LOL. Well Nommy, since you asked, Today I dined on a savory roast beef sandwich for lunch, followed by a delightfull pork chop for dinner. Thow in a BLT, minus the tomato of course, and it's almost time for a midnight snack [img]graemlins/pizza.gif[/img]
Still lookin' for a means of income...so unless something unusual happens, I don't think I'm heading for D.C. this year.
Love all this "economic recovery" and "decrease in unemployment" blurbs the news comes out with. No mention that the unemployment numbers are dropping because they only track people collecting unemployment checks, and after a year, you don't get one anymore. But...I'm starting to rant again.
Still diggin, though. Any extra karma sent my way is appreciated.
sigh
Wizz, I did nto realize that you had lost your job. Sorry to hear that and to be so late in realizing it.
The decrease in unemployment is simply a reflection that people have stopped looking for a job. To be included in the unemployment numbers you have to be actively looking for a job.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROFLMAO,PMF...The decrease in unemployment is simply a reflection that people have stopped looking for a job. To be included in the unemployment numbers you have to be actively looking for a job.
Geez...that's so funny, and yet scary that some leaders would actually believe that.
No problem, Prof. I was kind of hoping it'd be a short vacation, but perception isn't always reality.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 09, 2004 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Wizz ]</font>
Actually, it is the accepted definition used by economists that has been used by the government. In some ways it makes sense, another way tomeasure unemployment would be all the people who are capacble of working full time and are not. But that would include mothers and those who cannot work due to disability. The current definition under estimates the number of unemployed, the alternative method over estimates the number of unemployed.
The definition most people assume is the definition used by the government is the number of people who are not working but would like to have a job. The problem with this definition is that many people would lie and say they wanted to be working when they did not. People who are disabled and want to work but cannot coould be included.
No definition is perfect.
I think I miss the classroom.....
They stop the cheques after a year?!
B******ds!
I'm kinda glad I never emigrated then. I spent 2 years between graduating university and getting a full time job. I hope they'd take into account the odd week I did of manual labour in factories.
Good luck in the future Wizz [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Wizz:
Still lookin' for a means of income...so unless something unusual happens, I don't think I'm heading for D.C. this year.
Love all this "economic recovery" and "decrease in unemployment" blurbs the news comes out with. No mention that the unemployment numbers are dropping because they only track people collecting unemployment checks, and after a year, you don't get one anymore. But...I'm starting to rant again.
Still diggin, though. Any extra karma sent my way is appreciated.
sigh
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem I have is that they can't accurately measure any of this. So, they go with what "makes sense". Used to use the number of people that were collecting unemployment, which wasn't a good indicator as after one year of collecting, you ran out of what you could collect, and since you weren't collecting, you weren't counted anymore as being unemployed...regardless of whether or not you were or weren't employed once again.by ProfCrash
Actually, it is the accepted definition used by economists that has been used by the government. In some ways it makes sense, another way tomeasure unemployment would be all the people who are capacble of working full time and are not. But that would include mothers and those who cannot work due to disability. The current definition under estimates the number of unemployed, the alternative method over estimates the number of unemployed.
Now, with this lastest bunch of layoffs, that number got to looking too large, and another means was needed. There's now talk of 3% increase in employment, but that ignores the 20% reduction...which if acknowledged, would mean that there's still 17% that were working above the unemployment (at the time the 17% was working) that are still out looking.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics!
Ok...rant over for now. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Prof, you are good at teaching...consider teaching one class there in D.C.? With the experience you're collecting, your classes would get to be even more educational (and fun).
Hey, Ian...thanks. It'll blow over eventually, and I'll get back to considering this as a recession (employed) as opposed to a depression (unemployed).
<font face="impact" size="+1">Will fix telephone networks for food.</font>
I was unemployed for nearly two years, and there's no two ways about it -- it sucks dead bunnies. I had an Air Force retirement check coming (which is why we didn't lose the house), so I am forevermore ineligible to receive unemployment, but it's fair, really, since they won't stop that check unless I die.
Being unemployed levies costs on a person they don't tell you about. The loss of self-esteem, the feeling, after sending out resume after resume and not getting so much as a nibble, that somehow there's something wrong with you. I felt like a leech for two years, even though I was contributing to the household I felt like I was just using up oxygen.
Anyway, hang in there, Wizz. This too shall pass. And good luck.
And now that I'm employed, I can't meet you all in DC. *sigh* Life is so unfair....
Sorry to hear about that Wizz. I've only ever been unemployed for about 2 months at a time, and even with that I can completely relate to what Fan says she felt like, I can't imagine how terrible it must be to go longer than a couple months. And unemployment wages are for the birds, the last time I was unemployed, my rent was $1275-1575.00 (They were nice enough to make the increase over a three month period, $100 a month), and my unemployment checks totaled $960.00 a month. I'll be crossing my fingers for ya Wizz.
And isn't it just sick how the government gets away with the manipulation of the numbers like that. Who was it, Reagan I believe, that changed the numbers so it included Military personnel, and then took credit for having decreased umemployment. (Which obviously made the numbers look better, since if you add a bunch of working folks into the numbers, the working percentage automatically goes up). I have no problem with Military personnel being included, they should be, but, you shouldn't change the calculation, without saying that's why things look better.
Meanwhile G. Dubya Bush, and John Kerry will be spending in excess of $200 Million in the next 6-8 months to call each other names.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 10, 2004 10:08 AM: Message edited by: sindatur ]</font>
It was about 2 months ago they stopped extending the unemployment check due to the "recovery". I have to admit, that made no sense to me. I am guessing it has something to do with every state running a deficit now and having to balance thier budgets.
Wizz, you need to set some type of guideline. They are not going to be perfect but they still need to be set. I just wish that the news media would remind people of the definition when they start telling people that the unemmployment rate has dropped. At least then the "Drop" would be placed in context. What I would love to know is of the people no longer on the unemployment list, who got jobs and who simply stopped looking.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks