I remember reading somewhere in college that when the unemployment rate drops initially, its not because fewer people are unemployed but because those looking for jobs have given up their search. Can anyone comment on this?
Often true as there is a lag factor. Those who were layed off many a month ago have now given up as no new jobs are available. Those who were just layed off are still hopeful for employment and don’t quite realize the situation just yet. But I’m sure a small portion of the unemployment figure is recently layed off people as some would go straight to umemployment to get the benefits… whether they want them or NEED them.
In a prolonged recession, “discouraged workers” who quit looking for jobs become more prevalent, causing the UE rate to drop. You can use the Employment/Population ratio to get another picture. I’m not sure if discouraged workers are measured anywhere or if it’s just a concept.
There is a measure out there that factors this in, as well as underemployment. As of now I believe this is already over 10%.
salvaNJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a measure out there that factors this in, > as well as underemployment. As of now I believe > this is already over 10%. Is this serious? or is it a joke? becuase if its serious, I’d like to see how they compute underemployment 
I always thought underemployment was a clever name to say you have a sh!t job. “If you’re unemployed or underemployed join ITT training for a rewarding career in refrigeration”
“Underemployed” = Level 3 candidate who is working in stock reconciliation of fund accounting or IT. Clearly he should be a PM at PIMCO. lol- thats the logic I’ve seen on this board
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “Underemployed” = Level 3 candidate who is working > in stock reconciliation of fund accounting or IT. > Clearly he should be a PM at PIMCO. > > lol- thats the logic I’ve seen on this board By that definition, we’d be much higher than 10%