It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Can 40 percent of Americans be Unemployed But The Unemployment Rate be a Low 4.6 percent?

page: 3
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Well something is going on. In NYC there are homeless people everywhere. Haven't seen them 3 yrs ago.




posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

the U.S. government uses fuzzy math when they report to the public. but when the public reports to the government, they will put your a@@ in jail if you use fuzzy math.


edit on 3-12-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Does the government measure unemployment any differently than when Bush or other recent Presidents were in office?

If not, why were they not attacked and accused of lying, only Obama is???


Yes they were changed to include part time jobs in the unemployment numbers. So those people that have two or three jobs are helping reduce unempliyment.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

yea man its a zombie economy.
Unemployment went down due to some people taking multiple jobs(that counts as more than one) and the decrease in people looking for work, If working age people give up looking unemployment goes down.
This economy is farce, if median wages are not keeping up with inflation it cant be considered improvement.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

Some people, like myself, were forced out of a job and given a benefits package. I had applied for unemployment benefits but was denied due to the limited compensation package I received. So, I am one of the many who were not counted in the numbers they have been cooking.

It's all a farce



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
A while ago in England we had something called "New Deal". After being on unemployment benefits for so much time, like 6 or 12 months, claimants would have to do a work placement for something like 12 weeks. When it came to the unemployment statistics, those on New Deal were technically regarded as being employed so this drove the figure down. Of course it's better for the individuals and the state that those people are at least doing something, but since they were still claiming the unemployment benefit it was rather misleading. This actually matters a great deal during elections because such statistics would no doubt be used in a campaign by the current party if they are favourable, that is making it look as though they've substantially reduced unemployment during their current term.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

I think you're right, the UK governments (Tory, Labour and Coalition) have been playing the numbers game for ages. Criticise when they're out of power and add more schemes to existing ones when they're in power.

Mission creep and hide-and-seek.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
December 2, 2016

This is INSANE! As of the end of November, a whopping 95.06 MILLION Americans are out of the labor force.

Source Article: www.msn.com...

Since there are 244 million adult citizens in the USA, does this mean that 40% of them don't have a job? Or maybe they're sole proprietors, or working on a "cash" basis?

But, the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE is at a 9 year low, which is 4.6%.

Should President Obama get CREDIT, or BLAME for these latest employment figures?

-CareWeMust


Unemployment figures have always been a battleground of definitions. Changing what counts as "unemployed" can make massive differences to the end figures.

For example, let's consider two people, both unemployed.

One of them has a disability - they're still able to work, though perhaps limited in the range or amount of work they can do.

So, let's give that guy some kind of disability benefit/status and redefine "unemployed" to only include "able-bodied" people. Now we only have one person who is counted as "unemployed" instead of two. Hurrah, 50% reduction in the unemployment rate, where's my Nobel prize!?!

But wait, one person is still one person too many. Let's see, he went to his doctor and got some antidepressants a while ago. Let's redefine "disability" a bit to include "feeling a bit stressed". Now we have 0% unemployment!

How about only counting those who are registered and eligible for UI benefits? This immediately cuts out a swathe of people who are unemployed, able to work, and looking for work, including the long-term unemployed. Although the US does not use this as the basis for calculating figures at the moment, that can be changed with a stroke of the pen.

I'm not saying that this is how the system is set up, I'm just using it as an example of how easy it can be to fiddle unemployment figures.


edit on Ev11SundaySundayAmerica/ChicagoSun, 04 Dec 2016 07:11:33 -06005912016b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: marg6043
So the question should be why if we have low unemployment rates we got more people on welfare or receiving some kind of government benefit.


Because some people believe that it's not your employers responsibility to pay you a wage where you can afford food.


Because it isn't. It's their responsibility to pay you what they think you're worth and what you're prepared to accept.

Businesses run for the benefit of the business, not the employees. You're joining a company, not a church.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Because it isn't. It's their responsibility to pay you what they think you're worth and what you're prepared to accept.

Businesses run for the benefit of the business, not the employees. You're joining a company, not a church.


It's to the benefit of a business to pay an employee a wage that allows them to eat.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
December 2, 2016

This is INSANE! As of the end of November, a whopping 95.06 MILLION Americans are out of the labor force.

Source Article: www.msn.com...

Since there are 244 million adult citizens in the USA, does this mean that 40% of them don't have a job? Or maybe they're sole proprietors, or working on a "cash" basis?

But, the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE is at a 9 year low, which is 4.6%.

Should President Obama get CREDIT, or BLAME for these latest employment figures?

-CareWeMust


As is quoted in that report. "a lot of them are retirees" and with life expectancy ever increasing, the number of retired people is only going to increase. Would some also be at college/university? Adults, but not yet in employment? So its not quite as bad as you suggest, though I agree the real issue is how the Govt manipulate the figures.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Because it isn't. It's their responsibility to pay you what they think you're worth and what you're prepared to accept.

Businesses run for the benefit of the business, not the employees. You're joining a company, not a church.


It's to the benefit of a business to pay an employee a wage that allows them to eat.


If it's to their benefit, that's what they will pay.

If the employee has higher overheads than the pay will cover, it's for the employee to find an employer that will pay more for their skills.

If the employee doesn't have skills that anybody wants, that's not the fault of the employer.

Businesses are run to make money. They are not run as a social experiment or safety net, or as a host looking for leeches to suck out blood. It's a two-way transaction based on both parties accepting the terms. Don't accept the terms, don't enter the transaction. If some businesses want to offer better terms, good for them, that's their prerogative.

Company, not church. You don't get saved just by turning up.

I bet I could feed a family of four for a day on one hours' pay from nearly any job going - possibly excluding some of the serving positions that use the low pay offset by tips. I've done it in the past when times were tough.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

They came up with a scheme that's better than ensuring employees can eat. Instead they pay for it with Food Stamps, it's a guaranteed subsidy to the food industry, and it shifts paying for peoples food from corporate revenue to income taxes.

And I seriously doubt you could feed a family of 4 on minimum wage. That's $7.45, about $6.45 after taxes. The only food you can buy on $6.45 is extremely unhealthy.
edit on 4-12-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: EvillerBob
The only food you can buy on $6.45 is extremely unhealthy.


I never said it would be nice, but it would be food.

For two hours' pay we could feast like kings. $14 buys a lot if you're prepared to cook.

Source: been there, done that, kept the family fed even through the tough times.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
The only food you can buy on $6.45 is extremely unhealthy.


Dunno about the US, but in the UK, real food - fresh meat, veg etc - is cheaper than living on fast food and "TV meals"

For example, in the UK you can easily cook a good wholesome meal for 4 adults for $6.45 (£5)

the problem is that many dont know how to cook ....

(maybe basic food costs are much higher in the US? I dont know)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
Dunno about the US, but in the UK, real food - fresh meat, veg etc - is cheaper than living on fast food and "TV meals"

For example, in the UK you can easily cook a good wholesome meal for 4 adults for $6.45 (£5)

the problem is that many dont know how to cook ....

(maybe basic food costs are much higher in the US? I dont know)


Not so in the US. Prepared stuff is much cheaper than fresh food, fast food is even cheaper than that. You're not getting dinner for a family of 4 for $6.45 but you can get 3 meals from McDonalds or Taco Bell for that. Some microwave chinese food (typically 2 meals in a container) frequently sell for 2 for $5. Steak though? That's typically closer to $12/pound (rough guess, I don't buy steak).

The cheap fresh food you can do in the US typically involves a crock pot, and some sort of soup/stew variant.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: Aazadan
The only food you can buy on $6.45 is extremely unhealthy.


Dunno about the US, but in the UK, real food - fresh meat, veg etc - is cheaper than living on fast food and "TV meals"

For example, in the UK you can easily cook a good wholesome meal for 4 adults for $6.45 (£5)

the problem is that many dont know how to cook ....

(maybe basic food costs are much higher in the US? I dont know)


$6.45 will buy the meat, pasta, and some pre-made sauce (even cheaper if you want to buy a passata base and make it yourself) for a 4-person spaghetti bolognese, with change left over. Even an idiot like me can make it. Stretching it out to a full day of eating is more challenging though.

My wife is a miracle worker when it comes to improvising with ingredients; she makes the kind of meals you see lovingly photographed in fancy cookbooks with that kind of budget. No idea how she does it, but my ever-expanding waistline is certainly grateful!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join