Being fined/jailed for not having health insurance is the same as not carrying automotive insurance

[bpwallace49]

yet the unemployment rate assumes that anyone not collecting unemployment anymore must be employed because they are not collecting...

 

there's a serious flaw in that....just like your analogies...

 

I can see that. Nor was i trying to take a stand either way, just seeing what their logic/methods were to determine something that IMO cant necessarily be accurately quantified.

[Avernus]

I can see that. Nor was i trying to take a stand either way, just seeing what their logic/methods were to determine something that IMO cant necessarily be accurately quantified.

 

fair enough...I agree with that....and there are all sorts of methods to determine the unemployment rate, but I doubt even half are being used....

 

it would require too much effort...

 

but it's pretty safe to say that even half of the people who are no longer on unemployment since say...August are still unemployed...

 

and even if they are employed....they are taking jobs around or at minimum wage coming from a job where they might have made a decent buck....

 

so it's not even the fact that people could be finding a new job, because companies are taking steep measures in weeding people out right now with the losses that are being tallied and the people that were out of work from say a job paying even as little as over 50k a year are now making around or less than 30k a year....

 

and that's just a small example....

[Lady.hawke]

Even the New York Times opines that the unemployment rate is 17.5%:

 

Broader Measure of U.S. Unemployment Stands at 17.5%

 

I think that those who have bet that unemployment remains high are safe. We are in uncharted territory.

[bushwacked]

I think that those who have bet that unemployment remains high are safe. We are in uncharted territory.

 

 

Did you read the article you posted?

 

Most economists predict that the rate will in fact begin to fall next year, largely because of the federal government’s aggressive response — fiscal stimulus, interest-rate cuts and a variety of creative steps by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department.

[TimC]

"Most economists" means that if you have a room of 10 economists, 3 will say the rate will in fact begin to fall next year, 2 will say we are doomed to a life of poverty and shame, 2 will say it will probably remain the same but don't quote me and I have no facts to back that up, and 3 will be staring at the girls that they'll never ever have a chance of getting walking by outside never hearing the question. So, yes, it is "most".

[WaterMan]

I like to read.

 

The official jobless rate — 10.2 percent in October, up from 9.8 percent in September — remains lower than the early 1980s peak of 10.8 percent.

 

from your article

[Jimmy Neutron]

We are in uncharted territory.

 

... wondering if this is true or not. There seem to be a number of serious hurdles on the path to full recovery. Many state, city and small municipalities are in real financial trouble. This will lead to a couple of things - higher taxes and government workforce and service reduction. I think this will lead to hugh pension defaults down the road. Increased taxes will continue to pressure businesses to set up shop outside the US, costing still more jobs.

 

I keep reading stories about commercial real estate being in real trouble - a collapse that would send more tremors through still tender financial institutuons.

 

I'm also reading that European banks are still sitting on large amounts of toxic assets. When they are finally written down, we'll feel the effect on this side of the pond.

 

Continually losing manufacturing jobs will continue to hurt us as long as that trend continues.

[dmarc117]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/1...ore_job_lo.html

 

Think the worst is over? Wrong. Conditions in the U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening. While the official unemployment rate is already 10.2% and another 200,000 jobs were lost in October, when you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers the figure is a whopping 17.5%.

 

Based on my best judgment, it is most likely that the unemployment rate will peak close to 11% and will remain at a very high level for two years or more.

[WaterMan]

The damage will be extensive and severe unless bold policy action is undertaken now.

 

I wonder what he's asking for. Probably something to do with spending more money, because words aren't bold actions.

Edited November 16, 2009 by WaterMan

[i_am_the_swammi]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/1...ore_job_lo.html

 

Interestingly, the author you link recommends something that must have righties twitching uncontrolably:

 

There's really just one hope for our leaders to turn things around: a bold prescription that increases the fiscal stimulus with another round of labor-intensive, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, helps fiscally strapped state and local governments and provides a temporary tax credit to the private sector to hire more workers

 

As I have posted many times, imagine where this economy/current unemplyment would be had the administration not acted quickly and decisively early this year?

Edited November 16, 2009 by i_am_the_swammi

[dmarc117]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/abc-news-ex...tory?id=9095621

[wirehairman]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/abc-news-ex...tory?id=9095621

 

I am required to submit monthly reports to state funding agencies assisting on my projects that, IMO, significantly inflate the true number of jobs created and/or saved.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...cleTabs=article

[ljbrun]

So since you're required to carry car insurance,you should also have to carry health in insurance...isn't that the comparison Obama made?

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

Maybe some one can help me here.I've looked and looked,and I can't find ANY federal law requiring you to carry car insurance.

At the risk of answering a rhetorical question.

There is no such requirement at the federal level. However, there is for some states.

[Avernus]

also, I'd like to add that it is hilarious to see people making a wager on a percentage that is being presented in a ballpark figure....the only numbers they have to go off are the number of people who are collecting...

[wiegie]

yet the unemployment rate assumes that anyone not collecting unemployment anymore must be employed because they are not collecting...

that is absolutely incorrect

 

the definition of unemployment has nothing to do with whether or not people are receiving unemployment benefits

[bushwacked]

also, I'd like to add that it is hilarious to see people making a wager on a percentage that is being presented in a ballpark figure....the only numbers they have to go off are the number of people who are collecting...

 

Wanna bet on that also?

Edited November 17, 2009 by bushwacked

[wiegie]

perhaps this will help:

 

http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/2000/el2000-06.html

[Avernus]

that is absolutely incorrect

 

the definition of unemployment has nothing to do with whether or not people are receiving unemployment benefits

 

 

there are and have been conflicting numbers as to what the real unemployment rate is...

 

no matter what...I don't see there being a definitive answer without debate when it comes time for someone to pay...

 

of course unless the listed number is above 10%, but I can easily see the number reported at around 8%, but the number being around 15% or more in the real world...

[Avernus]

perhaps this will help:

 

http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/2000/el2000-06.html

 

then why have the numbers floated between 11% and 22%?....that's quite a bit of a ballpark figure there...

[bushwacked]

then why have the numbers floated between 11% and 22%?....that's quite a bit of a ballpark figure there...

 

Because people aren't always "floating" the official Dept. of Labor unemployment numbers?

 

Anyway, a couple posts ago you were claiming the unemployment number was a fixed number based on unemployment benefits; now you are pulling a 180 and claiming it's not definitive and debatable.

[Avernus]

Because people aren't always "floating" the official Dept. of Labor unemployment numbers?

 

Anyway, a couple posts ago you were claiming the unemployment number was a fixed number based on unemployment benefits; now you are pulling a 180 and claiming it's not definitive and debatable.

 

 

maybe you should re-read what I typed....either that or you read someone else's post..

[dmarc117]

http://twitpic.com/pwg5d/full

[AtomicCEO]

http://twitpic.com/pwg5d/full

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[tosberg34]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

I can bet you won't be laughing when he finally does ram it up your <enter funny name here> and you're forced to use the system you're advocating.

 

Doh!