Unemployment, what does it really mean?

[morbidone]

Why is everyone obsessed with unemployment? Isn't it more important to have good jobs, then bad ones?

Personally, I would rather unemployment were 10%, and people had livable wages, then at 5% and the lower class struggling to get by. Doesn't that make more sense?

Almost everywhere else in the industrialized world gives workers perks like paid vacation, well except the US of course. Our lazy asses are too busy working 60 hours a week to get paid vacation! Besides, you have to have a good job to get paid vacation in the US, and even then its only for a few days. In France you get damn near a month of paid vacation. Also, Health insurance is covered by the govt for every other industrialized nation in the world besides the US. And yes, statistics show they often have better health care on average, and pay far less. You also get sick days, day care, etc... etc...

So wouldn't Unemployment at 10% with jobs like those be superior to jobs akin to Wal-mart and 5% unemployment?
Thus, isn't this a bad rule of thumb to measure the status of our economy?


Also note that with higher wages, there are less people required to work per household. This in turn lowers the number of individuals needing work, thus lowering unemployment. This factor alone could drastically lower unemployment, and has the extra benefit to increase the children's academic success.

Thus, it seems evident that this isn't a real concern of the country.

[Fugus]

Yes, we actually have it worse than you are describing us actually. Our true unemployment rate is closer to 17% and the lower and even lower-middle class aren't struggling to get by, they aren't getting by at all and are drowning.

We actually pay more in just our Medicare per percentage of our nation budget compared to canada's entire healthcare system from what I have heard (feel free to correct if I am wrong as I have never taken time to confirm) which, if true, means would could dump our entire healthcare system and make it a carbon copy of their and still end up saving billions a year doing it.

I really wish it would go back to a time where you only needed 1 person to support the average household (minus all the sexism and stuff). I would love to work and come home a family than work and see my wife when our schedules align for it and any kids I might have I have to pick up from daycare or leave them home alone or with friends till I got home.

Edit: Our posted unemployment rate is based on the number of people who are collecting unemployment. When they stop collecting, they stop counting whether they have work or not given how I read about it.

[morbidone]

Yes, it doesn't count the people who have given up looking for work. I don't know how you count those individuals though.

[Fugus]

Yes, it doesn't count the people who have given up looking for work. I don't know how you count those individuals though.

They already have done them. The adjusted unemployment rate last I read was about 17%.

And it isn't a case of people who just quit looking, it is a case of people who are just having that much trouble finding work. And the older you get the harder it gets along with the longer you have been out of work. You end up out of work for 2 years, that might land you out of work for the next 10 years unless you want to work for Walmart. And you have lots of people who don't want to get laid off from a $30 an hour job they worked for 18 years and only get job offers for $8.00 doing the exact same stuff so taking the job is actually a pay cut from unemployment till you have no choice.

[Grummgug]

Why is everyone obsessed with unemployment? Isn't it more important to have good jobs, then bad ones?

Its a matter of perspective I suppose.

100 years ago, 75 years ago, 50 years ago, even today, immigrants dream of coming to America, working HARD, owning their own small business, to build up wealth and provide a great future for their kids....something that is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do in their home country. Cubans risk their lives crossing the ocean to get here on flimsy rafts to work jobs citizens with college degrees feel are beneath them.

To such immigrants, what YOU consider non-livable wages are a jackpot. It enables them to things they never thought possible.

I find it terribly hard to sympathize with people who think current wages are not livable. I mean, working harder, working two jobs, burning the candle at both ends, that's how just about EVERYONE who gets ahead in America did it.

No-one got ahead in life working for someone else for just 40 hours per week.

[Pull My Finger]

Its a matter of perspective I suppose.

100 years ago, 75 years ago, 50 years ago, even today, immigrants dream of coming to America, working HARD, owning their own small business, to build up wealth and provide a great future for their kids....something that is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do in their home country. Cubans risk their lives crossing the ocean to get here on flimsy rafts to work jobs citizens with college degrees feel are beneath them.

To such immigrants, what YOU consider non-livable wages are a jackpot. It enables them to things they never thought possible.

I find it terribly hard to sympathize with people who think current wages are not livable. I mean, working harder, working two jobs, burning the candle at both ends, that's how just about EVERYONE who gets ahead in America did it.

No-one got ahead in life working for someone else for just 40 hours per week.

Nice speech, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. What's the point? Everyone should have it as hard as possible, live a miserable life and be happy about it? Why exactly?

[Deleted]

Its a matter of perspective I suppose.

100 years ago, 75 years ago, 50 years ago, even today, immigrants dream of coming to America, working HARD, owning their own small business, to build up wealth and provide a great future for their kids....something that is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do in their home country. Cubans risk their lives crossing the ocean to get here on flimsy rafts to work jobs citizens with college degrees feel are beneath them.

To such immigrants, what YOU consider non-livable wages are a jackpot. It enables them to things they never thought possible.

I find it terribly hard to sympathize with people who think current wages are not livable. I mean, working harder, working two jobs, burning the candle at both ends, that's how just about EVERYONE who gets ahead in America did it.

No-one got ahead in life working for someone else for just 40 hours per week.

Actually, there are plenty of people who did get ahead in life by working for someone else, they just happened to wind up working for the right person(s).

For example, if you're working as an outsourced lackey for some large corporation they might be paying you $15/hr to do the same job that some other guy is getting $40/hr doing for a small local company which values its employees. Now $40/hr might not be "filthy rich" money but if we're talking fairly unqualified work (the kind where you need some basic skills and $15/hr is definitely on the low end) then it's good money.

And imagine losing your job and being forced to do almost exactly the same job with a 50% pay cut, that's going to be hard to deal with for a lot of people. Even if you're putting 25% of your income away before losing your first job you've suddenly been put into a situation in which your living costs are 150% of your income which means your savings are going to bleed away until you can find a better job or adjust your living costs (which can be really hard to do if those living costs include things like a mortgage, student loans or a couple of kids (as opposed to something like "xbax gaemz n moutain duw ftw!" which is a lot easier to deal with but most of the population aren't 20-25 year-olds living in their first tiny post-college studio apartment)).

[obdigore]

Its a matter of perspective I suppose.

100 years ago, 75 years ago, 50 years ago, even today, immigrants dream of coming to America, working HARD, owning their own small business, to build up wealth and provide a great future for their kids....something that is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do in their home country. Cubans risk their lives crossing the ocean to get here on flimsy rafts to work jobs citizens with college degrees feel are beneath them.

To such immigrants, what YOU consider non-livable wages are a jackpot. It enables them to things they never thought possible.

I find it terribly hard to sympathize with people who think current wages are not livable. I mean, working harder, working two jobs, burning the candle at both ends, that's how just about EVERYONE who gets ahead in America did it.

No-one got ahead in life working for someone else for just 40 hours per week.

The US also has much less economic mobility than a lot of those evil socialist countries who set the minimum wage to a living wage level and provide an adequate safety net and tax payer funded education.

But hey, work harder washing dishes to make more money, amirite?

[morbidone]

Its a matter of perspective I suppose.

100 years ago, 75 years ago, 50 years ago, even today, immigrants dream of coming to America, working HARD, owning their own small business, to build up wealth and provide a great future for their kids....something that is IMPOSSIBLE for them to do in their home country. Cubans risk their lives crossing the ocean to get here on flimsy rafts to work jobs citizens with college degrees feel are beneath them.

To such immigrants, what YOU consider non-livable wages are a jackpot. It enables them to things they never thought possible.

I find it terribly hard to sympathize with people who think current wages are not livable. I mean, working harder, working two jobs, burning the candle at both ends, that's how just about EVERYONE who gets ahead in America did it.

No-one got ahead in life working for someone else for just 40 hours per week.

Ahh no... Wealth is mainly just luck. There is absolutely no correlation between working hard, and fiscal success. Go back to that cuban you were talking about. They probably shack up half a dozen in one apartment, they pay no taxes, and they work 80 hours a week doing a job no one else would do. Do these people work hard? Damn straight they do, much harder than you, me, or and most other people. Do they have any chance in hell at getting rich, almost certainly not. Even if they were US citizens, the answer is still no.

The day and age of working hard to get ahead is long over.
I am sure you have heard the phrase "It takes money to make money". Well its 100% true.
Working hard at 2 jobs, and still living paycheck to paycheck is not the method to success. Doing that, assuming you don't kill yourself from the stress, is a method for retirement.

Its easy to accumulate wealth when you already have wealth. Some families are decades, and even centuries ahead of most people. Its hard to compete with wealth thats built up that long. A great example would be with the African American population. This group is generally far less well off than Caucasians. Why? Because they started a couple centuries later in gaining wealth, and weren't given a fair chance to succeed until a few decades ago. Thus this group is extremely poor, and relatively socially immobile.

Essentially, the #1 factor to success is the starting line. Where did you start off from?

PS: I heard that illegal immigration into the US from mexico has all but stopped. So, apparently that JACKPOT as you call it isn't looking too good anymore...

---------- Post added 2012-11-02 at 07:42 AM ----------

The US also has much less economic mobility than a lot of those evil socialist countries who set the minimum wage to a living wage level and provide an adequate safety net and tax payer funded education.

But hey, work harder washing dishes to make more money, amirite?

haha, yes, this too.

6/10 of the countries that still have a 3 star credit rating, which the US just lost, are socialist.

[Bolson13]

Rich people in Europe have become rich because they were lucky, don't think you are anything special.
Poor people in the US are millionaires who are just on a bad patch.


Lets just say we look at things differently and whatever works for you, that is fine. I am satisfied to live in northern Europe. I pay a boatload on taxes which I would gladly use to buy more luxury stuff but I can see the reason why paying taxes is beneficial. We have some of the best infrastructure here, good schools, good healthcare, amazing pension plans, low crime rates and everytime they poll it 90% of the people fall into the happy to satisfied category when they ask how they honestly feel.
So it seems to be working for us. And to be honest, I can't really think of a luxury I really miss. A little more expensive car maybe, a bit bigger house but I really shouldn't complain compared to all the shitholes in the world. Sure we have our problems as well but northern Europe is far better off then 70 years ago right?

But you Americans look at it differently and if that works for you, that is fine. For me it is hard to imagine that you would want it like that (probably why you catch all the flame bait from the rest of the world) because we are raised with a different mindset here. I can see that you guys would think we are absolutely crazy as well, giving away half of what we earn to the government .

[morbidone]

sounds like a dream compared to here...

I can't take these idiots who think they are just one more unpaid overtime hour away from striking it rich much more.

[Deleted]

Why is everyone obsessed with unemployment? Isn't it more important to have good jobs, then bad ones?

Personally, I would rather unemployment were 10%, and people had livable wages, then at 5% and the lower class struggling to get by. Doesn't that make more sense?

Almost everywhere else in the industrialized world gives workers perks like paid vacation, well except the US of course. Our lazy asses are too busy working 60 hours a week to get paid vacation! Besides, you have to have a good job to get paid vacation in the US, and even then its only for a few days. In France you get damn near a month of paid vacation. Also, Health insurance is covered by the govt for every other industrialized nation in the world besides the US. And yes, statistics show they often have better health care on average, and pay far less. You also get sick days, day care, etc... etc...

So wouldn't Unemployment at 10% with jobs like those be superior to jobs akin to Wal-mart and 5% unemployment?
Thus, isn't this a bad rule of thumb to measure the status of our economy?


Also note that with higher wages, there are less people required to work per household. This in turn lowers the number of individuals needing work, thus lowering unemployment. This factor alone could drastically lower unemployment, and has the extra benefit to increase the children's academic success.

Thus, it seems evident that this isn't a real concern of the country.

1. You can't choose between 5% unemployment and low wages or 10% unemployment and high wages. It doesn't work that way. The higher the unemployment the bigger the gap between demand and supply, which means that higher unemployment puts considerable downside pressure on wages.
2. Perks and paid vacation result in lower wages. This is why the US has among the highest wage levels in the whole world. These paid vacations are not free lunches. For the employer it's the same as raising your wage.
3. The lower wages in European countries (due to perks etc) mean that they have to work just as much as anyone else.

[Bolson13]

By the way, we have 28 paid vacation days here roughly which is actually more then 1 month since you only work 20 days a month. It is almost 6 weeks .

We earn on average a little less here though I am not sure if American figures are skewed because higher ups get paid a shit ton there. Here the wage gap is much smaller. Our disposable income is much lower though because of taxes AND then we still pay another 21% on almost any purchase because of VAT.
And our health insurance is also not free here in the Netherlands. In part it is paid through our employer and in part by ourselves. We pay €150,- each month roughly (though they are changing that now which is causing riots almost ). We are now going into the problem where families 65 years ago consisted of around 8 children but now only 2. So soon we roughly will have 2.5 people working to provide healthcare for 1 eldery. Healthcare that is not cheap since we don't have waiting lists or nothing and top of the line hospitals/doctors.


We also are more flexible with our work hours. It is very common for a wife to work only mornings and take care of the kids in the afternoon. Compare fulltime, I think we work less then the average American. Not sure, depends on what your position is.
The higher up you are, the more you are expected to just have your work done. No matter if it takes you 60 hours, that is why you are getting a good wage right? On the lower end of the scale overtime is pretty good. In a lot of sectors, working on saturday means 150% and sundays 200% pay. Also, you can have these paid out as extra paid vacation days because is taxed more. Basically you work 1 sunday and you get 2 days extra off.
Note that you cant just take free days any way you want. It is not some right that the boss HAS to give you days XYZ off.You have to schedule it.
Also, you can have your free days paid out (but again, taxed higher so nobody does this). You can also take them along to next year. Say you save 3 weeks then next your you will have about 9 in total. Though they are going to cap this.

At least that is the situation in my country.

[morbidone]

1. You can't choose between 5% unemployment and low wages or 10% unemployment and high wages. It doesn't work that way. The higher the unemployment the bigger the gap between demand and supply, which means that higher unemployment puts considerable downside pressure on wages.
2. Perks and paid vacation result in lower wages. This is why the US has among the highest wage levels in the whole world. These paid vacations are not free lunches. For the employer it's the same as raising your wage.
3. The lower wages in European countries (due to perks etc) mean that they have to work just as much as anyone else.

This isn't some kind of transition. I was doing a comparison between two possibilities...

Europeans get paid quite well, and pay is not everything, perks add up to $$. They actually have a middle class that is striving, which is what really matters.

Americans work way more hours than in europe.


Read Bolson's post and learn from actual experience, instead of relying on Faux News "FACTS".

[Primernova]

Plutocrats want 5 yachts, not just one.

If it's on the backs of working people, so be it.

The bottom line is all that matters.

[Stir]

1. You can't choose between 5% unemployment and low wages or 10% unemployment and high wages. It doesn't work that way. The higher the unemployment the bigger the gap between demand and supply, which means that higher unemployment puts considerable downside pressure on wages.
2. Perks and paid vacation result in lower wages. This is why the US has among the highest wage levels in the whole world. These paid vacations are not free lunches. For the employer it's the same as raising your wage.
3. The lower wages in European countries (due to perks etc) mean that they have to work just as much as anyone else.

Actually...
Some of these things aren't true.

For instance: The Netherlands has a lot of paid time off, a lot of 'perks' such as lunch bonusses and danger money, and a lot of benefits, such as company health insurance.
Add to that that the maximum hours of work in a work-week is 40 (though there's some overtime stuff, but that scales differently in the income ratings, is taxed heavily, and pretty much discouraged so that other people have a better shot of getting a job).
The Netherlands is among the countries with the highest amount of time off, and yet, it also has the highest amount of produce per producing citizen. There's a legal minimum wage system, and there's a separate minimum income boundary (if you don't work enough hours while making minimum wage, you can get well-fare until you reach the minimum income level).
So your #3 is pretty much correct, but not by implication... Europeans have to work as hard as people from anywhere else, but not by far as many hours. While it's become pretty standard for people to take on two part-time jobs, people in the NL, for instance, can't take on two full-time jobs... Because of the heavy regulations. In addition, a single part-time job (25-ish hours a week) should provide you with an income that is slightly better than the absolute minimum, meaning you've got money for living space, food and even some luxury.
The effect is that quality of work is much more appreciated than duration. This means that people are expected to work harder, though they're not expected to do so for very long.

[morbidone]

Damn I think I am moving to Netherlands

[Puremallace]

Unemployment literally makes no sense. Economist make some flat out guess that 300,000 people join the work force every single month....ummmm k.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49657529

^ so we create 171k new jobs last month which is like 90,000 more then a lot of the months under Bush and the number rises to 7.9%..... how the fuck does the math on this number work?

[Deleted]

Actually...
Some of these things aren't true.

For instance: The Netherlands has a lot of paid time off, a lot of 'perks' such as lunch bonusses and danger money, and a lot of benefits, such as company health insurance.
Add to that that the maximum hours of work in a work-week is 40 (though there's some overtime stuff, but that scales differently in the income ratings, is taxed heavily, and pretty much discouraged so that other people have a better shot of getting a job).
The Netherlands is among the countries with the highest amount of time off, and yet, it also has the highest amount of produce per producing citizen. There's a legal minimum wage system, and there's a separate minimum income boundary (if you don't work enough hours while making minimum wage, you can get well-fare until you reach the minimum income level).
So your #3 is pretty much correct, but not by implication... Europeans have to work as hard as people from anywhere else, but not by far as many hours. While it's become pretty standard for people to take on two part-time jobs, people in the NL, for instance, can't take on two full-time jobs... Because of the heavy regulations. In addition, a single part-time job (25-ish hours a week) should provide you with an income that is slightly better than the absolute minimum, meaning you've got money for living space, food and even some luxury.
The effect is that quality of work is much more appreciated than duration. This means that people are expected to work harder, though they're not expected to do so for very long.

None of what you said has anything to do with what I said. The fact is that due to your "perks" you have lower cash wages than you would have if those perks weren't there. A lot of people think that these perks are just an added extra, a free lunch so to speak.

It's not, it's part of your total compensation. If the perk is worth more to you than the cash wage that is equivalent to the cost of the perk to the employer, then you want the perk as a substitute to higher wages. If the perk is worth less, then you do not want the perk as a substitute to higher wages.

[Stir]

None of what you said has anything to do with what I said. The fact is that due to your "perks" you have lower cash wages than you would have if those perks weren't there. A lot of people think that these perks are just an added extra, a free lunch so to speak.

It's not, it's part of your total compensation. If the perk is worth more to you than the cash wage that is equivalent to the cost of the perk to the employer, then you want the perk as a substitute to higher wages. If the perk is worth less, then you do not want the perk as a substitute to higher wages.

And here's me saying: No, not really.
Because both perks and wages are regulated.

You see, in a non-regulated environment, perks would potentially take up money from your income, were it not for the fact that your employer isn't planning to pay you anyway. Perks are extras, true, and you could consider them to have monetary value that would otherwise increase your salary, but the fact of the matter is: If you're not getting those perks, you're not getting 'compensated' for their absence in any way at all.

And that means that perks, effectively, áre extra. Because if you were to give up your perks, your employer isn't suddenly going to pay you a larger sum of money. And the reason for that is: Your employer really doesn't want to pay you. At all.

Edit: Also, regulations don't state that it's okay to take away perks if you're going to raise salaries.