Ontario beats nation in jobless rate

[steven]

Unemployment has reached a 32-year low in Canada -- and Ontario is doing even better than the nation as a whole.

Canada's unemployment rate reached 6.1 percent in June, according to a new report from Statistics Canada. That's the lowest the national rate has been since 1974.

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...ml?jst=b_ln_hl

[biker]

And we are at 4.6%.

That would make Canada, what, 40% more unemployed than us.

Canada prides itself on being more "European" than we are.

Guess that means Euro-unemployment, too.

[LHardy]

Makes a person just want to run out and vote for all those leftist ideals doesn't it?

[mikewrona]

And we are at 4.6%.

That would make Canada, what, 40% more unemployed than us.

Canada prides itself on being more "European" than we are.

Guess that means Euro-unemployment, too.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2006: "About 1.6 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to the labor force in June, the same as a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally attached, there were 481,000 discouraged workers in June, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities."

How about that? There are an additional 3.2 million people out of work that are not counted as being unemployed, because the U.S. has decided not to count them because of a term called "marginally attached." And I always thought it was, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

[WestSideJohn]

So millions of people are left out of the unemployment figure, eh? Gee, there's a shock. In fact, I haven't been this surprised since I found out working at McDonalds qualified as a job in manufacturing.

[Northshore]

Yeah. Basically, Canada counts everyone who isn't working as unemployed. The USA has a "formula". Which translated from the original Beltway is "BS".

[LHardy]

Yeah. Basically, Canada counts everyone who isn't working as unemployed. The USA has a "formula". Which translated from the original Beltway is "BS".

"Yes basically"

In other words
Not really.
Well Mostly
Some of the time.
We'll never tell.
Prove we don't

The Left and the US sucks crowd strikes again!

[biker]

Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2006: "About 1.6 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to the labor force in June, the same as a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally attached, there were 481,000 discouraged workers in June, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities."

How about that? There are an additional 3.2 million people out of work that are not counted as being unemployed, because the U.S. has decided not to count them because of a term called "marginally attached." And I always thought it was, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

blah blah blah

Double reverse back flip inversions

Canada unemployemnt rate 6.1 %

US unemployment rate 4.6%.

Stuff it.

[mikewrona]

blah blah blah

Double reverse back flip inversions

Canada unemployemnt rate 6.1 %

US unemployment rate 4.6%.

Stuff it.

So what do you think about the 3 million without jobs? Are they employed, unemployed, or minimally atttached to the labor market (not working and could be, or, are working but possibly might not be)?

Or is the Bureau of Labor Statistics telling the truth about the unemployment rate, but, lying about how many people who actually are unemployed?

[Northshore]

I remember when the government decided to include those serving in the military as "employed". They used to be not counted at all. That dropped the unemployment rate by.4%.

So in reality, the rate is about half a percent light every time they report it!!!

[LHardy]

I remember when the government decided to include those serving in the military as "employed". They used to be not counted at all. That dropped the unemployment rate by.4%.

So in reality, the rate is about half a percent light every time they report it!!!

Then all government employees should not be counted.
Judging from some of the government non-employees output maybe your right. Government employees are not truely employed.

Then if Canada used the same math their unemployment rate would rise to maybe 25% and NYS would be around 40%.
I like your math.
Let's show Albany our new figures and see what they have to say!

[tomac]

Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2006: "About 1.6 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to the labor force in June, the same as a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally attached, there were 481,000 discouraged workers in June, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities."

How about that? There are an additional 3.2 million people out of work that are not counted as being unemployed, because the U.S. has decided not to count them because of a term called "marginally attached." And I always thought it was, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

And don't forget that ever since the days Saint Ronnie the Forgetful, the Labor Department has been counting members of the military as being "gainfully employed". This practice started in or about 1981, and was used to contrast what a "great" job Ray-gun was doing compared to Carter.

Still the premise is based of lies.