May Unemployment Rises to 9.1%

[her209]

Unemployment numbers are controversial. I'm pretty sure they've changed the way they report them several times. People that aren't working but aren't looking for work are not considered unemployed. People that quit their jobs are not considered unemployed. Given up on finding a job and back in school? You're not unemployed. Discouraged workers who have given up on finding work are not counted. Now it doesn't matter what you think of this but clearly there are a lot of people who are unemployed and are not being counted.

You just have to look at the other numbers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn View Post
As usual, I'll make whatever excuse I can to keep spending sh1tloads of money we don't have, and no poor people are on the hook for, to keep poor people employed on The Future's dime.

Heh. False attribution isn't much of an argument, Chucky.

I replied to your post because you're using another bit of false attribution, the "They're just as Bad!" routine so common among Righties.

Conventional thinking around economics, automation & offshoring revolves around the idea that workers displaced by automation and offshoring will find employment elsewhere, that total production will increase, and that we'll all be better off as a consequence. Workers will gain higher incomes because machines amplify their efforts, and will come out ahead because of the lower price of foreign goods, too.

But that's not what's happening at all. What's happening is that capitalists need fewer & fewer American workers to take a bigger & bigger share of the pie. There are no jobs waiting for dislocated workers, even though there is enormous excess production capacity in the system. The market for our work production isn't big enough to support increased output.

And people need jobs if they're to participate in the economy, at least within our historical way of looking at things. As fewer & fewer people are employed, the relevant parts of the economy contract, competition for work increases, and employers use that to hold down wages. The system becomes more efficient, but only in terms of moving income to the top. Very high productivity beats down employment. It also beats down average family earnings, because fewer are employed. Wash, rinse, repeat.

If the US were a closed economy, it would ultimately catch up to our capitalists, but it's not. Low taxes at the top just mean that jobs are automated & offshored at a higher rate, not that more jobs are actually created in this country at all. In truth, the guys at the top are doing better than ever.

So the govt is required to create the jobs that capitalists won't in order to maintain domestic tranquility. It's just that simple. And in order to do that in a responsible way, taxes need to go up, a lot, particularly at the top. We also need to increase wages so that employed people will have more to spend to support the economy, and less tendency to work as many hours as possible, which will allow more employment opportunities for the entire population. We need to move the definition of full time work to fewer hours so that more workers will receive full time benefits, too.

The notion that laying off more people will automagically create more jobs is straight out of the looney tunes, and yet somehow part of the Republican platform. If that doesn't tell us where their leadership stands, then maybe the elimination of capital gains taxes in the Ryan plan will. On both counts, their policy clearly favors America's wealthiest, who don't need any favors, and has for the last 30 years.

 

[Zebo]

We have to relearn lessons of old J. Early last century. I expect a lot of pain before though. Pain is an awesome behavior modifier.

 

[1prophet]

Those at the top nonetheless paid much higher federal tax rates prior to Reagan than they do today, and you have no idea who's actually affected by AMT. It's not extremely high earners, at all-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

Read it until your eyes glaze over, but the modern AMT affects mostly upper middle class earners who live in high tax states, own homes, & have children, not the truly wealthy.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The current AMT on LTCG's is the same as the regular tax rate, btw- 15%, which is where ultra high earners derive the greatest part of their income.

You completely missed the point of the post I made,

Higher tax rates mean nothing if you can use loopholes to avoid them.


And as you pointed out in your links the AMT still doesn't affect the ultra high earners, yet it was sold as a tax on the 155 richest by those days standards who paid no income tax during an era were the highest earners were supposed to be paying the most.

If the truly rich don't have to pay their fair share why are middle class and upper middle class the ones that do?

 

[Jhhnn]

There was a brief time when the AMT did what it was intended to accomplish, but as I think we can agree, it's been modified to not do that at all.

Loopholes? sure. But having the AMT tax on LTCG's be the same as the regular rate, 15%, isn't a loophole, a bug, it's a feature...

Part of the current perception problem is that upper middle class people, many of whom pay fairly high taxes, honestly believe that both federal income tax rates & total taxation are progressive further up the ladder when that's not true at all. So it's easy for the truly wealthy to gain their sympathy & their votes with a variety of deceptions.

 

[chucky2]

Heh. False attribution isn't much of an argument, Chucky.

I replied to your post because you're using another bit of false attribution, the "They're just as Bad!" routine so common among Righties.

Conventional thinking around economics, automation & offshoring revolves around the idea that workers displaced by automation and offshoring will find employment elsewhere, that total production will increase, and that we'll all be better off as a consequence. Workers will gain higher incomes because machines amplify their efforts, and will come out ahead because of the lower price of foreign goods, too.

snip

Why did you reply to me with all that? I don't even disagree with much of that, let alone made an arguement against it. Are you 234'ing here or what?

Chuck

 

[cutforscience]

deport all illegals and it should go back to 9.0 rather quickly