But they weren't in the data for this month which makes it inaccurate.

They weren’t in the data for this month because they don’t belong in that data.

That’s why the data changes over time.

Yes they belong in that data. They are unemployed and wanting to work.

They clearly don’t if they don’t put the effort in.

The situation you’re describing is someone who sits around and just mopes about not having a job. Not putting the minimum effort into joining the labor force.

"They clearly don’t if they don’t put the effort in. "

Sure they do.

To dismiss someone from the unemployment ranks who wants to work and who may simply have given up looking for work for reasons outside their willingness to work is arrogant and elitist.

Lack of hope is not a lack of ability or desire to work.

"The situation you’re describing is someone who sits around and just mopes about not having a job. Not putting the minimum effort into joining the labor force. "

The situation I am describing also includes those with Masters and above degrees who their might not be suitable jobs available for in their area, who are over qualified to find lesser jobs despite their willingness to work lesser jobs who are just waiting for an opportunity to present itself.

But apparently over qualified means moping around.

If they wanted a job but don’t do any of the base or wash things it takes to be in unemployment data, then they don’t want a job. Writing or updating a resume is enough to be included in that data, so literally the only scenario would be someone who does ONLY mope around complaining about not having a job. It doesn’t matter what degree they have.

Bullshit.

Someone with an advanced degree who doesn't see any suitable jobs and is simply waiting for a suitable job is not someone moping around and complaining about not having a job.

But it IS still someone unemployed

“The situation you’re describing is someone who sits around and just mopes about not having a job. Not putting the minimum effort into joining the labor force.”

And if I had said the same exact thing you’d whine and cry I was a knuckle dragging racist.

Clearly not

Clearly so

Unemployed definition - a person without a paid job but available to work.

The person I just described fit both criteria.

Clearly the dictionary must be wrong then. You better go correct them. I’m sure you will change their mind.

in the webdip forum, no one can hear you scream.

You can’t be available to work if you don’t put in the minimum effort into finding a job. No one can hire you if you don’t try.

Sure you can be available.

They do have this thing in the 21st century called job recruiters and head hunters who go out and find skilled people without those skilled people doing any effort.

It’s crazy I know.

But please tell me again how wrong I am for using the textbook definition of unemployed please.

Please point out in the dictionary definition of the word where it qualifies that the person has to be actively searching.

For my current job I was contacted by the employer and asked if I was interested in a position. I wasn’t out actively looking but was available for the position.

Head hunters and job recruiters target people who are employed. If all you’re doing to find a job is waiting then clearly you aren’t motivated to have a job. Which means you don’t want one.

@KansasBoyd

for the BLS, they say someone has to be actively searching to be a part of the Labor Force

if you disagree that's fine

that's their definition, and they base data off of that

if you have a different definition (which you do) that's fine, but please show us YOUR data, and why it is superior in predicting market trends or shows us something that the BLS is not


if you can't do that, please shut up you're offering nothing here. also, @TrPrado isn't one of the lunies who screams "racist" at every which thing, please try to avoid entirely pointless straw mans

“Head hunters and job recruiters target people who are employed.”

100% of the time?

LOL

Ok chief.

“if you have a different definition (which you do)”

Yep. It’s called the official textbook dictionary definition. Silly me.

I have shown several examples of people who clearly fit the definition of the word who are excluded from the formula.

There is your data. Accepted the facts or don’t. I could care less.

KB:

People that there’s a track record to show they’re skilled? Yes. Absolutely.

So head headers and recruiters would never go after someone with a proven track record that shows they are skilled??

LOL!! Ok chief.

I’m still waiting to hear more about how the textbook dictionary of the word unemployed is wrong.

Have you reached out to the dictionary folks yet?

Or are you saying everyone unemployed has no track record or skills?

I think we've digressed here a bit since I last posted.

Kansas has a different definition of unemployed than the government uses. It's as simple as that. He wants to lump in discouraged workers, those in part-time who are looking for full time employment, and marginally attached workers. This is fine - it's called the U-6 unemployment rate. The headline unemployment rate, however, only includes those who are in the labor force who do not have a job. A discouraged worker, by definition, is not in the labor force. They're too frustrated to even bother entering it, even though they're able and willing to work.

So I'll start with this, Kansas, do you agree that the definition of unemployed is "someone in the civilian labor force who cannot find a job" and do you agree that just having a statistic about everyone over 18 that doesn't have a job is misleading? Because, I mean it doesn't make sense to include homemakers in the unemployment statistics, does it? People who don't want a job shouldn't be included.

I'd have to go to the bls site to check it, but I believe giving your name to a headhunter or applying for a job on indeed or something counts as searching for employment