The Economy is Growing!!!! Join these High Growth Industries!!!!

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: bozack
Guess Dave started early on not looking for work....nice to see people just stop looking, real testament to the mentality of todays american workers..

Yep - they are so "unemployed" they quit looking

Seems to me that if you quit looking then you don't want a job and shouldn't be counted as unemployed just like other people who choose not to be employed like stay at home moms and people who retire.

But yeah - it says something about how our work ethic has declined here - people now seem to think they are "entitled" to a job....or can find employment by not looking

CkG

Wow. You like that they Quit Looking because it makes for better numbers(Unemployment Rate), now you condemn them for ceasing to look for Jobs that don't exist! You got class man.

- talk about being obtuse...

The unemployment rate is down and people are claiming that people just stopped looking because the economy is so bad. I think that is utter BS. If a person doesn't want a job - they quit looking. If they want a job then they LOOK for a job. Those who whine and are NOT looking are the ones who think they are "entitled" to a job. Those who aren't actively looking for a job should not be counted in the employment/unemployment index. And likewise those who are self-employed(contract etc) need a way to be counted as employed whereas currently they really don't show up.

CkG

So that's it? They simply don't want to work? Perhaps they just have given up out of frustration, since they were working not long ago.

Well - who is going to determine why? Does it matter why? The number is an index. Those that wish to work should be counted because they will BE LOOKING! Those who don't want to work aren't looking. It really is that simple.
There is NO excuse for not actually LOOKING for a job if are unemployed and want to(and are able to) work.

CkG

Doesn't a person count as out of the labor force if they haven't applied for work? If there are no jobs to apply for then a person doesn't really have a choose but to drop out of the labor market.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Doesn't a person count as out of the labor force if they haven't applied for work? If there are no jobs to apply for then a person doesn't really have a choose but to drop out of the labor market.

Nice try - but that is a false excuse. There are jobs to apply for - you have to LOOK, not just sit on your @ss and hope one falls in your lap. Just because YOU limit your scope - doesn't mean there aren't any jobs.
Pfftt - like there aren't any jobs to apply for....

CkG

 

[NetGuySC]

It will in ways be fun if Kerry wins the election. I could then immediately wonder and comment as to why the unemployment rate is higher than 0%. I can complain about why we have deficit spending, why why why why why

It will all be Kerry's fault

My car broke down twice sice Kerry took office, It ran fine during the Bush administration. My standard of living had dropped since Kerry took office. Keery is such a d%ck!!

Oh it will be sweet to blame Kerry for everything even though the economy has cycles and alot happens with it thru not fault of the Prez.

If Kerry wins i will immediately complainabout Iraq and why are we still there, I will complain about my not making 100k a year, even though i do not have a degree. I will complain about the long wait at the Highway department and somehow associate it with Kerry.

It will be fun to turn the tide

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: bozack
Guess Dave started early on not looking for work....nice to see people just stop looking, real testament to the mentality of todays american workers..

Yep - they are so "unemployed" they quit looking

Seems to me that if you quit looking then you don't want a job and shouldn't be counted as unemployed just like other people who choose not to be employed like stay at home moms and people who retire.

But yeah - it says something about how our work ethic has declined here - people now seem to think they are "entitled" to a job....or can find employment by not looking

CkG

Wow. You like that they Quit Looking because it makes for better numbers(Unemployment Rate), now you condemn them for ceasing to look for Jobs that don't exist! You got class man.

- talk about being obtuse...

The unemployment rate is down and people are claiming that people just stopped looking because the economy is so bad. I think that is utter BS. If a person doesn't want a job - they quit looking. If they want a job then they LOOK for a job. Those who whine and are NOT looking are the ones who think they are "entitled" to a job. Those who aren't actively looking for a job should not be counted in the employment/unemployment index. And likewise those who are self-employed(contract etc) need a way to be counted as employed whereas currently they really don't show up.

CkG

So that's it? They simply don't want to work? Perhaps they just have given up out of frustration, since they were working not long ago.

Well - who is going to determine why? Does it matter why? The number is an index. Those that wish to work should be counted because they will BE LOOKING! Those who don't want to work aren't looking. It really is that simple.
There is NO excuse for not actually LOOKING for a job if are unemployed and want to(and are able to) work.

CkG

Certain forms of "looking" are not considered "looking" in US statistics. They may be looking, just not by the Official definition. Whether they "Quit Looking" or not is not an indication on their Desire to work.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: bozack
Guess Dave started early on not looking for work....nice to see people just stop looking, real testament to the mentality of todays american workers..

Yep - they are so "unemployed" they quit looking

Seems to me that if you quit looking then you don't want a job and shouldn't be counted as unemployed just like other people who choose not to be employed like stay at home moms and people who retire.

But yeah - it says something about how our work ethic has declined here - people now seem to think they are "entitled" to a job....or can find employment by not looking

CkG

Wow. You like that they Quit Looking because it makes for better numbers(Unemployment Rate), now you condemn them for ceasing to look for Jobs that don't exist! You got class man.

- talk about being obtuse...

The unemployment rate is down and people are claiming that people just stopped looking because the economy is so bad. I think that is utter BS. If a person doesn't want a job - they quit looking. If they want a job then they LOOK for a job. Those who whine and are NOT looking are the ones who think they are "entitled" to a job. Those who aren't actively looking for a job should not be counted in the employment/unemployment index. And likewise those who are self-employed(contract etc) need a way to be counted as employed whereas currently they really don't show up.

CkG

So that's it? They simply don't want to work? Perhaps they just have given up out of frustration, since they were working not long ago.

Well - who is going to determine why? Does it matter why? The number is an index. Those that wish to work should be counted because they will BE LOOKING! Those who don't want to work aren't looking. It really is that simple.
There is NO excuse for not actually LOOKING for a job if are unemployed and want to(and are able to) work.

CkG

Certain forms of "looking" are not considered "looking" in US statistics. They may be looking, just not by the Official definition. Whether they "Quit Looking" or not is not an indication on their Desire to work.

Please tell us which kinds of looking are not counted by US stats.....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certain forms of "looking" are not considered "looking" in US statistics. They may be looking, just not by the Official definition. Whether they "Quit Looking" or not is not an indication on their Desire to work.

Ah yes - and you are judge of "why". Right

If a person is looking then they are counted. I'd love to see a real example of someone actually looking but not being counted as "looking" as there may be some quirks but it is NOT as big as people here seem to claim it is. But then again people forget to factor in contract employees as "employed" so I'd say that more then makes up for the 1 or 2 cases where someone may actually be looking but not be counted. The argument from the left(this week) is "quit looking" though not the definition of "looking" Or has it changed again?

CkG

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: bozack
Guess Dave started early on not looking for work....nice to see people just stop looking, real testament to the mentality of todays american workers..

Doesn't that number they come up with/588,000 only mean that that many people stopped drawing unemployment benefits? Or is that number something else? I mean, how could they possibly even estimate how many people have given up looking for work? Is there an 800# to call when you have given up? Seriously, what kind of number is that and how do they come up with it? If it means that many people have fallen off the benefit radar, why are people on this board so hostile towards them? I don't think that cashing in your last check means you have given up, if anything, I would think that would light a pretty collective fire under 600K asses.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: bozack
Guess Dave started early on not looking for work....nice to see people just stop looking, real testament to the mentality of todays american workers..

Yep - they are so "unemployed" they quit looking

Seems to me that if you quit looking then you don't want a job and shouldn't be counted as unemployed just like other people who choose not to be employed like stay at home moms and people who retire.

But yeah - it says something about how our work ethic has declined here - people now seem to think they are "entitled" to a job....or can find employment by not looking

CkG

Wow. You like that they Quit Looking because it makes for better numbers(Unemployment Rate), now you condemn them for ceasing to look for Jobs that don't exist! You got class man.

- talk about being obtuse...

The unemployment rate is down and people are claiming that people just stopped looking because the economy is so bad. I think that is utter BS. If a person doesn't want a job - they quit looking. If they want a job then they LOOK for a job. Those who whine and are NOT looking are the ones who think they are "entitled" to a job. Those who aren't actively looking for a job should not be counted in the employment/unemployment index. And likewise those who are self-employed(contract etc) need a way to be counted as employed whereas currently they really don't show up.

CkG

So that's it? They simply don't want to work? Perhaps they just have given up out of frustration, since they were working not long ago.

Well - who is going to determine why? Does it matter why? The number is an index. Those that wish to work should be counted because they will BE LOOKING! Those who don't want to work aren't looking. It really is that simple.
There is NO excuse for not actually LOOKING for a job if are unemployed and want to(and are able to) work.

CkG

Certain forms of "looking" are not considered "looking" in US statistics. They may be looking, just not by the Official definition. Whether they "Quit Looking" or not is not an indication on their Desire to work.

Please tell us which kinds of looking are not counted by US stats.....

Someone else provided a link on a study of Employment statistics in another thread about a week ago. I'd provide the link if I could find it. Anyway, in the US checking Newspaper ads for Job listings does not constitute looking fo a Job.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certain forms of "looking" are not considered "looking" in US statistics. They may be looking, just not by the Official definition. Whether they "Quit Looking" or not is not an indication on their Desire to work.

Ah yes - and you are judge of "why". Right

If a person is looking then they are counted. I'd love to see a real example of someone actually looking but not being counted as "looking" as there may be some quirks but it is NOT as big as people here seem to claim it is. But then again people forget to factor in contract employees as "employed" so I'd say that more then makes up for the 1 or 2 cases where someone may actually be looking but not be counted. The argument from the left(this week) is "quit looking" though not the definition of "looking" Or has it changed again?

CkG

quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The unemployment rate is down and people are claiming that people just stopped looking because the economy is so bad. I think that is utter BS. If a person doesn't want a job - they quit looking. If they want a job then they LOOK for a job. Those who whine and are NOT looking are the ones who think they are "entitled" to a job. Those who aren't actively looking for a job should not be counted in the employment/unemployment index. And likewise those who are self-employed(contract etc) need a way to be counted as employed whereas currently they really don't show up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ring a bell?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certain forms of "looking" are not considered "looking" in US statistics. They may be looking, just not by the Official definition. Whether they "Quit Looking" or not is not an indication on their Desire to work.

Ah yes - and you are judge of "why". Right

If a person is looking then they are counted. I'd love to see a real example of someone actually looking but not being counted as "looking" as there may be some quirks but it is NOT as big as people here seem to claim it is. But then again people forget to factor in contract employees as "employed" so I'd say that more then makes up for the 1 or 2 cases where someone may actually be looking but not be counted. The argument from the left(this week) is "quit looking" though not the definition of "looking" Or has it changed again?

CkG

quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The unemployment rate is down and people are claiming that people just stopped looking because the economy is so bad. I think that is utter BS. If a person doesn't want a job - they quit looking. If they want a job then they LOOK for a job. Those who whine and are NOT looking are the ones who think they are "entitled" to a job. Those who aren't actively looking for a job should not be counted in the employment/unemployment index. And likewise those who are self-employed(contract etc) need a way to be counted as employed whereas currently they really don't show up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ring a bell?

I figured you had a point because you responded...I guess not though.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Certain forms of "looking" are not considered "looking" in US statistics. They may be looking, just not by the Official definition. Whether they "Quit Looking" or not is not an indication on their Desire to work.

Ah yes - and you are judge of "why". Right

If a person is looking then they are counted. I'd love to see a real example of someone actually looking but not being counted as "looking" as there may be some quirks but it is NOT as big as people here seem to claim it is. But then again people forget to factor in contract employees as "employed" so I'd say that more then makes up for the 1 or 2 cases where someone may actually be looking but not be counted. The argument from the left(this week) is "quit looking" though not the definition of "looking" Or has it changed again?

CkG

quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The unemployment rate is down and people are claiming that people just stopped looking because the economy is so bad. I think that is utter BS. If a person doesn't want a job - they quit looking. If they want a job then they LOOK for a job. Those who whine and are NOT looking are the ones who think they are "entitled" to a job. Those who aren't actively looking for a job should not be counted in the employment/unemployment index. And likewise those who are self-employed(contract etc) need a way to be counted as employed whereas currently they really don't show up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ring a bell?

I figured you had a point because you responded...I guess not though.

CkG

Just answered the question on who Judges.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

We aren't talking about the socialist state of Canada.

But it did say that in 1996(an election year) the US unemployment rate was 5.6%. Hmm....I wonder what our current unemployment rate is...


Oh teh noesss - this is hard to qualify for....

To be counted as unemployed, a person
must have engaged in an active
jobsearch during the 4 weeks prior to
the survey, that is must have taken
some action that could result in a job
offer. In addition to contacting employers
directly, active jobsearch
methods include answering want ads,
sending out resumes, and contacting
private or public employment agencies.
On the other hand, passive methods,
such as taking a class or simply
reading the want ads, do not qualify
as a jobsearch.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

We aren't talking about the socialist state of Canada.

But it did say that in 1996(an election year) the US unemployment rate was 5.6%. Hmm....I wonder what our current unemployment rate is...


Oh teh noesss - this is hard to qualify for....

To be counted as unemployed, a person
must have engaged in an active
jobsearch during the 4 weeks prior to
the survey, that is must have taken
some action that could result in a job
offer. In addition to contacting employers
directly, active jobsearch
methods include answering want ads,
sending out resumes, and contacting
private or public employment agencies.
On the other hand, passive methods,
such as taking a class or simply
reading the want ads, do not qualify
as a jobsearch.

CkG

True, it's not hard to "qualify"? for, it's not what "qualifies", but what does not "qualify". Read the whole Report.

 

[leeboy]

OK. I understand what an active and passibe job search is but how did they come up with 588,000? No one calls the unemployed to check and see if they have been putting out resumes so where do they pull this number from? Seems pretty arbitrary to me, but then again what do I know.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
True, it's not hard to "qualify"? for, it's not what "qualifies", but what does not "qualify". Read the whole Report.

I did. What it means is that you have to be sufficiently lazy in your supposed "search" to not qualify.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

I would have to agree the way we count is correct. Just reading wants ads can not be considered an acrive job hunt.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

I would have to agree the way we count is correct. Just reading wants ads can not be considered an acrive job hunt.

wha...wha...what?! You mean you actually have to do more than look at the ad to get a job? And here all this time I've been reading them and then sitting by the phone waiting for a call....

CkG

 

[Corn]

wha...wha...what?! You mean you actually have to do more than look at the ad to get a job? And here all this time I've been reading them and then sitting by the phone waiting for a call....

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

I would have to agree the way we count is correct. Just reading wants ads can not be considered an acrive job hunt.

That doesn't mean they are not willing to work.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

I would have to agree the way we count is correct. Just reading wants ads can not be considered an acrive job hunt.

That doesn't mean they are not willing to work.

Don't you just love the Elitist attitudes of Charrison & CAD? I'd love to see them walk into an Unemployment Office and say what they say here to all the Americans that have lost their jobs.

and everyone would have to respond back - Heil Charrison, Heil CAD!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

I would have to agree the way we count is correct. Just reading wants ads can not be considered an acrive job hunt.

That doesn't mean they are not willing to work.

Don't you just love the Elitist attitudes of Charrison & CAD? I'd love to see them walk into an Unemployment Office and say what they say here to all the Americans that have lost their jobs.

and everyone would have to respond back - Heil Charrison, Heil CAD!

keep sitting by the phone after you read the paper dave....

PS - those in an unemployment office are doing something about their situation - albeit sucking out of the system but that's what it is there for. To help ease the transition - but it shouldn't be a way of life for 9 months(isn't that how long it goes now?) BTW - to qualify for unemployment don't you have to show that you are actually looking for work? Do you think the unemployment office takes "read paper" as "looked for work"? For some reason I think not

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

I would have to agree the way we count is correct. Just reading wants ads can not be considered an acrive job hunt.

That doesn't mean they are not willing to work.

Don't you just love the Elitist attitudes of Charrison & CAD? I'd love to see them walk into an Unemployment Office and say what they say here to all the Americans that have lost their jobs.

and everyone would have to respond back - Heil Charrison, Heil CAD!

Dave I was a victim of the dotcom bubble bursting as well. I was unemployed 2 times(dotcom layoff,followed by 3 month contract gig) after the bubble burst. Both times I was working again in 4-5 weeks. Yes I have stepped foot into an unemployment office, but I was employed again before I got a check. Both times, I sent out hundreds of resumes. I also realized that I would probably have to lower my salary expectations if i wanted to find work quickly. I also applied for jobs I was overqualified for and and almost got a couple of them(they called back too late). Before I took my current job, I was about to go take a drop delivering pizzas, as that will make more than collecting unemployment and such positions are *always* open.


Job hunts are what you make of them.
Almost any job is better than collecting unemployment.
A job is better than no job.
Once you have a job, you are in a much better position to find a new better job.

 

[bjc112]

if you are good at what you do, or you have great people skills and as long as you can look presentable and speak fluent english then you will find work in this country

I think you got it exactly right...

If you have great people skills, and not even a lot of skill.. You would be suprised what you could pick up.

Combine the two together and you are golden

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
Here's a link to a PDF report contrast US/Canada Unemployment rates and statistics gathering differences: Report

Checkout the section: Current Job Search differences. It explains the diffrences between Active(counted) and Passive(not counted) Searches.

I would have to agree the way we count is correct. Just reading wants ads can not be considered an acrive job hunt.

That doesn't mean they are not willing to work.

Don't you just love the Elitist attitudes of Charrison & CAD? I'd love to see them walk into an Unemployment Office and say what they say here to all the Americans that have lost their jobs.

and everyone would have to respond back - Heil Charrison, Heil CAD!

Dave I was a victim of the dotcom bubble bursting as well. I was unemployed 2 times(dotcom layoff,followed by 3 month contract gig) after the bubble burst. Both times I was working again in 4-5 weeks. Yes I have stepped foot into an unemployment office, but I was employed again before I got a check. Both times, I sent out hundreds of resumes. I also realized that I would probably have to lower my salary expectations if i wanted to find work quickly. I also applied for jobs I was overqualified for and and almost got a couple of them(they called back too late). Before I took my current job, I was about to go take a drop delivering pizzas, as that will make more than collecting unemployment and such positions are *always* open.


Job hunts are what you make of them.
Almost any job is better than collecting unemployment.
A job is better than no job.
Once you have a job, you are in a much better position to find a new better job.

"I also realized that I would probably have to lower my salary expectations"

But but but you guys swear that wages are rising, how can that be???