figure at 16% or so (but also show a drop in the last month). However, as long as the criteria remain constant, it's still possible to track changes in unemployment relative to some other point in time.
Unemployment in Britain still reached over 4 million though.