COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Brian Hibbert

    There’s, by some estimates, as many of them as there is unemployed and maybe as many as the underemployed.

    Sorry, I’m not trying to criticize your toon, Toby. It’s excellent and makes it’s point.

    I just keep thinking about all those people who are out of work, but aren’t counted anymore.

    • http://www.tobytoons.com TobyToons

      the second guy ate ‘em.

      Actually though, I thought that the term “Under Employed” included the “No Longer Looking” group too. If not, then you are right, I really should’ve made more people in line.

      • throwback59

        discourage all of the unemployed from even looking for work and you reduce the unemployment rate to zero.

      • Brian Hibbert

        I always take the term “underemployed” to mean the people who took a job at McDonald’s which doesn’t pay enough to cover the debt for the master’s degree. Or which makes far less than the jobs they lost.

        And yes, there’s a LOT of those folks these days.

        Like I said, the toon made the point. It just hit too close to home (I’m in the underemployed camp, though not at McDonald’s, I’m doing freelance computer support which just isn’t busy enough).

        • http://www.tobytoons.com TobyToons

          It’s a good question. I’ll have to do some more research, or hopefully someone here at RS can comment on the actual definition of “Under Employed” – either way though, I’m sure the media wouldn’t have let Bush get away with quoting only 9% while ignoring the rest.

          But now its ok for Obama, Pelosi and Co. to get away with it.

          • penguin2

            those that have stopped looking for work. I’ve heard numbers ranging from 17% -22%. Here is an example from Florida:

            They’re the hidden faces of the underemployed

          • Brian Hibbert

            Maybe it’s not bad that I brought it up after all. I learned something about the numbers they report and I hope others did too.

            Sometimes the best way to learn is to be wrong.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      At least that’s the spin I received from the RS House Lefty on economics when I blogged this very topic. They’re all happy now (sarc off).

      • itrytobenice

        He lost his job two years ago when he was not quite 61. The company he worked for went out of business and he was unable to find anyone else to hire him.

        He was on unemployment until it ran out, then he gave up and took early social security. His wife is still working trying to pay the bills, and she may end up doing so for extra years because if she goes at 65, as she intended, their SS checks won’t be enough to get by on.

        BO and the lefties should not consider that to be an improvement in their unemployment numbers.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        The data now are very similar to what happened when the Reagan jobs recovery began in 1983 (ie the labor force shrank, # of unemployed dropped, but nothing showed up in new jobs in the Household Survey for about 5 months [and only the Household Survey, obviously in 1983 the establishment survey showed gains]).

        As for retirements, they likely do comprise a bigger section of the “not in the labor force” than in the past, as we know in 2009 that a record 2.4 million people filed for SS (and likely more in 2010 although I haven’t seen the numbers yet) and it is likely that with the job market still sucking, they are not actively seeking work right now. It is also likely that as many two income families became one income in 08/09 that financial adjustments were made and now the spouse staying home (with the kids) is no longer looking for work now either.

        Underemployment itself is almost impossible to measure, as it is a very subjective thing (ie most of us think we should be making more/in better positions). The all inclusive measure of unemployment (U-6) stands at 16.1% (down a bunch in the last two months), but this measure isn’t great since it does include part-time workers.

        • acat

          I’m aware of several mom-and-pop shops where “mom” had been working 10-20 hours a week (or less…) but now is working over 40… Since mom’s a partner, she’s not compensated for the hours, but she’s working ‘em…

          I’m not sure how common this is, but 20+ hours the business doesn’t have to pay someone else for has to be pretty tempting, where it can be done…

          Mew

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            Not 100% sure, but i think the BLS picks those people up in the household survey.

          • acat

            In one case I’m aware of, the reported hours are still in the teens, enough to make the social security administration happy, but not enough to seriously bring home the bacon – that’d jack the family income up too high….

            In the other case I’m aware of, the hours aren’t reported *at all* to *anyone*. (it’d be shameful, in that particular circle, for the wife to “have to” work…)

            Mew

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            The household survey is a survey of 60,000 households every month and it is from those numbers that we get the unemployment rate. If someone answering the survey says that in fact they worked during said reference period for a family business (even if uncompensated) they would count as employed for the purposes of that survey only (now, if the person claimed to the survey that she didn’t work at all, then she would be counted as not in the labor force as opposed to unemployed).

          • acat

            Haven’t heard that these two cases have gotten the survey… in fact I’m not sure I know anyone who has gotten it.. ever… but that’s another topic.

            My point is, for the first case, she’d still list as 10-20 hours, and in the second, she’d still list as “homemaker”. They would be displacing other workers, but not reported as such and not “earning” anything.

            Mew

  • Locked and Loaded
    • itrytobenice
  • throwback59

    considered to be an individual who is working less than they believe they need to. Specifically a part -time job or a full time job that they are over-qualified & underpaid for.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    nt

  • Pingback: continue