These are from December 2005
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/laus...
Lowest unemployment rate in united states?mortgage rate
Alaska has the highest state unemployment at 7.3 percent. The actual number of professionals out of work is not tracked by the Labor Department.
1.aggregate demand can never create enough job vacancies.
2.there will always be discouraged workers.
3.some portion of the labor force will always be between jobs.
4.there are some people who do not want to work.
An unemployment rate of zero cannot be expected since?car financing
Let%26#039;s see.
1. It is possible to have a shortage of workers when a population is small i.e. Germany after WWII, so nope.
2. Discouraged workers are not counted in the unemployment rate since they are not looking for a job and given up, so nope.
3. This is true. It is called frictional unemployment because the people are usually looking for better jobs.
4. That true but these people are not counted in the unemployment rate since they don%26#039;t want work.
So #3
An unemployment rate of zero cannot be expected since?
loan
5. liberals, through tax and spend incentives will eliminate profit and lifestyle improvement as a reason to go to work and people will therefore attempt to question self reliance and movtivational issues to work. oh sorry i guess that goes under discouraged....never mind.|||2 and 3|||if a countrys goverment keep giveing people more money than thay need while unemployed then why not be a layabout,u might not be able to go on exotic holidays,wine and dine every night,and send your kids to private schools,save the tokens from national news papers to go on holidays,go to a supermarket and buy as much wine,beer,and spirits as u can carry for a fraction of the price of going out and the goverment takes care of the schooling.who are the ones that pay,the poor unemployed,or the hard working tax payers.|||I was very surprised several years ago when I read that in the old USSR they had no un-employment, so I researched it a little further.
It seems kids were encouraged to get good grades in school and as they got older advanced to higher levels of learning. The smartest %26amp; brightest became doctors, scientists, engineers, etc.
The other kids advanced as far as they could, and were trained to do work not quite as complex as the above 3 job titles.
The lower percentage of kids were trained to do the jobs that required the least amount of mental stimulation.....end result everybody had a life long job.......As far as cross training, it wasn%26#039;t covered in the article.
Apparently, healthy people that absolutely refused to work, were convicted of that %26#039;Crime%26#039; %26amp; sent to work prisons.
Communism offers no free choices!|||2 and 4 are incorrect because discouraged and unwilling workers are not trying to find jobs - and they are thus not counted as %26#039;unemployed.%26#039;
1 is incorrect because there are indeed many jobs with regional and national shortages of workers (e.g. nursing).
3 is my choice because companies will always be closing, new workers entgering from college, and until a person seeking a job is placed that person is counted as %26#039;unemployed.%26#039;|||Are you looking for only 1 answer... They%26#039;re all legitimate answers but 3%26amp;4 is what I%26#039;ve been taught specifically, with more emphasis on 3(I would choose 3 in a multiple choice).|||3|||As unemployment tends to zero, inflation should tend to infinity.|||The correct answer is 3, but it is not the complete answer to the question.
3. describes what is called frictional unemployment, which is one of the two forms of unemployment that are factored into the %26quot;natural rate of unemployment.%26quot; Frictional unemployment is pretty much what #3 says: it%26#039;s the unemployment that results from people quitting their jobs or getting fired, and are currently in between jobs, but only temporarily.
The other form is called structural unemployment. Contrary to what other answerers have said, structural unemployment deals with companies and industries closing down, resulting in layoffs of the workers who were employed by the closing companies. The unemployed from structural unemployment are also assumed to be only temporarily unemployed, which is why those who are structurally unemployed are factored into the natural unemployment rate.|||it can be expected if enough people started business and hired the the excess slack.|||As others have pointed out, #1, #2, and #4 are not the main factors.
I would add that #2 doesn%26#039;t make sense because workers only become %26quot;discouraged workers%26quot; if they can%26#039;t find a job. If there were no unemployment in the first place, there would be no discouraged workers.
Multiple people have said that the answer is #3 (frictional unemployment), but that%26#039;s not the main factor, either. If you believe in the dogma of free-market theory, frictional unemployment can%26#039;t exist. Supply and demand for labor (as for anything else) are supposed to magically balance out at the optimal point instantly.
Even if we ignore free-market dogma, %26quot;frictional unemployment%26quot; is still an unsatisfying explanation. If you want a new job, you can look for it while you continue working at your current job. Very few people choose to be %26quot;between jobs%26quot;. And if it takes you 6 months to find a new job, that%26#039;s unemployment. Calling it %26quot;frictional%26quot; doesn%26#039;t mean it%26#039;s not unemployment.
The truth is that the term %26quot;frictional unemployment%26quot; is a convenient way for economists, politicians, and businesspeople to make high unemployment sound as though it%26#039;s not a flaw in the economic system.
ONE of the major factors in unemployment (although not the only one) is that the Federal Reserve Board deliberately keeps the unemployment rate high to hold down wages. (The Fed refers to this as %26quot;holding down inflation%26quot;, but the only component of inflation that the Fed worries about much is wages of typical workers. The Fed worries only a little about resource prices, and not at all about the inflation caused by skyrocketing pay of upper management.)
Once again, the Fed had to come up with a term (like %26quot;frictional unemployment%26quot;) that would be politically acceptable, so the Fed uses the term %26quot;Non-Inflationary Unemployment Rate%26quot;. In the mid 1990s, Alan Greenspan said this was 6%. In other words, it was deliberate government policy to keep the unemployment rate at 6% to hold down wages. Similar statements from other Fed leaders date back at least as far as 1980. (%26quot;A lot of observers, including my staff, think that the non-inflationary full employment rate is somewhat higher than 5.1 percent and may be closer to 6 percent.%26quot;) Although the Fed is supposed to watch both unemployment and inflation (%26quot;The Federal Reserve operates under the Federal Reserve Act, which requires the Fed to try to achieve maximum employment along with price stability.%26quot; http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/... the Fed%26#039;s top priority is fighting inflation. In fact, the current chairman of the Fed (Bernanke) explicitly said the U.S. should make it a higher priority to fight inflation than to fight unemployment. (Ibid)
It%26#039;s not clear what would happen if the fed actually tried to reduce unemployment. I%26#039;m not naive enough to think it would go to zero. But it is unlikely to go to zero as long as the Fed%26#039;s top priority is to keep unemployment at 4-6% to hold down wages.
So why is it some countries can have a minimum wage that means something and America can not .
Australias unemployment rate is 4.2% and the minimum wage is equal to $ 11.00 us dollars an hour .?credit rating
Actually the low unemployment means that the minimum wage DOESN%26#039;T %26quot;mean something%26quot; economically.
Minimum wage is a price floor. It means employers cannot pay below a certain wage. That doesn%26#039;t mean that if you%26#039;re making $5.50/hour and the government makes the minimum wage $11/hour your wage will be doubled, for the same reason that if there were a government-set minimum price one person could pay for a meal and it were set at $40, few people would ever eat at McDonald%26#039;s.
France and Germany also have much higher minimum wage laws, and if you include mandatory benefits the minimum compensation is strikingly higher than in the US - - and there is typically 2 to 2.5 times our rate of unemployment.
In Australia as in the US the minimum wage has exceptions for certain trades, including agricultural workers. The growth in the Australian economy and in Australian employment in the last few years has been in agriculture and mining, primarily for export to Asia. Many agricultural workers don%26#039;t GET the minimum, and the profit made by the mines as a result of the rising prices for the metals being mined puts a huge premium on producing as much as possible - thus the real wages have climbed above that $11 minimum - - the minimum could be $5/hour, miners would still be paid what they are paid today.
Minimum wage doesn%26#039;t determine what your wage is. The market determines your wage. Minimum wage simply determines whether, given your wage, you have a job at all.
Australias unemployment rate is 4.2% and the minimum wage is equal to $ 11.00 us dollars an hour .?
loan
because Australia does not run solely on big business and the bottom dollar. everything America does is for money. companies dont want to pay their workers more money because that would mean less profit for them. america loves to separate the rich from the poor, do they dont to raise minimum wage to put the poor closer to the average american. and its not just australia either. every developed country makes more than america, including canada, france, and britain. its a shame. the most powerful nation in the world cant pay their citizens enough for a decent living.
Grandholm strikes again..i usally vote democrat,but not this year.
finding a job here is so bad,,im just wondering will it get better or worse...any opinion%26#039;s out there on the subject???
Michigan unemployment rate?rate my teacher
I don%26#039;t think DeVos would have done any better. There is not much government can do to invigorate economic growth when so many industries are failing to turn a profit.
Anything can happen while the unemployement rate is low. The exchange rate is base on the value of the dollar. Dollar has been going down for a while and gold has gone up. Soon it will be the other way around. The market peaks about every 10 years.
Can an exchange rate crisis occur if the unemployment rate is too low?construction loans
This is possible, perhaps if the central bank is trying to exploit the %26quot;Phillips Curve%26quot; by running inflation high to keep unemployment low. This is likely to cause the exchange rate to depreciate in both the short and the long run. Unemployment might fall in the short run, but would return to normal (or rise) in the long run if the central bank persists in causing inflation. Hyperinflation could result.
Yes. The unemployment rate is the percentage of the population applying for unemployement benefits, not the percentage who are unemployed. The employment ratio is the number of people with jobs divided by all those without, which include not just the unemployed, but also those who are retired or on disability. Two scenarios that might lead to this situation:
1) New jobs were created, but a large number of retirees re-entered the labor force, leading to widespread layoffs among other workers.
2) New jobs were created, but a change in the rules for unemployment benefits allowed many people who had not been eligible before to apply.
are any of these under the table illegals signed up for un-employment? Or....is it like we have always said......they aren%26#039;t counted......like most of these jobs illegals do....they don%26#039;t count when it comes to un-employment. Which is why we never have a TRUE count of how many people who are un-employed.
Our unemployment rate has increased....they say our carpenters and all home building are all but all stopped..yes loans
The Unemployment rate is based on those currently receiving unemployment services such as a check or job services, not those whose benefits have expired or the long term unemployed. You are correct, the number is higher than is reported, quite possible by a significant amount.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfea...
I do not blame illegals for our current economy but they should not be here and taking jobs or lowering wages in this country period. I don%26#039;t care how many people scream they are doing jobs that we won%26#039;t do, its simply not the truth if you do not believe this is true look up the labor bureau statistics on every single occupation in the United States and you will see that the majority of ALL jobs are performed by none other than citizens and legal immigrants, even field hands.
Our unemployment rate has increased....they say our carpenters and all home building are all but all stopped..
loan
They base their stats on new filings which also is designed to give us a false impression.|||YOUR EXACTLY RIGHT, SO NOW WHAT!!!!!|||WRONG.................
blame it on the Mexicans.
Its the economy peanuthead.
Its people like you that have kept George W Bush in the white house for so long , he has ruined our country.
People cant afford to buy gas.
Blame it on a mexican.
please......|||But of course there no more houses being built. Americans are no longer earning enough money to BUY houses so they stop buying.
And they cant earn enough money because either one of two things has happened.
1 - the jobs have been given to the illegals because they can do the job cheaper.
2 - the job has been moved offshore to a cheaper country.
It has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. You need to understand WHY there are no jobs - which I have explained.
i dont know the last years data but to know if the phillips curve applies to the economy youll need a longer period not only one year.
What were the inflation rate and unemployment rate last year? Do these rates lie on a Phillips curve?education loans
That%26#039;s not important is it? I%26#039;m sure you are aware that the Phillips curve has failed to account for the stagflation (high unN and inflation) period of the 70%26#039;s...
Most economists have rejected this curve nowadays.Those who agree tend to believe that it happens only in a very short run when %26quot;money illusion%26quot; between workers and firms exists.
As of February 2008 it is 4.8%
What is the actual unemployment rate in the US, including those not on unemployment pay?interest only loan
I dont know that we can accurately predict that without some way of counting. Our only way of counting is unemployment.
What is the actual unemployment rate in the US, including those not on unemployment pay? loan
As defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO), %26quot;unemployed workers%26quot; are those who are currently not working but are willing and able to work for pay, currently available to work, and have actively searched for work.
There was an official measure of 7.6 million unemployed in the U.S. as of January 2008, a rate of 4.9%.
These statistics are for the U.S. economy as a whole, hiding variations among groups. For January 2008 in the U.S. the unemployment rates were 4.4% for adult men, 4.2% for adult women, 4.4% for Caucasians, 6.3% for Hispanics or Latinos (all races), 9.2% for African Americans, 3.2% for Asian Americans, and 18.0% for teenagers.
These percentages represent the usual rough ranking of these different groups%26#039; unemployment rates. The absolute numbers change over time and with the business cycle.
The unemployment rate may be different from the impact of the economy on people. The unemployment figures indicate how many are not working for pay but seeking employment for pay. It is only indirectly connected with the number of people who are actually not working at all or working without pay.
latest figures i can find are
6.1% in urban areas.
it is not measured in rural areas but is considered to be %26quot;substantial%26quot;
these figures are from 2006, i dont think any figures more recent than that will be official. most will be estimates. try International Monetary Fund Website or World Bank Website for more recent estimates. just remember they will be just estimates and not official.
What is the latest unemployment rate/figure of China?boat loans
it stands at 4.2-4.3% however these are 2005 figures.
why shouldn%26#039;t it be?
Why is Canada%26#039;s unemployment rate higher than Norway%26#039;s?loan forgiveness
bigger population
Why is Canada%26#039;s unemployment rate higher than Norway%26#039;s? loan
Because Norway has the lowest unemployment rate ever? It was 1,7 % in January and February. It is actually a problem that the unemployment rate is so low; recruiters can%26#039;t find qualified persons for the jobs.
I don%26#039;t mean that fake made up figure the Government puts out to make the republicans look good.
What is the real unemployment rate?bridge loan
You know the old joke about the three accountants at the job interview? They ask the first one what is two and two - he says %26quot;4%26quot; and they say %26quot;thank you%26quot;; they ask the next one - he says %26quot;22%26quot; and they say %26quot;thank you%26quot;; they ask the last one and he says %26quot;what do you want it to be%26quot; and they hire him.
The rate they use is based on the number of people collecting unemployment. As you know, many unemployed persons cannot collect unemployment. People looking for their first job, those who were illegally employed or employed less than six months and cannot find work, those who quit, who have been looking for over 78 weeks, those who were fired for a reason, those who left due to illness, those who don%26#039;t comply with all the little rules regarding availability and active search, the disabled and those who were not employed for 30 days at their previous employer aren%26#039;t counted. It also doesn%26#039;t count underemployment and those whose spouses work or have money and just don%26#039;t want to go through the hassle,
I am not a statistician and don%26#039;t want to do the research, but I%26#039;ll guess that you must multiply the jobless claim rate by two. This is because in times of high unemployment, more people will look for more than 78 weeks and drop off the radar.
Still, our unemployment rate is historically low, so there are at least 12 million illegal aliens and at least that number of others working %26#039;off the record%26#039;
What is the real unemployment rate?
loan
for every 1 person working, 73 are not.|||like 6-8%, Give or take a number.
I dont see how these numbers are fake when theres multiple reports that have these but we all know the media is republican right? HA|||its a true 9 percent.. im on the front lines, im in sales, i hear it all..|||The statistics are misleading. If you don%26#039;t get a job in a certain amount of time or your unemployment benefits expire, you are removed from the official unemployment list.
But you%26#039;re still out of work. Except to the statisticians.|||Well one example of how wrong the official unemployment figure is that once you are unemployed for over 6months you are considered unemployable, therefore not a part of the unemployment statistic, also if you just entered the age to get a job and haven%26#039;t found one yet, or if you can only find a temporary/part-time job, etc.
I%26#039;d say around 10% as a figure of real unemployment.
Sadly, I think the scariest part is that our household incomes are 1.3% less than they were 30years ago after factoring in inflation except now we have 2 adults bringing in a household income (not just one.) Woohoo for voodoo economics!|||It is not the Republicans, it is the unemployment number for public consumption, approved by the govment, and it is total BS. The number is always much higher. The program is XX weeks of unemployment compensation and when it ends abra-cadabra you are no longer unemployed. It is assumed you have been employed whether correct or not. You are simply not counted anymore.
The whole program should be trashed. How many people do you know that wait till the very end of the %26quot;unemployment compensation%26quot; period and then and only then, start looking for a job, content to hang out and get paid to do nothing?
I know plenty and they are just moochin. Not all, of course, but many, if not the majority, walk this program down.|||It doesn%26#039;t matter they used the same method when Bill was in office and his nimbers were higher...|||the number is much lower than it was during Clinton%26#039;s years. If you studied the subject you would know that there will always be unemployment. People will always be getting fired, wuitting, moving, companies closing, etc..... so there is always a percentage of people out of work. That being considered unemployment is very low and has been for most of Bush%26#039;s terms.
Sorry that it doesn%26#039;t fit with your agenda|||The fake figure the government puts out to make any administration look good!!! The present government isn%26#039;t made up of just Republicans!! Although the finger pointers would love you to think that!!!! The facts and figures published by the federals, are put together in many offices, consisting of republicans, Democrats, independents, pagans, smurfs, leprechauns, chupacabra, aliens, and Presbyterians!!!|||Well first, the number of people collecting unemployment benefits, is not used to calculate the national unemployment rate.
That people no longer collecting benefits are not counted, is the biggest internet myth out there.
There is a simple reason, they do not use unemployment benefits to calculate the unemployment rate.
Most people do not qualify for unemployment benefits.
IE: if you quit or get fired for cause, you don%26#039;t qualify.
In some states like Florida, only 26% qualify.
The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households.
It is and has never been an actual hard number.
The labor force is to fluid to ever have hard numbers.
IE: people leave jobs, change jobs and start new jobs at to great a rate, to ever be accuractly measured.
But the published rates, are a good bell weather, that show the trend in unemployment.
IE: is it going up or down.
PS: the unemployment rate, has been calculated he exact same way, since the 1970%26#039;s.
So its not a republican/democratic thing.
The link to the Labor Department web page, that tells exactly how tey calculate the unemployment rate, is posted below.|||If you took a look, you would discover the Republican Party is a party of small businesses. You would also discover the Democratic Party is the party of Big Business.
===================
I think I agree.. the figures have been diddled with.
The need to continue the high school education is one of the largest reasons for unemployment, or more precisely, underemployment. Many young adults of this age group also lack skills, so their first employer is committing to train them in the basics.
Why is unemployment rate higher amoung the 15-19years and what can be done to improve this situation?no fax loan
I think it%26#039;s low because that age group typically doesn%26#039;t need to work to survive so most of them choose to be unemployed.
It is unlikely to survive without a job right ?
Is the unemployment rate dropping because people find jobs or because unemployed people leave the country ?sba loans
unemployment rate is droping because people stop qualifing for unemployment benifits after a certain time. They are stil unemployed
Is the unemployment rate dropping because people find jobs or because unemployed people leave the country ? loan
It%26#039;s because companies hire people from other countries. Microsoft and IBM hire engineers form India.|||R is dead wrong. The unemployment rate is simply the number of people actively looking for work divided by the total labor force (people working or actively looking for work). My source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to which I%26#039;ve linked to below. The method used is described here ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/jec.t... and is a combination of household surveys and business surveys.
The rate has gone down over the last 4 years because almost 7 million people have found work. The rate has gone up slightly lately because more people are entering or re-entering the labor force even though many people are finding work.|||Most of the unemployed are that way by choice. They either collect unemployment compensation or they%26#039;re already getting welfare or Social Security payments. The government can%26#039;t seem to get rid of all the food stamps every year.
Since the population of the US is steadily increasing, it can%26#039;t be that people are leaving the US for jobs overseas. The number of new jobs created in the last few years is almost 10 million. We%26#039;ve lost a few million factory jobs due to more efficient machinery. It%26#039;s a trade for a better economy that helps everyone and creates many times more new jobs.|||Unemployed people usually end up going to college or they start their own business in order to bring income.|||The US economy creates and destroys around 4 million jobs each and every quarter. The US economy is quite dynamic. Most states only keep track of those who have filed for unemployment benefits up until those benefits run out--then those people are no longer counted into any sort of statistic but not always. Plus, there%26#039;s several categories that the US dept. of Labor keeps track of so while the rate might be high in one area, like non-farm for example, it might be very low in another--so it really depends on which statistic you want to use.
So it comes down to which statistic you want to use--if there were no new jobs being created at all the rate would be very low just from people dying and moving out of the country. If there were mass layoffs in manufacturing the rate will go up but maybe there%26#039;s a boom in another industry like high tech jobs? For example right now my state, Michigan, is doing very poorly due to the ailing US auto industry. Move to another state and they are begging for workers.
So it all depends on many factors.
By those collecting unemployment. And also by certain censuses taken yearly. It%26#039;s a percentage of the total population.
How is unemployment rate measured?finance
Its based on the amount of money you are paid and how long you have been employeed.
How is unemployment rate measured? loan
the number of unemployed people divided by the number of employable people|||number of people actively seeking work divided by: (number of people who actually have jobs plus number of people actively seeking work)
please provide an example!
How does unemployment rate impact the economic well being of the united states?military loans
Simply.
People who have jobs have money to spend.
When they spend money they creat jobs or keep others in their jobs.
If jobs are created, more people have money to spend and the economy grows.
People with jobs pay tax and help the economy to provide services that are %26quot;free%26quot;.
As unemployment grows the reverse occures. Less money -%26gt; spending -%26gt; less jobs etc.
How does unemployment rate impact the economic well being of the united states?
loan
when more poeple are unemployed then more people dont make money and get poor so they cant buy stuff and the economy goes down|||The higher the unemployment then there is less money spent in the economy (which will cause the Fed. to lower the interest rates or lower the value of the dollar to raise imports causing industries to make more and hire more people. Now the lower the unemployment rate can have a reverse condition to the feds and the stock market telling the fed to tighten the money (also by raising rates). It really is strange but as the saying goes unless you aren%26#039;t working then there seems to be no problems.|||generally, you want the unemployment rate to be low. (ours is around 4.5% right now, which is the ideal rate because this is about as low as it gets.) a lower unemployment rate means that a lot of working-age adults have paid jobs. the more paid jobs pple have, the more money they will spend on goods. this, in turn, creates more jobs because more goods have to be made to satisfy the demands of consumers. as more jobs are created, our country%26#039;s productivity level increases. pple earn more, they spend more and they also have to pay more in taxes. this generally creates a stronger, healthier economy.|||Tax dollars fund the unemployed. Tax dollars also are used to build homes for the unemployed. Building homes requires construction labor. Construction companies hire illegal workers to build said homes. Money paid to illegal workers is sent out of the country to fund the importation of more illegal persons.
When money leaves the community (especially the country), the economy suffers. This cycle is a downward spiral into a depression.
If the government would use tax dollars to put the unemployed into jobs rather than give them money and housing, there would be no need for illegal workers. Therefore, there would be much less money leaving the country. The end result would be a stronger economy.
(This of course was a very short version of a very complex problem, and it only focused on a few of the many contributing factors.)
That really isn%26#039;t enough information to elicite a good answer. 7% UR in the United States today would be horrible, but 7% in the Europe would be worthy of celebration.
Is 7% unemployment rate good? why? or why not?horses for loan
Over 5% bad.
No, the lowest has been under this President. Do not forget that when clinton left office we were in a full recession.
Was the unemployment rate the lowest ever under Clinton?exchange rate
Lower than with the present administration. It is 4.5 now, was under 4 then. However, our economy was in WAY better shape, and our national debt was cut drastically. Now we are in the deepest hole ever.
Was the unemployment rate the lowest ever under Clinton? loan
I really don%26#039;t know for sure, but if Bush gets his guest worker program I know who will have the higest American unemployment rate in history for his terms.|||Yes it was. In the town I live in you had maybe one person you knew who was unemployed under this president pretty much everyone I know is unemployed or working low paying jobs just to pay their bills and I do mean just their bills. At times barely that.|||It will be the highest when the next prez gets in and we have to pay down our national debt.....here comes the next big recession,hope you have some money saved.|||No, but some of the unemployment rates during the Clinton years, were the lowest in the last 40 years.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm|||No...I think, if I remember the stats correctly that the best unemployment rate when Clinton was pres was about 6.2%, currently it is around 5.4%...and several times in the last 25 years it has been in the 4%26#039;s.|||Is slave labor included in the statistics, then and now?|||Whether it was or not the president can%26#039;t spend money to stimulate the economy or squeeze it to cause recession without the approval of Congress. The Congress was Republican the whole time.|||If you want to see a real comparison between the Clinton/Bush economies go here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15253047/
I need this info for my economics class team paper
18 month unemployment rate forecast?credit report
This one has for the next six months.
http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm
I hope that helps you.
if people in the military aren%26#039;t included in the labor force?
if discouraged workers aren%26#039;t counted in the labor force?
if part-time workers are treated exactly like full-time workers?
PLEASE HELP ME!
Does the unemployment rate become a better or worse indicator of the state of the economy...?credit score
In macroeconomy there is three fundamentals variables: income (production), inflation and unemployment. For to say if an economy is good we need to evaluate the conduct of all of them, unemployment alone can not say us something.
Usually military, discouraged workers and part time workers are in USA a little portion of people in comparison to all the economy so, impact is not important. In developing countries the situation is not the same.
For social purpose and social evaluation, unemployment is an optimum macroeconomic indicator.
Thanks!
What is the current unemployment rate and inflation rate?signature loan
The unemployment rate is 4.5%. The latest inflation rate, for a year is 2%.
What is the current unemployment rate and inflation rate? loan
those figures are never correct. they do not take into consideration the people that were on unemployment and can nolonger get it because there time ran out but they are still not working, or those that went onto disability, because they want to bring in more workman comp jobs. as for inflation it is so far from the rate of pay we will never catch up.|||Inflation: 2.1% (January 2007 data)
Unemployment: 4.5% (February 2007 data)
February 2007 inflation data will be released on March 16 and can be found here: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm
And ignore Shelly t and others who may think the unemployment rate is based unemployment insurance (UI) claims. They are uninformed. If you would like to know how the unemployment rate is related to UI claims, then see: http://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm
i live in anderson,s.c. and i dont know the actual employment rate but i do know that the cost of living is pretty low and there are always jobs in the paper. greenville is 30 miles north of me
When the Neo-Keynesians decided to incorporate labor market dynamics into their IS-LM model, the empirical Phillips Curve provided the excuse and the troublesome money wage left hanging in Chapter 19 of Keynes%26#039;s General Theory (1936) provided the incentive. The Phillips Curve relates money wage inflation to unemployment in the following general fashion:
(dw/dt)/w = h(U)
where h锟?%26lt; 0 so that as unemployment increases, then wage inflation declines. Tying price movements one-for-one to wage movements, then this could be rewritten:
p = (dp/dt)/p = h(U)
so that price inflation was negatively correlated with unemployment. The Phillips Curve is shown in Figure 12.
The theoretical argument provided by Richard Lipsey (1960) was based largely on Neoclassical micro theory transferred to macroeconomics and formulated in the tradition of the %26quot;demand-pull%26quot; theories. Effectively, Lipsey argued that if labor markets for a particular industry were in disequilibrium, then the speed at which (nominal) wages adjust depends on the ratio of the difference between labor demand and supply to the supply of labor, i.e.
(dw/dt)/w = | [(Ld - Ls)/Ls]
where | 锟?%26gt; 0 so, thus, the larger the excess demand for labor in this industry, the faster the rate of adjustment of the money wage. As (Ld - Ls)/Ls = -U, then the rate of growth of money wages in this industry is negatively related to unemployment in this industry. If there is no productivity growth, then for profit-maximizing firms, the real wage should be constant, so that (dw/dt)/w = (dp/dt)/p thus inflation, p , is negatively related to the unemployment rate - the Phillips Curve relationship, p = h(U) (we can translate | = -h). The non-linearity of the Phillips Curve is justified by appeals to frictional unemployment and institutional difficulties at the extremes.
However, what is not satisfactory in this explanation is how a level of inflation and unemployment can be sustained at positive amounts. The microeconomic theory, after all, suggest that eventually equilibrium will be reached and unemployment eliminated. Positive unemployment can possibly be justified on the basis of frictional issues (workers changing jobs, etc.), but positive inflation, as the equation above indicates, relies on a persistent excess demand for labor.
The solution for the Neo-Keynesians was actually quite simple: aggregate the Lipsey micro story and then trace out the implied macroconstraints. Effectively, by aggregating the industry-level Phillips Curves, we obtain an aggregate or %26quot;average%26quot; Phillips Curve of effectively the same shape. However, relative to the industry-level Phillips curve, the average Phillips Curve will actually be shifted upwards to the right. The reason is due to the distribution of unemployment across industries and the non-linearity of the underlying industry-level curves. Suppose there are two industries with identical Phillips Curves (thus both have industry-level Phillips Curves as in Figure 12) and suppose that one faces unemployment U1 and the second faces unemployment U2 and suppose, for the sake of argument, that (U1 + U2)/2 = U* so that average unemployment coincides with U*. For any individual industry, being at U* implies that p = 0. However, in the average, being at U* implies that p %26gt; 0. The reason is that, because of the non-linearity, p1 %26gt; -p2, so that the average inflation rate is positive, (p1 + p2)/2 %26gt; 0 when the average unemployment is at U*. Thus, the average Phillips Curve is actually to the right of the individual Phillips Curve even if all industry-level curves are identical. In short, the zero-inflation unemployment rate for the average is greater than the zero-inflation unemployment rate for the individual industry. Thus, actual inflation is not only a function of the unemployment level in the economy, it is also a function of the distribution of that unemployment across industries.
However, we still have not answered our question: how do we obtain persistent excess demand and thus persistent inflation? The logic, at the individual level, is that if there is excess demand in a particular industry, wages rise to attract workers from other industries. As these workers arrive, the adjustment will be towards equilibrium and thus industrial-level excess demand is eliminated. In the aggregate economy, however, there is no pool of workers forthcoming as we are above full employment. Thus, excess demand persists in the aggregate and is not eliminated by the wage adjustment process. The next question imposes itself: if wage rises do not eliminate excess demand, why posit such a process at all? Again, this resolves itself by disentangling individual-aggregate reasoning: in particular, firms will raise wages when there is excess aggregate demand in order to poach workers from other industries, and the other industries will raise wages to avoid their workers being lured away. Thus, although the economy as a whole will not call forth more laborers in the aggregate by raising wages (although some of the voluntarily unemployed might be tempted to join the labor market), individual firms have a rationale to raise wages regardless. Thus, in aggregate, persistent inflation can occur.
Lipsey%26#039;s (1960) theoretical justification of the Phillips Curve seemed to make its integration in macro theory amenable to the Neo-Keynesians. Not only was the issue of money wages finally hung on a peg (albeit shifted by a derivative), but inflation was brought into the Keynesian apparatus.
What made the whole enterprise all the sweeter was the nice policy conclusions that could be derived. As emphasized by Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow (1960), if the Phillips Curve were seen as a stable empirical relationship between unemployment and inflation, then a policy-maker could find the particular rate of unemployment (U*) needed for price stability (p = 0). Alternatively, if the policy-maker wanted to achieve a higher level of employment (thus lower unemployment, say at U1 in Figure 12), then he would have to allow for inflation at p1. (the converse case of deflation and high unemployment are seen at U2, p2). In short, Samuelson and Solow (1960) argued that there was a definite inflation-unemployment trade-off which could be manipulated by policy-makers. So, from Phillips%26#039; simple 1958 results, not only was Neo-Keynesian theory %26quot;completed%26quot; but impressive policy conclusions were derived to boot.
(C) Inflation and Interest Rates
The Neo-Keynesians went to some great efforts to incorporate inflation into their world, and they duly believed that much was gained in terms of closing their model and engendering new policy perspectives. But the next question seemed to be a more pertinent one: what are the implications of inflation on the workings of the rest of the model?
In fact, not many. The only thing highlighted by the introduction of inflation was the effect on interest rates as outlined by Robert Mundell (1963) and Roy Harrod (1969). Mundell tackled the old Fisherian law on the constancy of the real rate of interest, i.e. where r = i - p where if inflation (p) rises, then nominal interest rate (i) will rise one-for-one to keep real interest rates (r) constant. Keynes (1936), of course, disputed Fisher%26#039;s assertion and Fisher (1930) himself was reluctant to make too much out of it empirically. Mundell (1963) advanced on them both by proving that it was invalid in an IS-LM type of model.
Mundell%26#039;s reasoning was as follows: the nominal rate of interest is set by inflation expectations and the real interest rate, i = r + pe. Now, suppose we have two assets, money and equity, where r is the real return on equity. By Keynes%26#039;s theory of liquidity preference, money demand is inversely related to the return on alternative assets, i.e. L(r, Y). We know, of course, that in equilibrium M/p = L(r, Y), as money supply rises, the rate of interest falls, so we can trace out an money market (MM) equilibrium locus in interest/money supply space as in Figure 13. Now, a particular MM curve is conditional on a particular level of inflationary expectations (pe). If inflationary expectations rise, then, for any given amount of money supply, the real interest rate, r = i - pe, falls and thus the MM curve shifts down.
The intuitive logic is that we must remember that the negative of inflation is the real rate of return on money. Thus, if there are inflationary expectations, agents who hold money are receiving a negative expected return on their real balances and thus will attempt to get rid of them by purchasing equity. As a result, money demand falls and the price of equity rises - and consequently the real rate of return on equity, r, falls. In Figure 13, we denote by MM(pe=0) the money market equilibrium locus where there are no inflationary expectations and MM(pe %26gt; 0) as the money market equilibrium locus when there is a particular positive expected inflation rate.
However, recall also from simple analysis, that real interest rates impact the goods market as well.. Making use of some Neo-Keynesian transmission mechanisms, as r rises, consumption falls and investment falls. Furthermore, recall that by a Pigou Effect, a rise in money supply increases net wealth and hence consumption. Thus, consumption can be summarized by C = C(r, Y, V) where Cr %26lt; 0, CY %26gt; 0 and CV %26gt; 0. The term V is aggregate net wealth, here defined as V = E + M/p (where E is equity and M/p the real money supply). Investment is I = I(r) where Ir %26lt; 0 by the marginal efficiency of investment story. In goods market equilibrium, aggregate demand equals aggregate supply, so Y = Yd = C(r, Y, V) + I(r). Thus, we can draw out a YY curve which denotes the relationship between money supply M/p and interest. Specifically, note that as r rises, investment and consumption falls, so in order to keep the same level of output, then, money supply must rise. Thus, the YY equilibrium locus (which is for a given level of output) is upward sloping in money supply-interest rate space.
Suppose, now, that inflationary expectations are zero, pe = 0, so the MM(pe = 0) curve applies. Goods market and money market equilibrium implies that we achieve equilibrium E where money supply is M/p0 and real and nominal interest rates are equal to each other at i0 = r0. We can now trace out the consequences of an exogenous increase in inflationary expectations. By raising inflationary expectations to some positive amount, pe %26gt; 0, the MM curves shifts down to MM(pe %26gt;0). The new equilibrium rate of real interest, r1, is at point F in Figure 13, where MM(p e%26gt;0) and YY intersect. However, as now i = r + pe, then a %26quot;wedge%26quot; of size pe is created between the old MM curve and the new one: the new real rate r1 is read off the intersection of YY and the new MM curve (point F) and the new nominal rate i1 is read off the top curve MM(pe=0) at the same level of money supply (point G). Obviously, then, the introduction of inflationary expectations has increased the nominal interest rate from i0 to i1, but the amount of the increase is less than the full amount of expectations, pe. In other words, the real rate of interest has fallen by less than the full amount of inflationary expectations. Thus, Fisher%26#039;s Law of nominal interest rates adjusting to inflationary expectations one-for-one is disabled.
What is happening, intuitively? A higher expected rate of inflation drove up the nominal rate. This, consequently, made equity more attractive relative to money. Consequently, agents attempted to get rid of their excess money holdings by bidding up the price of equity and thus drove the real rate of return on equity down. This collapse in the real rate of return will induce more investment, but as we are at a fixed level of output, then consequently something else must give way to keep aggregate demand constant - namely, consumption. We do this by bringing the money supply down from from M/p0 to M/p1 and so, by the Pigou Effect, consumption falls and thus aggregate demand returns to its initial level.
The reason why nominal rates did not rise one-for-one with inflationary expectations was due to the portfolio shiftings of households away from money and towards equity, which drove its real rate down This effect was not anticipated by Irving Fisher in the original Neoclassical loanable funds story - although it could be incorporated in it. Thus, the alternative %26quot;loanable funds%26quot; interpretation of the Mundell story would be that agents increase demand for capital but since capital cannot be increased, this will raise prices, which will lead to a collapse in the money supply which, by the Pigou Effect, reduces consumption and increases savings, consequently reducing the required rate of return on capital and thus bringing investment back up.
Of course, it might be possible to restore the original Fisher effect by allowing banks to pay interest on deposits. In this case, the fall in the return on money (i.e. inflation) could be compensated one-for-one with a rise in the return on deposits - thus leaving people happy enough with the existing portfolio. Furthermore, as Edmund Phelps (1965) demonstrates, strange things can happen when we add a government to the story and make inflationary expectations endogenous to an increase in money supply. Suppose the government increases money supply in order to finance an expansionary fiscal deficit. Then, aggregate demand rises to Yd = C(r, Y, V) + I(r) + G. If output is to be the same, then either r must rise or M/p fall - thus the YY curve must shift to the left. As a result, any inflationary expectations induced by the government action, which shift the MM curve down, may or may not decrease the real rate of interest - it depends on the relative size of the shifts. However, if money supply rises via open market operations, then equity holdings are reduced and thus the IS curve will shift to the right by the real-balance effect and thus the inflationary expectations-induced fall in MM will reduce the real rate more than if the government was not involved.
In sum, Mundell%26#039;s (1963) proposition was that inflation (rather, inflationary expectations) will have real effect on the economy by inducing people to move away from money and towards capital. James Tobin (1965) incorporated Mundell%26#039;s proposition in his famous monetary growth model and obtained the result that inflation could have a positive influence on growth if it induced people to move away from money and towards capital accumulation. This effect of inflation and inflationary expectations on portfolio balances has since become known as the %26quot;Tobin-Mundell%26quot; effect and was used by James Tobin (1975, 1993) and Bradford de Long and Larry Summers (1986) to counter the claim that price flexibility would draw the Keynesian unemployment equilibrium towards full employment. Namely, with deflation induced by labor market conditions, the return on money increases and so, by deflationary expectations, agents will move away from illiquid assets and towards money - thereby increasing money demand and pushing the LM curve to the left, reducing output further. Thus, wage and price flexibility in unemployment situations could easily lead to more as opposed to less unemployment.
(D) The Expectations-Augmented Phillips Curve
The Phillips Curve did well for a while - but all this changed in the 1970s, a period of high unemployment and high inflation. This phenomenon was obviously incompatible with the received reasoning of the Phillips Curve. How then is one to explain this?
One way, followed by many Keynesians, was simply to argue that the Phillips Curve was %26quot;migrating%26quot; in a northeasterly direction, so that any given level of unemployment was related to higher and higher levels of inflation. But why? Certainly, there were many explanations for this - and all quite imaginative. It was the subequent observation that was disturbing: if the Phillips Curve is indeed migrating, then the relationship between inflation and unemployment is not really a negative one. As the major justification for the Phillips Curve was largely its empirical veracity and not a theoretical derivation, then what is the point of the Phillips Curve when it is no longer empirically true? More pertinently for policy-makers, a migrating Phillips Curve is clearly not policy-effective: with the Phillips Curve shifting around, then the inflation cost of targeting a particular unemployment rate is not clearly identifiable.
Milton Friedman (1968) and Edmund Phelps (1967) rose to the occasion to propose an expectations-augmented Phillips Curve - which was then incorporated into the Neo-Keynesian paradigm by James Tobin (1968, 1972). The Neo-Keynesian story can be thought of as follows: let aggregate nominal demand be denoted D, so that D = pY. Dynamizing, then:
(dD/dt)/D = (dp/dt)/p + (dY/dt)/Y
or, letting gD = (dD/dt)/D and accordingly for the other parameters and letting inflation gp be denoted p , then we can rewrite this as:
p = gp = gD - gY
so price inflation is driven by nominal demand growth (gD) and output/productivity growth (gY). Now, assuming the standard Keynesian labor market condition that the marginal product of labor is equal to the real wage (w/p), then dynamizing this:
gY = gw - p
where gw is nominal wage growth, so the marginal productivity rule is applying dynamically. Expressing for p and equating with our earlier term then we can obtain:
gw = gD
i.e. nominal wage inflation is equal to nominal aggregate demand growth. Now, the Friedman-Phelps proposition for expectations augmentation was proposed as:
gw = h(U) + a gY + b pe
so wage inflation is negatively related to the unemployment rate (U), so that h%26#039; %26lt; 0 as before, positively to productivity growth (so a %26gt; 0) and positively with inflation expectations, pe (so b %26gt; 0). Let us, temporarily, presume productivity growth is zero so that gY = 0. In this case, gw = p (so note that the real wage is constant) so that this can be rewritten:
p = g(U) + b pe
which is simply the expectations-augmented Phillips Curve, as shown in Figure 14. The term b is the expectations augmentation parameter (specifically, b is the speed at which expectations are adjusted to actual experience). Thus, pe = 0 (expectations of zero inflation), we have our old p = h(U) curve unchanged. But if there are positive inflationary expectations (pe %26gt; 0), then this curve shifts upwards, as shown in Figure 14.
The relationship between inflationary expectations and wage inflation is explained in terms of the labor market bargaining process. If workers expect inflation to increase, then they will adjust their nominal wage demands so that gw %26gt; 0 and thus p %26gt; 0. It is assumed, in this paradigm, that 0 %26lt; b %26lt; 1 - not all expectations are carried through. So, for each level of expectations, there is a specific %26quot;short-run%26quot; Phillips Curve. For higher and higher expectations, the Phillips Curve moves northeast. Thus, the migration of the so-called %26quot;short-run%26quot; Phillips Curve (as in the move in Figure 14) was explained in terms of ever-higher inflationary expectations. However, for any given level of expectations, there is a potential trade-off (as a matter of policy) between unemployment and inflation.
Figure 14 - Expectations-Augmented Phillips Curve
So much for the short-run. What about the long run? In the Friedman-Phelps argument, the long-run can be defined where expectations of inflation are equal to actual inflation, i.e. p = pe, in other words, the expectations of inflation in the next period are equal to the actual inflation of this period. Thus, we can input this into the expectations-augmented Phillips Curve relationship so:
p = h(U) + bp
or, simply rearranging:
p = h(U)/(1 - b)
which is the long-run Phillips Curve relationship. The long-run inflation-unemployment trade-off can be found simply by the slope:
dp/dU = h%26#039;(U)/(1-b)
where, since h%26#039; %26lt; 0 and if b %26lt; 1, this implies that dp/dU %26lt; 0. In other words, in the long run, inflation is still negatively related to the unemployment rate (the shape of the Phillips Curve) albeit steeper than the simple short-run Phillips curve (which had slope h锟?).
The intuitive explanation is simple. In the short-run, where expectations are given, a fall in unemployment due to an increase in nominal demand leads to a rise in inflation. This rise comes from the h component of the Phillips curve alone. However, with expectations far more flexible in the long run, a drop in unemployment will again lead to inflation but this rise will be reinforced by higher inflationary expectations. Thus, the rise in inflation will be carried through by the h component and the pe component. Thus, in the long-run, the trade-off becomes steeper.
What if we include productivity growth back in, i.e. let gY %26gt; 0? In this case, our original short-run wage inflation function is:
gw = h(U) + agY + bpe
so, for the long run, let p = pe again and input our earlier expression for inflation (p = gw - gY), so that:
gw = h(U) + agY + b(gw - gY)
or simply:
gw = [h(U) + (a - b)gY]/(1 - b)
The long-run trade off between wage inflation and unemployment is still dgw/dU = h%26#039;(U)/(1-b) %26lt; 0 if we assume h锟?%26lt; 0 and b %26lt; 1. So what about productivity? Well, if a is small and b large enough so that (a -b) %26gt; 0, then productivity growth gY leads to wage inflation. If, on the other hand, (a -b) %26lt; 0, then a rise in productivity will lead to a fall in wage inflation. The first case is clear, the last case less so, but it is easily explained. Workers can respond in various ways to productivity growth. It is assumed that they will want their real wage, w/p, to increase. They can do so in two ways: firstly, by having their nominal wages increase or, alternatively, by letting prices decline. Either way, the real wage w/p rises in response to productivity. However, given that this equation considers only nominal wage inflation, then the (a - b) parameter matters in the transmission of productivity improvements.
Returning to our original discussion, as long as b %26lt; 1, such that dp/dU %26lt; 0, then we get a negatively-sloped long-run Phillips curve as shown in Figure 14. If, however, b = 1 so that all expectations are fully carried through, then dp/dU = 锟?, the long-run Phillips Curve is vertical. This latter case was the proposition insisted on by Phelps (1967) and Friedman (1968) and forms the core of the %26quot;Monetarist Critique%26quot;. The vertical long-run Phillips Curve implies, then, that there is no long-run output-inflation trade-off and that, instead, a %26quot;natural rate of unemployment%26quot; will prevail in the long-run at the intercept of the long-run Phillips Curve with the horizontal axis. Note that this %26quot;natural rate%26quot; hypothesis was suggested before the complete breakout of stagflation in the 1970s - although that was famously predicted by Milton Friedman (1968) in his Presidential Address to the American Economic Association (AEA).
Taking up the Neo-Keynesian mantle, as he had done so many times before, James Tobin%26#039;s response in his own 1972 AEA presidential address, was to insist on b %26lt; 1 strictly. The logic Tobin offered was that in some industries, where unemployment is high, the expectation of higher inflation will not be carried through to proportionally higher wage demands. Quite simply, workers in high unemployment industries, realizing that they are quite replaceable, will not want to risk getting dismissed by demanding that their real wage remain unchanged. Instead, they might accept a slight drop in their real wage, grit their teeth and bear it - at least until the reserve army of labor (i.e. the unemployed) begins to disappear or better opportunities arise elsewhere. Thus, their expectation of inflation does not get translated into a proportional wage demand, consequently b %26lt; 1. Only if their industry is at or near full employment, then they will be bold enough to ask for a proportional increase in wages.
In Tobin%26#039;s (1972) multi-sector reasoning, which followed up on Archibald (1969), at any point in time, unemployment is unevenly distributed across industries so that some firms are at full employment (so b = 1) and others are at underemployment (b %26lt; 1). Therefore, the aggregate b %26lt; 1 can be justified by the distribution of unemployment across different sectors. Over time, of course, the unemployment distribution will change as workers receive better information and the composition of aggregate demand and the structure of the economy changes. However, as there will always be uneven distribution, the aggregate, long-term Phillips Curve will still be downward-sloping.
However, Tobin%26#039;s argument apparently did not convince and the Monetarist hypothesis of a vertical long-run Phillips Curve (with its associated %26quot;natural rate of unemployment%26quot;) converted many economists and, eventually, policy-makers. In the 1970s, even this was displaced when the New Classicals proposed that, due to rational expectations, the short-run Phillips Curve was also vertical. Thus, in the New Classical view, there is no involuntary unemployment, in the short-run or the long-run. Unemployment would be stuck at its natural level at all times. They justified long spells of high unemployment on the basis of changes in the %26quot;natural rate%26quot; which were largely external to the model (e.g. because of a greater preference for leisure, higher search costs, higher unemployment benefits, worse information, institutional rigidities and other exogenously-imposed %26quot;distortions%26quot; or %26quot;shocks%26quot;).
In the wake of the Monetarist and New Classical counter-revolutions of the 1970s, many economists had to run quite some miles to rescue at least the downward-sloping short-run Phillips Curve or argue for a migratory pattern for the natural rate of unemployment. Innovative arguments based on efficiency wages, menu costs, etc. were pursued by a school of economists calling themselves %26quot;New Keynesians%26quot;. However, our story must end now - for the phenomena the New Keynesians concentrate on are not only %26quot;imperfectionist%26quot; (and thus contrary to Keynes%26#039;s methodology) but, above everything, their explanations are wholly grounded in supply-side conditions. In the New Keynesian theories, the notion of an effective demand-determined equilibrium is absent. As a result, they cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered part of the %26quot;Keynesian%26quot; world.
- It is not at an all-time low, however, it is pretty good compared to historical numbers
- The unemployment rate has been calculated the same way for a very long time:
# of people looking for work/(# of people looking for work + employed people)
Is the unemployment rate really at an all time low, or was the formula just changed?payment calculator
Well, formula changes from time to time, and if person is unemployed but not actively looking for a job then they dont count on offical satistics in the USA. Unemployment is probadly for the most part accurate plus or minus a few tenths of a percent. The goverment sats are not 100%, but if they notice tax dollars declining in certian local areas they its good hunch to figure that there unemployment. Your never gonna get 100% accurancy with unemployment rates, but satistics for unemployments usually very close within tenths of the percentage points. Be 4.4% unemployment or 4.7% its usually in that range if it 4.5% by critera used by the goverment.
Is the unemployment rate really at an all time low, or was the formula just changed? loan
That depend on which formula and the amount of people in the survey.Can 3000 people represent 3 million people.Age group of survey and who did they survey?|||You sound skeptical. If, like me, you were trying to hire someone, your butt would not be skeptical at all that available labor is very hard to come by right now.|||The unemployment rate isn%26#039;t at an all time low and the formula hasn%26#039;t been changed.|||I haven%26#039;t met anyone in years that was actually looking for a job and couldn%26#039;t find one.
If they adjusted the numbers and deleted the people drawing unemployment benefits it is almost zero. A lot of people don%26#039;t even seriously start looking for a job till their benefits are about to run out. If they shortened the time covered by benefits the employment rate would go up right away.
Just look in the paper. Have you ever seen an employment section of the classified ads that said %26quot;sorry no jobs today%26quot; I haven%26#039;t.
How many people are working jobs that they are very overqualified for? Many people are graduating from college every year. How long is it taking them to find a decent job? How many people are working %26quot;crappy%26quot; jobs when they deserve a much better job? Are there even enough jobs out there for all these college graduates?
I have heard the unemployment rate is really low now. Does this include the underemployment rate?credit check
Unemployment is gaged not by the number of people actively seeking benefits. Thus the unemployment rate is not reflective of actual unemployment. What we are seeing is not a decrease in unemployment rather a decrease in those on unemployment due to the in increase in restrictions and decrease in the time one is allowed to collect.
I have heard the unemployment rate is really low now. Does this include the underemployment rate? loan
Don%26#039;t believe everything you HEAR; read the statistics.
Most new jobs that have been %26quot;created%26quot; are minimum wage positions...|||There you go, now were talking. See that%26#039;s my issue. I know others with 4 year degrees as well who aren%26#039;t even in their profession. I%26#039;m telling ya.........something is very wrong.
Guess what employment is up for the poverty sticken. It%26#039;s for the ones working minimum wage if that%26#039;s what makes you happy but this type of work doesn%26#039;t apply to college grads.|||I dont know about where you live, but unemployment is up in oklahoma. ( hell i am on unemployment now), but i know how you feel, i always end up in under qualified jobs, but i am older, and it seems that they want younger and younger people for the management market, so i am stuck with people in their mid-twenties being my boss, and i hate it! i went to college, i have a degree, darnit!|||It does not include underenployment, only people who are filing for unemployment. I think the problem is that so many people are graduating from college with degrees like History or Portugese Literature, and there are NO JOBS in their field. Therefore they end up being a night manager at the local Burger King while their buddies with Engineering degrees rake it the cash money.|||That is the problem. We assume that if you have a college degree, that you know how to do something when you actually don%26#039;t know jack.
I make much more than the average college graduate because I know how to do something and have a skill. I have no sympathy for a bunch of pompus weenies that got to party their asses off for 5 years while the rest of us worked and lived in the real world.
They can get the job they think they are over-qualified for and work it for a few years working their way up like the rest of us. Just because you have a degree does not make you over-qualified.|||how about all the people that are here illegally taking the jobs of the legal citizen%26#039;s ,. oh yea that%26#039;s a different issue all together,right,.?|||The unemployment rate does not include underemployed people, people who are working 3 part time jobs with no benefits intead of 1 full time job with benefits, nor does it include people who have been unemployed for more than a certain amount of time (I don%26#039;t know what that is).|||No the underemployed are not included and neither are the people whose unemployment has run out because they can%26#039;t find a job.|||Oh, come on! How do you evaluate something like that? Asking people, %26quot;Are you being paid what you are worth?%26quot; Like you are going to get a good objective answer.
And how do you take into account people with the academic background but who are just lousy employees and consequently working in lesser jobs than their %26quot;credentials%26quot; would suggest they could. Believe me, having a degree does not necessarily make a good employee!
College kids have developed increasingly unrealistic expectations about what is waiting for them when they get out of school. They want what their parents have NOW and don%26#039;t want to %26quot;pay their dues%26quot; before they get it.
Sorry, But I%26#039;m afraid your question is very utopian and not achievable.|||Let me point you to Epstein%26#039;s book Econospinning.
This whole notion of %26quot;all the good jobs are gone and there are lots of jobs but they%26#039;re all at WalMart or McDonald%26#039;s%26quot; is simply made-up by people who opposed the economic policies of lower taxation and less regulation and more free trade that produced the job growth.
Here%26#039;s how they do it. Most of the job growth has been in the SERVICE SECTOR. A lot of people think that means FOOD SERVICE but it doesn%26#039;t. It accounts for about 80% of GDP now and it%26#039;s basically anything other than farming, construction, manufacturing and mining, and about 80% of the growth of that sector has been in technology and healthcare, with another 5-10% the professions, driven by the technology growth (i.e., patent lawyers). And the 5-10% that is in more service-oriented industries includes management. But because most people think %26quot;service sector%26quot; means food service, nannies and lawncare, they buy into the %26quot;McJobs%26quot; myth.
The %26quot;problem%26quot; isn%26#039;t for college grads - actually college and grad school grads are seeing the best pay and best job-finding conditions since the late 1990s, which is a good sign because the Fed was accommodating then and it%26#039;s restrictive now. The gap between what college-educated workers and non-college-educated workers make is growing - I never understood why people thought this unfair since non-college-educated workers get a 4 to 7 year head start and don%26#039;t go $150K into debt. The problem is that while the manufacturing sector is now about level, it%26#039;s not going to replace the jobs that were lost, and so you have some 40-somethings who aren%26#039;t qualified to take the service sector jobs in technology that the Dobbs crowd misrepresents to be barista jobs. At least Reich sorta kinda admits this.
But again, I put %26quot;problem%26quot; in quotes. It%26#039;s not MY problem. Look, after WWII the other industrial countries had been bombed to the stone age, so our manufacturing sector had an artificial and temporary advantage, and labor got most of the benefit of that. And since then most of the heavy lifting has been taken out of the job - it%26#039;s sorting, it%26#039;s monitoring a machine to make sure it%26#039;s performing its function. It%26#039;s skills you learn in Montessori. It%26#039;s just not realistic to expect to be able to raise a family of four on what you can earn spending 37.5 hours a week performing a repetitive task that involves no critical thinking or judgment, and in a country that gives you free education through 12th grade and subsidized state colleges you%26#039;re not entitled to make a high salary using the skillset of a 6th grader.|||Oh so now it is every one else%26#039;s fault you studied the wrong thing in college. Let me tell you something you spoiled little brats are a bunch of spineless wastes of time. Life is not easy you do what there is to do and you find away. No one guarantied you a damn thing. If you can%26#039;t find a job make one. I could care less about your college degree you have no work ethic and you expect things you have not earned.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
4:06 p.m. January 18, 2007
MEXICO CITY 鈥?Mexico%26#039;s unemployment rate was 3.5 percent in December, up from 2.8 percent in the year-ago month, the National Statistics Institute, or Inegi, said Thursday. Unemployment in the whole of 2006 averaged 3.6 percent, practically unchanged from 2005.
Inegi said that 58 percent of working-age people either worked or sought work in the last month of last year. Close to 40 percent of those in work were employed in services, 20 percent in commerce, 16.5 percent in manufacturing, and 14 percent in agriculture, Inegi added.
The institute also reported that unemployment in the country%26#039;s 32 largest cities was 4.3 percent in December, up 0.53 percentage point from the year-earlier month.
That%26#039;s about the same unemployment rate of Michigan to put it in perspective for you. Parts of Michigan are nice, and some fine beers are produced there, but I%26#039;m not pining for a return trip to Detroit any time soon. Unemployment is bad no matter how you slice it.
Is 7% unemployment rate in the philippines good or not? Explain plss?credit union
ahm.. if it increased to 7% its not good, if it decreased to 7% it%26#039;s better. sa tingin ko. hahaha
Is 7% unemployment rate in the philippines good or not? Explain plss? loan
It depends. You have to take into account what the population is, where the highest unemployment rates are, how it is affecting the economy and quality of life.
If you live in a city where only 1% of the total 7% is concentrated then that means that unemployment in your area is very low, so it%26#039;s good for you. As a country it all depends on the above mentioned.|||it is actually quite good compared to the other asian countries except for japan and south korea|||The Philippines unemployment rate had been falling in recent years. In 2005, its UR was at 11.70%. So, dropping down to 7% is very good. However, do take into consideration how unemployment is define there, the natural UR, and the economic environment if you are looking for a deeper answer.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-15636373...
What%26#039;s unemployment rate in Alaska?heart rate
but I thought that you still get paid by just living there.
Dont be greedy!!!
Why would the democrats want more illeagals here? Is there a surplus of jobs I don%26#039;t know about? Or is it just another uneducated future voter?
If the unemployment rate is so low?credit counseling
Democrats believe the US needs to %26quot;save%26quot; everyone through our government. If they %26quot;save%26quot; everyone, they will have a bigger pool of voters who like them because they will be on a %26quot;dole%26quot; - like welfare.
What they fail to realize is that illegals have already broken 3 laws and are felons once they are here illegally, they do not want to %26quot;assimilate and become American - just take $$ and send it back to their families - this is destrying our country. My grandparents came here from Italy and Scotland and HAD to learn US customs and culture - and the language!
Kick %26#039;em out and keep %26#039;em out!
If the unemployment rate is so low?
loan
The democrats need more illegals to hire as house servants, gardners, you know, any low paying job that they can get them to do around the house/mansions.|||Simple - illegals and immagrants usually vote democrat. The more they get in the more votes they can garner and hold onto office. Really it%26#039;s all bullsh*tt. Republicans are doing the same thing as well, just with different people.|||I do not want more immigrants of any type! But i would like to see less of them %26amp; their Employers, kick-em out seize the assets auction off the property etc! I need a business or a job! Their are some Democrat%26#039;s who know where the proirity needs to be %26amp; say it like me!|||The unemployment rate is low because people who were receiving unemployment benefits have ran out of benefits so they are not being counted as unemployed.
I don%26#039;t really know.|||Strange.. I thought it was the Republicans who wanted to save everybody--most notably the Iraquis from an evil dictator (that after no %26#039;weapons of mass destruction%26#039; were found) ? To the tune of billions of our dollars to date.
can i have some main points?? doing this for my assignment
What affects unemployment rate?credit repair
Open unemployment is associated with capitalist economies.[citation needed] Preliterate communities treat their members as parts of an extended family and thus do not allow unemployment.[citation needed] In precapitalist societies such as European feudalism, the serfs, though clearly dominated and exploited by the lords, were never %26quot;unemployed%26quot; because they had direct access to the land, and the needed tools, and could thus work to produce crops. Just as on the American frontier during the nineteenth century, there were day laborers and subsistence farmers on poor land, whose position in society was somewhat analogous to the unemployed of today. But they were not truly unemployed, since they could find work and support themselves on the land.[citation needed]
Under both ancient and modern systems of slave-labor, slave-owners never let their property be unemployed for long. (If anything, they would sell the unneeded laborer.) Planned economies such as the old Soviet Union or today%26#039;s Cuba typically provide occupation for everyone, using substantial overstaffing if necessary. (This is called %26quot;hidden unemployment,%26quot; which is sometimes seen as a kind of underemployment, definition 3.)[citation needed] Workers%26#039; cooperatives 鈥?such as those producing plywood in the U.S. Pacific Northwest 鈥?do not let their members become unemployed unless the co-op itself goes bankrupt.[citation needed]
Since not all unemployment may be %26quot;open%26quot; and counted by government agencies, official statistics on unemployment may not be wholly accurate under capitalism.[citation needed] Most poorer capitalist countries lack a modern welfare state and unemployment insurance so that it is very difficult to afford being unemployed for very long: people often end up taking jobs below their skill levels.[citation needed]
Others argue that unemployment actually increases the more the government intervenes into the economy. For example, minimum wages raise costs of doing business and businesses respond by laying off workers.[citation needed] Laws restricting layoffs make businesses less likely to hire in the first place leaving many young people unemployed and unable to find work.[citation needed]
The results of both actions lead to less productivity and are claimed to incur a higher cost on society as a whole. The results lead to not just higher unemployment but may increase poverty. This is why the less market oriented countries of Europe often sustain substantially high unemployment rates in comparison to the United States; that is, government induced employment through policies designed to protect the worker.[citation needed] The welfare state then responds with various benefits that are paid for by the middle and upper class which reduces their ability to consume and is theorised to reduce the incentive to work hard and innovate.[citation needed] Economists like Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Von Hayek, and many others not only believe that the welfare of society decreases with this kind of intervention but that these economic policies are not sustainable.[citation needed]
[edit] Debate on causes
There is considerable debate among economists as to the causes of unemployment. Keynesian economics emphasizes unemployment resulting from insufficient effective demand for goods and service in the economy (cyclical unemployment). Others point to structural problems, inefficiencies, inherent in labour markets (structural unemployment). Classical or neoclassical economics tends to reject these explanations, and focuses more on rigidities imposed on the labor market from the outside, such as minimum wage laws, taxes, and other regulations that may discourage the hiring of workers (classical unemployment). Yet others see unemployment as largely due to voluntary choices by the unemployed (frictional unemployment). On the other extreme, Marxists see unemployment as a structural fact helping to preserve business profitability and capitalism.
Though there have been several definitions of voluntary and involuntary unemployment in the economics literature, a simple distinction is often applied. Voluntary unemployment is attributed to the individual unemployed workers (and their decisions), whereas involuntary unemployment exists because of the socio-economic environment (including the market structure, government intervention, and the level of aggregate demand) in which individuals operate. In these terms, much or most of frictional unemployment is voluntary, since it reflects individual search behavior. On the other hand, cyclical unemployment, structural unemployment, classical unemployment, and Marxian unemployment are largely involuntary in nature. However, the existence of structural unemployment may reflect choices made by the unemployed in the past, while classical unemployment may result from the legislative and economic choices made by labor unions and/or political parties. So in practice, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary unemployment is hard to draw. The clearest cases of involuntary unemployment are those where there are fewer job vacancies than unemployed workers even when wages are allowed to adjust, so that even if all vacancies were to be filled, there would be unemployed workers. This is the case of cyclical unemployment and Marxian unemployment, for which macroeconomic forces lead to microeconomic unemployment. See also: unemployment types
Some argue one of the main causes of unemployment in a free market economy is that the law of supply and demand is not really applied to the price to be paid for employing people. In situations of falling demand for products and services the wages of all employees, from president to errand boy, are not automatically reduced by the required percentage to make the business viable. Others say that it is the market that determines the wages based on the desirability of the job. The more people qualified and interested in the job, the lower the wages for that job become. Based on this view, the profitability of the company is not a factor in determining whether or not the work is profitable to the employee. People are laid off, because pay reductions would reduce the number of people willing to work a job. With fewer people interested in a particular job, the employees bargaining power would actually rise to stabilize the situation, but their employer would be unable to fulfill their wage expectations. In the classical framework, such unemployment is due to the existing legal framework, along with interferences with the market by non-market institutions such as labor unions and government. Others say many of the problems with market adjustment arise from the market itself (Keynes), or from the nature of capitalism (Marx).
In developing countries unemployment is often caused by burdensome government regulation. The World Bank%26#039;s Doing Business project shows how excessive labor regulation increases unemployment among women and youths in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. However, lack of regulations could also cause the same effect. In the end, it must be a balance.
What affects unemployment rate?
loan
Unemployment is the state in which a person is without work, available to work, and is currently seeking work. The unemployment rate is used in economic studies and economic indexes such as the United States%26#039; Conference Board%26#039;s Index of Leading Indicators. The rate is determined by dividing the number of unemployed workers by the total civilian labor force Economists distinguish between five major kinds of unemployment, i.e., cyclical, frictional, structural, classical, and Marxian. (Another distinction, not discussed here, is between voluntary and involuntary unemployment.) Real-world unemployment may combine different types, while all five might exist at one time. The magnitude of each of these is difficult to measure, partly because they overlap and are thus hard to separate from each other. All but cyclical unemployment can be seen as existing at full employment, the level of employment and unemployment that represents the inflation barrier to demand-side growth.
I forget exactly why, but the economy is strongest when there is some unemployment.
Why will the unemployment rate never reach zero?Why should it not reach zero?postage rate
That implies a perfect society. Let me know when you find one.
Why will the unemployment rate never reach zero?Why should it not reach zero? loan
even if there are more jobs than workers and nobody would ever go thru a layoff, there would still be bad workers that would be terminated for whatever reason (theft, poor performance).|||If every person all of a sudden found a job where would all of the people that work at the unemployment office work, where would job placement people work? It is a system with very deep roots, a system that has been in place for a very long time.|||Some people are too lazy to work and will never get a job. Some people are too lazy or incompetent to keep a job. Teens and retirees are always entering the workforce.
If it reached zero, there could be no more growth in industry because there wouldn%26#039;t be anyone else to hire.|||Because people like you spend time on the internet instead of working for minimum wage.
The unemployment rate will never reach zero because there is a category of human beings called the %26quot;unemployable%26quot;.|||Because what the unemployment rate is actually measuring is the available pool of workers to total workers. If this pool shrinks below 4% than it is considered an employee market where there are fewer qualified workers for each job opening. As the unemployment rate raises above 6-7% than it turns to the benefit of the employer where there are more qualified workers than job openings.
Lately, with the federal unemployment rate in the 4% range, we are getting close to the point where companies will have a hard time recruiting and keeping good people. In some job fields this is already occurring.
The reason that it will never reach zero is that there will be no one looking for a job and no pool for employers to find new workers. Plus with immigration both legal and illegal, we will always have people willing to work even though the Roman Citizens, I mean the American Citizens are getting lazier by the year.|||NOPE, not as long as there is WELFARE ... there will always be those lazy people out there who would rather stay home and live off welfare (or live off us hard workers) instead of working hard and bettering themselves..
3.6%
What is the unemployment rate in Northwest Iowa?honda finance
4.8 %
hello,try this,
www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm
this gives all your states,
good luck.
What is the unemployment rate for Colorado in 2006/2007?heart rate monitor
many thanks. Report It
It ranged between 4.4% in the spring to 5.0% in december. Most of the year ist was between 4.6% and 4.7%. It averaged a little over 4.6%.
Look at the site for more details on the statistics.
Im not sure what you mean by why is the unemployment rate there. There is always going to be some unemployment because it includes what is called frictional unemployment, which is peopel changing jobs, getting layed off, getting fired, just entering the workforce after school, and so on. It was very low in the spring for historical standards (full employment is usually considered around 5%). It has crept up due to the housing bust where construction workers and those in fincnail services have lost jobs. Now the general economy is begining to slow. But so far, 5% isnt that bad... the problem is it seems to be getting worse.
The 2005 average was 5.9%
What is the unemployment rate for Highland County, Ohio?inflation rate
7 per cent.
They don%26#039;t lie as much. Under Reagan the formula for figuring the UI rate was reconstructed to be figured differently just to make him look better. It%26#039;s at least double or triple what you see reported.
Now they don%26#039;t count anyone who works any at all as unemployed even if they can only find work for 8 hours a week. They don%26#039;t count anyone in the military or reserves as unemployed even if they are not in active service and need a job. They don%26#039;t count anyone on any sort of a private UI as unemployed, anyone over 65 or under 18, etc.
Why is the unemployment rate so high in other countries compared to the US?credit bureau
er....I think you need to review your facts....the unemployment rate in the US is actually quite high in comparison to other countries....
Why is the unemployment rate so high in other countries compared to the US? loan
Because they are%26#039;nt as industrialized as we are.|||Lots of other countries live in poverty. While most people in the US focus on materials for themselves and spend spend spend on the money they make or get.|||Because they have figured out that employment is the new age slavery. Our economics are based upon the idea of slavery. Just because you get a paycheck you still have to pay it out to live. Slaves in the past may not of recieved a paycheck, but they were giving a way to live. The only thing that has changed over the centuries is the fact that we have a choice of what we eat and where we sleep. We are still slaves to an economy. Once you look at employment in that manner it changes the way you think about working. Some get it, some don%26#039;t. The U.S. just makes it more appealling.|||too many people, not enough jobs.|||European %26quot;welfare%26quot; countries have high unemployement b/c they mess with the economy.
See, they made it very hard and expensive to fire a worker, so now firms avoid hiring people unless they are 110% sure they really need those workers.
High %26amp; perpetual unemployment benefits also increase unemployment, since you can actually have a decent life w/o working.|||NationMaster.com has our unemployment rate fairly low compared to other countries. I would guess because we are a heck of a lot richer than we care to admit.|||One particular reason for some of it is freedom. Labor laws in many countries(Europe, in particular) make it very difficult to fire someone. If it is difficult to fire them, you are less likely to hire them. Our relatively free employment laws allow employers to hire and fire as they see fit, allowing for more expansion of our economy.
There are many other reasons, but that one jumps out at me.|||Relatively low amounts of government meddling in the economy and market is the main reason. Take France. The government regulates HUGE parts of thier economy. The result is high unemployment (near 10% I think) and low productivity.
It is also very burdensome and lengthy for employers to fire workers.
You might also want to look at tax rates. Lower taxes mean a pumping economy. Do you think it is merely a coincidence that the US economy started to slide about a year after Clinton raised taxes, and the economy righted itself and started skyrocketing about a year after Bush lowered taxes? The less people pay in taxes, the more the private individual has. If a private citizen has more money s/he will do one of three things with it. Spend it. Save it. Invest it. If a person spends it, it goes back into the economy to a company. The company uses that money to grow/expand. If a company grows and expands, new workers are needed. A person may choose to put money in a bank and save it. Banks use said money to invest in businesses or help new ones. New businesses mean more jobs! Investing it does the same thing.
Also, if you have lower taxes, people tend to be less disgruntled about having to pay them. The result is more money coming in.
Let%26#039;s say 100 people have to pay $100 in taxes. But, 20 people are upset that the tax rate is so high. So, only 80 people pay it. The government gets $8000. Then the taxes are lowered to $90. To some people, that is a more reasonable rate. So, you get 90 people paying taxes. The government gets $8100.
So, which is the better deal for the economy, people and the government? Answer that question and you get the answer to yours.|||As long as people see the reward of their efforts, they will be willing to work. Because of things like high taxes, national heath care, government regulation many countries have economies that discourage people from working because they see no reward to their efforts.|||In general the US rate is lower than Europe because we do not provide a very generous welfare benefits to the unemployed, so in the US people will take any job instead of waiting for one they want. High taxes will cause some people to decide not to work, particularly for a second income in families with with children, but this does not cause high unemployment because they have made a choice not to be part of the labor force so they do not count as unemployed.. Some counties (France) have labor laws that make the work force inflexible.But when comparing statistic between countries you need to be careful. Unemployment varies over business cycle and we are at the peak but not all countries are. Also unemployment is measured differently in different countries. The US counts only those activity seeking work, some countries count anyone who would like a job but doesn%26#039;t have one, that is what we call discouraged workers.|||What a bunch of dumb a** answers. The US has invested heavily in keeping people employed. After the great depression departments like the FED were created and/or heavily funded with its sole mission to keep unemployment low and inflation low. The reason US unemployment is low is becuase of the Federal Reserve. When unemployment is high they will lower rates causing more borrowing and investment. When unemployment is too low they will raise rates to slow down the economy to keep inflation low.
Interesting fact. Ben Bernake wants to keep unemployment as close to 5 % as possilbe.|||I%26#039;m also disappointed with many of these answers. Some of them have a dash of truth to them but none of them are really good.
The real reason the US has a low unemployment rate can be attributed to a long list of reasons. Some of the smaller reasons have been mentioned already... differing labor laws, number of jobs to qualified work force members.
A big one, however, has to do with how the labor force is defined. It%26#039;s defined as people who are able and *willing* to work. The unemployment rate is calculated as those who do not have a job and who are *actively searching for a new one.*
Why is this distinction important? The US has one of the most rewarding social programs for people who do not have a job. Welfare lasts a total of 26 weeks (half a year!) and you get paid as long as you are proving that you are actively looking for a job (which is a very easy thing to %26quot;prove%26quot;... you only have to report two employers in your area that said they did not have an appropriate job for you per week). Welfare%26#039;s %26quot;goal%26quot; is to encourage you to get a job and to pay you until you find one, however, you do not have to accept a job with fewer or greater qualifications or less pay (!).
Needless to say, many people use and abuse the welfare system, and many people use the welfare system for the full 26 weeks (you get paid to do nothing). They are not really looking for a job during this time, and so they do not count as %26quot;unemployed%26quot; rather, they are considered %26quot;discouraged workers%26quot; (people who do not have jobs who are not looking for work), and are not factored into the unemployment rate.
I%26#039;m sure there are also many other factors at play, but I just wanted to toss out something I don%26#039;t think people think about too often.
