Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman
There is nothing "actual" about that number when it doesn't count those who have given up searching for jobs. The "actual" number is actually much higher. Many of us are not fooled by the Obama reporting tricks
|
that's why i posted the link to the story about unemployment; that the numbers aren't lower because people are getting work-it's they've stopped looking. so, they're still out of work.
it's worrisome that job growth is lower than at the beginning of the year, and they're not expecting it to get better. and it certainly is an issue that unemployment is artificially lower-it's not due to hiring. and with jobs not keeping pace with those out of work, and with labor growth....it's a worsening situation when you get down to it.
then there's the fact that ouput is higher with five million less workers. that is a good sign for those employed. but if those companies can do more with less, why would they hire?
and just saw this, from an article on yahoo business:
But the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3% and the
so-called real unemployment rate (U6) rose to 15% even as the labor force shrank by 150,000.
one thing that admin keeps pushing for, is increases in teaching, police and fire hiring. i disagree. better to put money into infrastructure spending, which increases construction and other hiring. that way, private sectors hire, rather than adding to government employment. government is an expense, a drain, it's not profitable. private hiring on the other hand, doesn't cause an added drain. private companies would hire, buy more equipment, etc, etc. and we all know that we have bridges and roads that needed repairing or replacing decades ago. that's where the stimulus should have been directed, towards actual jobs, actual work. not adding to public sector jobs, or banks, etc. explains why we saw no benefit from all that added debt.