Ask questions via Twitter. Tweet any question to @AskFiLife and we will respond with an answer. More.

FiLife - In partnership with The Wall Street Journal

Your Financial LifelineTM

In partnership with The Wall Street Journal
 
 
  •  
    Report
Create a Stacker

Stacker Details

Creator
Barclay
Staff
Barclay
Creation Date
March 26, 2009
Replies
Comments (22)
Categories
High Deductible Health Plans, Unemployment, Salary

Who's been stacked

Daniel Ari Weinberg Thomas Fisher, CFP® Dominic Preuss Matthew Gould Robert Schmansky, CFP® Paul Kennard Mark Kantrowitz
Send to Friends

Comments

Sort by:
Jackson
Bronze
Reply

Depressing. Depressing. I'm sticking with 12%.But what irks me about these unemployment figures is they don't seem to take into account there are certain jobs that pay minimum wage or below.. an adult can't live on such a wage yet it still counts as a "job."

Is this helpful?

Yes

(6)

No

(0)

Permalink | Abuse

3_large

Lynn Dalsing replied 3 months ago

I felt like this is the first time in the history of my listening to the news that this has been covered. I hear a lot about people who are "underemployed" -- not technically the same thing, but similar.

9_large

marilyn-e-fletcher replied about a month ago

YOU are right! I have two degrees, and years of experience but all the jobs I see in my field want to pay less than $15.00 per hour. I'm currently working 2 jobs and earning less than did in my previous position.

Martin Hopkins LLB CFPNapfa_small
Expert Partner
Reply

This is a very relevant question in these unfortunate economic times

Is this helpful?

Yes

(2)

No

(0)

Permalink | Abuse

Martin Hopkins LLB CFPNapfa_small
Expert Partner
Reply

Very relelvant in our current economic situation

Is this helpful?

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Permalink | Abuse

Romar
FiLifer
Reply

This average seems realistic...currently.

Is this helpful?

Yes

(2)

No

(1)

Permalink | Abuse

Dave McLeod
Newcomer
Reply

The gov. hasn't accurately reported these figures since the 60's.

Is this helpful?

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Permalink | Abuse

Safe_image.php?logo&d=0c0563e146f36542549aec62f84f8e23&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprofile.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fv224%2F640%2F55%2Fq1407506183_1207

Todd Rubinstein replied 3 months ago

12.5%. Dave why don't you think the Gov "hasn't accurately reported these figures since the 60's"?

Mot
FiLifer
Reply

Lynn is absolutely right but I would exclude stay at home Moms since they are providing active support for the family bread winner. The others are muchers, mostly and they will always be cronically unemployed. I call them takers.....

Is this helpful?

Yes

(0)

No

(0)

Permalink | Abuse

Mot
FiLifer
Reply

Look at the Truely unemployed plus those who have given up...and you will see the reality...

Is this helpful?

Yes

(0)

No

(0)

Permalink | Abuse

seana
Newcomer
Reply

Hank -- I hear that all the time, but really all of that is in the report. The economic situation report is about 25 pages long and has just about every breakdown you could imagine. Unemployed contract employees are reported, a variety of measures of part-time employment are included. Technically self-employed is employed so I'm not sure how its measure would be different from from the other measurements, but when they become unemployed it is measured. While it's not in the employment situation report, about a week later BLS releases the JOT (Job Openings and Turnover) report which includes how many people left their jobs voluntarily, or were laid off.

If all you look at is the topline numbers that you hear on the morning news, yes, that isn't a very useful number. But if you really are interested in this stuff you can find some very compelling information deep in the bowls of these reports that can give you a rather firm grasp on the current situation in the labor markets. BTW, the second differentials are really looking pretty good.

Is this helpful?

Yes

(1)

No

(1)

Permalink | Abuse

Paul Kennard
Staff
Reply

Hank, good info! I had no idea how employment numbers were calculated.

Is this helpful?

Yes

(0)

No

(0)

Permalink | Abuse

Hank
FiLife Contributor
Reply

Dave makes a great point. The stats have been skewed and reported at odds with the true measure of unemployment for a very long time. For example, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labor force surveys conducted by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment figures don't indicate how many are not working for pay but those only actively seeking employment for pay. The statistic does not include volunteer unemployment, contractors looking for work, self-employed, under-employed, etc.

The current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate and do not take into account all the factors that lead to unemployment.

Is this helpful?

Yes

(1)

No

(1)

Permalink | Abuse

3_large

Lynn Dalsing replied 3 months ago

You have a point, but measuring the number of people who aren't actively seeking employment, but who are unemployed would include people in school, in jail, in mental institutions, and stay at home moms. Those people are not (on the whole) relevant to what the statistic is meant to measure. It may be inaccurate in total number, but it is more accurate in practicality than what you are suggesting.

Also, measuring unemployment doesn't require taking into account the factors that lead to unemployment. So I'm not clear on what you mean?

Page: 1 | 2 | Next »

Post Comment

Generic User Image

Search Stackers

More Stackers

Login or Join

or login with

Expert Partners

Ask a Question

140 characters