a reply to: reddragon2015
Disclaimer: As ridiculous (and useless) as I find the unemployment number to be, the criteria hasn't changed under President Obama.
My two cents...
As others have said, the "unemployment number" is tied to unemployment claims and is not an accurate number of people of working age that have gainful
employment. Beyond those that have run out of benefits (stopped looking) I would point out that there is also a record high number of people whom
have shifted from traditional unemployment (considered as part of the unemployment number) disability benefits (not considered as part of the
unemployment number). While in some instances it can take some time to start receiving disability benefits, the burden of proof is relatively low.
For example, I have a knee that has bothered me ever since a high school sports injury and in passing conversation with my doctor some time ago, I had
asked that since I work in construction, would this qualify me? Although clearly I can work, because I do, the answer was a definitive yes. While I
can't prove that there are millions of people that have made "questionable" claims, I can't help but see a correlation between a lackluster job market
and the historically large rise of sustained disability claims.
For your comment about the stock market, I don't really have anything to say. If you look at the history of the stock market, it rises. Always.
Yes, there are some tough times but if you look at the big picture and drew a line with the first point being a hundred years ago and the end point
being current time, that line always moves from low to high. I can't really give Obama any credit for that. I'm also glad that the market,
historically, always rises. In part because I'm glad that those who invest directly (myself included in a VERY small way), if careful, can increase
their net worth. I'm also glad because I want the millions of people who invest in what I consider to be indirectly (401k plans, etc) to increase
their net worth as well. But I digress...
Back to the unemployment number. Another reason that it means very little to me is because the simple number itself doesn't give any indication as to
what kinds of jobs are out there and what the associated salaries are. To shift momentarily to another relatively useless number I'd point out that
often we hear, "There were X-hundred thousand jobs created," yet many times a huge number of those jobs are in the service or hospitality fields. To
use a hypothetical, a middle-management type person that loses his job, collects unemployment for a short period then, in order to take care of
himself and his family takes a job as an overnight manager at a hotel, at half the salary he used to make, to me a success story does not make.
Then there is the issue of underemployment. These people are employed and therefore not counted in the unemployment number (even though they are
making considerably less than they want/need to). This is an issue that that I know has been exacerbated by President Obama. This (alleged)
Affordable Healthcare Act did a number on millions of American workers. There is a HUGE issue with people having their hours cut to below the minimum
by their employers to avoid having to provide a benefit they never had to in the past. I know some people say, "Good! Screw those greedy employers"
which is something that we can all argue about on a different thread. However, in terms of the unemployment number there are simply millions of
people who have lost income as a direct result of the new law(s).
So, basically, the aforementioned, in part describes "where the complaints are coming from."
Final thought...... Unless.... this is just an Obama is the best thing since sliced bread.... in which case the actual reasons BEHIND the numbers