Quote:
Originally posted by Tomservo
Onetime2- the # of unemployed has *nothing* to do with the argument raised here. Unemployed does not equal jobs available, just as it doesn't equal *jobless*.
Unemployed simply means folks who are considered "actively looking for work" that are jobless. If you fall off of the rolls of "actively looking for work", you're not counted any more. The unemployment numbers dip as people are shaved off the list of "actively looking". Just as the "quaterly growth" levels aren't as they seem- they're composites based on current growth, if growth remains at a steady rate over the entire quarter.
Don't let stats fool you. # of jobs, and type of jobs are the only stats you can rely on here.
|
The discussion here has primarily been about the number
employed, not about the unemployed.
I brought the unemployed chart into the discussion because there was a claim that the losses are "unprecedented", which they aren't.
Further, it can not be assumed that all those coming off the unemployed "rolls" are frustrated workers who can't find jobs, there are countless reasons for workers coming out of the workforce from raising children and retirement to switching careers or taking a break from work while living off severance packages or savings.
In relation to the overall number of those employed and unemployed, the numbers who leave the workforce is small and the numbers leaving because they're frustrated by unfruitful job searches is even smaller.