|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.225.190.159
In Reply to: Re: not good for the US posted by Roscoe East on December 19, 2006 at 12:52:22:
Just to clarify, what I meant by "at the expense of other Americans" was the fact that those folks who had been employed in all sorts of manufacturing-related jobs are out of a job.But I do see a bit of a puzzle in my argument: Why then is the unemployment rate at only 4.7% if all those jobs are going to China?
I don't have an answer to that.
Follow Ups:
"Why then is the unemployment rate at only 4.7% if all those jobs are going to China?"Because of the shift of the US job base from manufacturing to retail. The bad news is that the average retail worker makes half what the average factory worker used to. The good news is that what cost $300 five years ago costs only $100 today. It's easy to live on less if everything costs less. The monkey wrench in the works is that retail typically has minimal health benefits, if any. But at the rate things are going industry won't be able to afford health care costs either.
That 4.7% is the people still reporting on paperI believe I heard the real figure to be about 12%
That includes people who have passed the point of collecting
benefits
Stuart,
That's interesting. The standard unemployment rate has traditionally been reported by the U.S. Dept. of Labor. Who is reporting 12%?
As far as I have always been told the stats are the people
that are still collecting benefits and reporting they are unemployedMy brother ran out of benefits a few years back and was unemployed
for over a year and a half looking for I.T. work in ChicagoThere are a ton of people unemployed and looking for professional work
and their benefits have long since run out.They are the percentage of people that are not reported and they
are assumed to be workingI have heard several times the actual has really been about
12%
I think things are better now then the four years right after 9/11I have seen a page on the Augmented unemployment rate if you google it
it shows like 9% unemployment in 2004Youll have to google it and research this stuff yourself cause
were kinda getting off of pro audio subject here
:)
'Who is reporting 12%?'
The rate depends on the source. The USDL figures come from unemployment insurance claims, but if you're no longer eligible for benefits you're not counted as unemployed. The actual number of unemployed is usually considered as twice the USDL figure, but some sources consider the 'unemployable', such as those on disability or homeless, as well.
So are you telling us that back in about 1998, when the media was falling all over itself telling us that the unemployment rate was an amazingly low 5%, they were just falling for the Government hype?
Our government lie to us? Hard to believe that. Now go write WMD on the blackboard 3,500 times and remember why we've lost that many of our best for a lie.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: