Skip to main content

View Diary: Unemployment benefits end for hundreds of thousands, but unemployment doesn't (86 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the U.3 Index keeps dropping! (31+ / 0-)

    If a few more million people go off of the "official" unemployment line, pretty soon the jobless rate will be back to the new normal!

    So, who cares if hundred of thousands millions of additional Americans join the ranks of "the disappeared." I mean, we've got a campaign to win here!

    Snark.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Tue May 29, 2012 at 09:27:06 AM PDT

    •  Do you think Obama does not care about the (12+ / 0-)

      unemployed?

      So, who cares if hundred of thousands millions of additional Americans join the ranks of "the disappeared." I mean, we've got a campaign to win here!

      Snark.

      Not sure what the point is of your comment.  

      Yes, we do have a campaign to win here.  I guarantee you that the pain will be much worse under President RMoney.  

      These kind of reflexive anti-Obama digs undercut your credibility with me.  

      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

      by TomP on Tue May 29, 2012 at 10:00:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're absolutely correct (6+ / 0-)

        Romney will run the U.S. like he ran Bain and the hell with the poor and middle class.  

        Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

        by Rosalie907 on Tue May 29, 2012 at 10:35:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not going to get into it with you, Tom... (4+ / 0-)

        ...and I just spent 30 minutes writing a well-reasoned response to this, but I'm going to table that.

        Instead, I will say that I think what you're saying here is both over-the-top and confrontational....especially since what you're saying is directed towards someone who's voting for the President in his re-election effort.

        I think you should take this up with the powers that be if my response doesn't suit you, if you haven't already.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Tue May 29, 2012 at 10:50:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What are you saying here? (4+ / 0-)
          I think you should take this up with the powers that be if my response doesn't suit you, if you haven't already.
          I did not say you could not say what you did.  I just said I disagreed.

          As for " over-the-top and confrontational," you are beginning to sound like Bondad.  

          You threw out a supposed "snarky" comment that implied President Obama did not care about the unemployed.

          Had you crticized the adminstration for past decisions regaridng the stimulus or focusing on issues other than the economy in 2009, I'm might have agreed to one degree or another.  I think many mistakes were made by the Obama admin, starting with picking Summers and not understanding the depth of the freefall.

          But to imply that Obama does not care is just silly in my view.  

          I'm glad you are voting for the President.   So am I.

          I think you write many good and anlalytical diaries.  I think you are an asset to this place, even when I may disagree with the thesis of a particvular diary.  That's why I was disappointed to see such a throw away line.  

          He can care and be wrong in a policy.

          I have in the past and likely will again fight for your right to be critical, including being critcial of policy choices by President Obama.  But I also may disagree in  my comments with you at times.

          I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

          by TomP on Tue May 29, 2012 at 10:59:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Do any of them care (5+ / 0-)

        I really don't think they do. I doubt very much they understand just what it does to a persons soul to have that much insecurity for so long simply because they never had the experience.

         The vast majority of the people who lived through the depression ever really got over it. My grandfather who built a multi million dollar business, saved string and got terribly upset over things like leaving a light on in a unoccupied room. We will never be the same, there will always be a level of insecurity for the people who got hammered by this even if by some miracle the
        comes back better than ever.

        Obama may aid us to keep our noses above water, Mitt Romney will simply stand on our heads until we drown. We will eventually become to tired to tread water anymore in either case.

        Things need to reform radically. We are once again applying macro solutions to micro problems which is more harmful than helpful.

        Find people to sit down and go over a workers resume with them look for transferable skills they might have overlooked help them aquire what is lacking. Do not take a heavy equipment operator who has 20 years experience and train him to be a delivery person (yes they are doing that) train him to be a surveyor, or an inspector,or a consruction company manager or a teacher of heavy equipment operation. Teach him to work on the equipment like the lazer levels that break down frequently. Better yet start burying all the power lines and ust put him back to work in the long run it will save us a ton of money.

        One thing that might work is or was already in place in the state of washington. People were given money to go back to school to upgrade their job skills. If they had no real skills they were sent to college to train for jobs which are predicted to be short handed in the future.

        I would also suggest something they do in disabled worker retraining which is to pay all or part of a persons wage for the last half of unemployment time. This could be a boost to small business may need an extra employee but are not  able to afford one and a boost of getting someone current job experience or hopefully a new long term job.

        Both of these things are problems now. A friend of mine has a huge contract and needs workers but the recession has depleted his reserves, banks won't loan to him because he is in rough shape after the recession. That would all be changed by just this one contract and even if he didn't get another for awhile would create several jobs for a year.

        It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

        by PSWaterspirit on Tue May 29, 2012 at 12:01:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  About that program in WA state... (0+ / 0-)

          when I was unemployed and asked to be part of that program, I was told I wasn't eligible because I already had a college degree, and those programs were set aside for people who only had high school diplomas or GEDs.

          Never mind that I still couldn't get a job with the degree I had....

          "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

          by Brooke In Seattle on Tue May 29, 2012 at 09:23:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Entirely silly comment (6+ / 0-)

      For decades now, the U-3 number has been the traditional method of reporting unemployment. There are many legitimate reasons for not using the other measures.

      Based on objective party platforms, I also think it is entirely fair to say that those who are unemployed would fare better if Obama wins the election, than if Rmoney wins the election.

      And Obama's chances improve marginally if the U-3 drops, which it will.

      Why did the Washington Post hire Bellatrix LeStrange? And why did she change her name to Jennifer Rubin?

      by NoFortunateSon on Tue May 29, 2012 at 10:13:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's just a fact in economics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw

      that when the time people can receive unemployment benefits decrease, these people quickly are no longer counted as "looking for work" and are removed from the "workforce" when calculating the U3 unemployment rate.

      When Republicans opposed the continuation of extended unemployment benefits, they gave Pres Obama a gift in the form of lower U3 unemployment headlines up until the election.  So in addition to hurting the long term unemployed Congressional Republicans also hurt Romney.

      Unfortunately for the unemployed, few in Congress are pushing to restore the extended unemployment benefits the government provided just a few months ago.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Tue May 29, 2012 at 11:51:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those people who ARE no longer looking... (8+ / 0-)

        ...for work are removed from the workforce. It's not automatic. Otherwise, you're saying that people who are unemployed aren't really trying to find work, just collecting benefits. The actual percentage in that category has, in every study done, proved to be very small.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue May 29, 2012 at 12:15:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are the long term unemployed who are already (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuckvw, NoMoreLies, Saint Jimmy

          discouraged, but as they are still collecting unemployment they report on surveys that they are still looking for work (looking for work is required to continue receiving benefits).  When the benefits stop, they no longer report they are looking.

          By no means do all people trapped in this situation fit the above description, however their numbers are large enough to impact the U3 unemployment rate.

          In Dec 2011 the Labor Participation rate was 64.0%, in the most recent month, April 2012, the rate fell to 63.6%. see http://data.bls.gov/...

          Taking a base case of no change in participation in April from December, the impact on U3 from the change in participation  was

          (64.0-63.6)/64.0 = 0.625%

          Which means U3 would have been 8.7% rather than the reported 8.1% for April if labor participation stayed the same since December.

          see http://data.bls.gov/...

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Tue May 29, 2012 at 12:56:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your figures for labor participation rate... (6+ / 0-)

            ...are accurate and well known. But where is your data for this?

            When the benefits stop, they no longer report they are looking.
            The BLS does not use who is receiving unemployment benefits to determine the U3 rate; that comes from the Current Population Survey.

            Certainly, there is some percentage of the long-term unemployed who stop looking (or stop reporting that they are looking) when their benefits expire. But the BLS statistics do not tell us what that percentage is.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Tue May 29, 2012 at 01:25:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't have the study in hand right now (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw, sethtriggs

              I am out of the office this week, the academic study looked at weeks of unemployment and people either becoming part or full time employed, exhausting unemployment benefits, going on disability, or no longer being considered in the workforce.

              Not surprisingly, people receiving unemployment benefits rarely give-up these benefits prior to them running out or becoming employed.

              Those who drop out of the workforce, other than retirees, or a parrent choosing to stay home with a child or other relative, do so primarily from being classified as unemployed.  This is the driving force for the rapid decline in labor participation.

              Note that for all of 2011, when unemployment benefits were unchanged participation went from 64.3 to 64.0 from Dec 2010 to December 2011, a change of 0.3 in 12 months.  While over the period benefits changed in the last 4 months, the rate declined  by 0.6 a rate of decline 6 times faster than in 2011.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Tue May 29, 2012 at 02:47:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I again (0+ / 0-)

                I'm confused by this, too:

                Not surprisingly, people receiving unemployment benefits rarely give-up these benefits prior to them running out or becoming employed.
                Well, why would I--or anybody who has no other source of income and has things like food to buy and utility bills to pay, pooties and woozles to feed, things like that, you know--why would anybody in my situation "give-up" unemployment benefits before becoming employed?

                I haven't much of a head for numbers so, again, it's entirely possible the answer to my question lies somewhere in your statistics, above, and I've just not been able to understand. Would you try and explain it to me?

                God bless our tinfoil hearts

                by aitchdee on Tue May 29, 2012 at 11:26:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Notice the word rarely. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aitchdee

                  The person might have moved out of the country.  The person might have had the financial means to go without the benefits and did not want to continue looking for employment.  The person became self employed.  The person dies.  The person went to jail or prison.

                  The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                  by nextstep on Wed May 30, 2012 at 06:13:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  My benefits are about to stop (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meteor Blades, nextstep

            and I will be looking for work every single day of my life until I find it, benefits or no benefits. So who are these people that report ceasing to look for work after their benefits stop? The independently wealthy?

            It's entirely possible I've misunderstood something. Would you explain what that is to me? :)

            God bless our tinfoil hearts

            by aitchdee on Tue May 29, 2012 at 11:18:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Which is calculated by a survey of 60k households (6+ / 0-)

          The best evidence, the only certain evidence, that people are seeking work is their weekly filing. When asked in a survey if they are looking for work, people are not obliged to tell the truth or even to correctly understand the question.

          I have made something of a study of this. I have three weeks left of worker retraining funds, and thereafter, for the first time since my profligate youth, at 61, I will have no visible means of support. I have 6 grand of my "retirement" (ha,ha) funds left to live on. Wish me luck.

          If only donkeys could have elephant balls... Occupy!

          by chuckvw on Tue May 29, 2012 at 08:12:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (126)
  • Community (53)
  • Republicans (35)
  • Environment (33)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Elections (26)
  • Media (24)
  • Spam (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Law (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site