SaidIt Survey : Which is worse - the thought police or the tax man?

submitted by JasonCarswell from media.dhakatribune.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In the US the unemployment numbers are rigged in how they count them. If you've been unemployed for more than 6 months or 2 years I think they stop counting you, even if you're still looking for work. Whatever the timespan, that's just one way to skew the count. If you're old "retired" or disabled they may not count you because you're collecting or out of the work force - but maybe you want or even need to work in hard times. Maybe you had a temp job for a week. They stop counting you. There are lots of ways the count is rigged. They want to look more successful than they are while they're dismantling the system.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I understand this. However, this is another red herring.

Do you agree that in January of 2019 (USA) most people can find work if they are looking to enter the job market? Is this the standard of specificity that is now required now to discuss immigration in the US? You realize that this is intended to derail the conversation..

What alternative would you propose? If we're discussing facts and we change the metrics, then there's no baseline measurement to refer to.

Are you aware of any preferable alternative to unemployment figures that won't be picked apart?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Find what kind of work? Sustainable work? Part time work? Work that demands you also get food stamps? Work with out benefits? Temp work? Seasonal work? In the debt slavery job market?

Can you consider these work? Are they insults or survival?

This isn't a Trump thing. Bush and Obama were fudging the numbers too. I'm saying there are not legit baselines because "they" don't want them known. Like enemy casualty numbers.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We're in agreement. You are making my point for me.

Having stated that unemployment was low, I had to use the generally accepted unemployment standard (which has inherent obvious flaws; of which I was fully aware of), as a baseline for the sake of consistency. I don't think accurate figures are documents for the 'actual' unemployment. Even if I found them from a source, then they could easily be picked apart for including/excluding X, Y, or Z.

To avoid 'this' I referred to the generally accepted standard; flaws and all. :-/.

My friend, at this point you surely realize this. ;-)

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Now I do. LOL. I thought you were defending their figures.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Seeing red, were you? I figured. Lol!

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not at all. I don't get riled up unless I'm super tired or tired of trying to explain to someone who doesn't want to hear but wants to argue. Neither was the case here. Just trying to clarify where I could. Nothing is as simple as is often stated. Often I end up learning something to revise my perspectives, or even change paradigms.