Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.

No, there was... they just weren't as persistent about it as some people in this thread seem to be,

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@Asterios, here is a link to BLS where it answers pretty much all of your questions, including sample selection methodology and the exact questions asked. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#questions

In particular, they ask "Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
For those who say "yes," the next question is:

What are all of the things you have done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
If an active method of looking for work, such as those listed at the beginning of this section, is mentioned, the following question is asked:

Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
If there is no reason, except temporary illness, that the person could not take a job, he or she is considered to be not only looking but also available for work and is counted as unemployed."

It was literally the first hit on a Google search for "how is the unemployment rate calculated."

you missed this part here:

Who is counted as unemployed?
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

so by your own link you posted you validated everything I have said, since many unemployed are not looking for work cause there is none to be found. my point has been and always is that what the BLS says are unemployed are not the actual numbers of unemployed, and that is because they put descriptions where they say what is unemployed, furthermore as stated in the "survey" portion (thank you for pointing that out, since it is what I have been asking for) they phone 60,000 households out of how many in the US? and those numbers can be used up to 4 consecutive months, furthermore the survey is not mandatory, and unlike some evidently someone calls here for a survey i tell them not interested and hang up, i'm sure there are a few more who do that too.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and where is the evidence these surveys take place?

Just for everyone to get a full scope of what's happened here, one day ago Asterios thought the unemployment rate was just calculated based on the number of people collecting unemployment.

Well, a couple of pages ago, he was saying that businesses were going down at a record rate because of the high minimum wage. Now on this page, it's

Asterios wrote:
as it goes when I worked fast food we had 3 people on at night and not much more in the morning, when I go into a fast food place now a days they have like 12 or more employees working at a time, and thats even at their not busy times, surprised they can even fit that many employees in there.

I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
not made up, this is from the manager of the store themself, all training, paperwork, video watching and so forth is done the first day, if it takes longer then that, well what can I say.

I'm telling you that I know people who have worked there, and they don't do all their training in the first 30 minutes. No, I'm not going to let you slowly move the goalposts to "the first day". The people I know who have worked at McDonalds train to do various things at various times over the course of a few days. Of course, by continuing this argument with you, I'm the donkey-cave.

no, training is still 30 minutes, training on what you are working on and will be assigned too, you watch video's for a couple hours, and fill out paperwork, this is from the Manager at McDonald's and I will believe them over you or your friend or whatever.

Asterios wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.

never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.

I have a son working in a fast food joint, so I have an idea of what it's like. A friend of mine also managed a Burger King, and before that a franchise truck stop joint where the workers were treated as interchangable cogs, due to the way the owners ran their franchises. There were huge problems with shrinkage at the truck stop because the people working felt no loyalty to the place and had the get while the getting's good mentality. Food quality at both became spotty the more the owners interfered and after he left the Burger King in disgust with the owners, it dropped several places in the ratings against other Burger Kings in the state and garnered some health code violations.
Treat people like gak, gak is what you will reap.

Relapse wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.

never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.

I have a son working in a fast food joint, so I have an idea of what it's like. A friend of mine also managed a Burger King, and before that a franchise truck stop joint where the workers were treated as interchangable cogs, due to the way the owners ran their franchises. There were huge problems with shrinkage at the truck stop because the people working felt no loyalty to the place and had the get while the getting's good mentality. Food quality at both became spotty the more the owners interfered and after he left the Burger King in disgust with the owners, it dropped several places in the ratings against other Burger Kings in the state and garnered some health code violations.
Treat people like gak, gak is what you will reap.

fast food places seem to be dropping like flies around here lately, well a couple of them in past couple of months and that is just in my part of town, the Burger King I worked for the owner hardly ever showed up if at all, he hired the managers to handle the job and he collected his money and signed paperwork and that was it. it was a good store, but ugh it got busy on weekend nights (we were at a popular cruise turn around) and think I hustled more in that job then any other job and this was back in the late 80's where work was available, if you were breathing, you were hired, and sometimes you didn't need to be breathing to be hired.

Wow, this thread is all over the place lately.

Anyways, I am currently unemployed. Any time I want to collect my benefits for unemployment, I have to fill out a survey. It asks me if I was able to work in the last two weeks, if I sought work and various other questions.

Also, I live in the state(IL) with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. There are tons of factories doing hiring events in the area all the time. Looking to pick up a factory job in the next two weeks in a nearby town. So, not sure what Asterios is talking about really.....

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Unless of course, they are lumping it in with "international affairs"

I'm not sure where it sits on that chart, but the US spends about $35 billion a year on foreign aid, whereas welfare spending is $1,066 billion (more than half is medicaid).

So the claim that the government looks after foreign countries before it looks after it's own people is wrong many times over.

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
McDonalds has a 30 minute training period

Why do you make gak like this up?

My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.

Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.

The safety training alone would easily eat up more than half an hour, I would think. This is just me, thinking though, as I imagine people working around fries and grills as well as handling hot food. Surely they must have hygiene and food handling training in these MacDonald's that would eat up a fair chunk of time as well as how to deal with the public, company policies, etc. etc. If I am correct in my imaginings, my hat is off to anyone who can effectively teach all of that in half an hour, because they are a god among trainers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.

never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.

I have a son working in a fast food joint, so I have an idea of what it's like. A friend of mine also managed a Burger King, and before that a franchise truck stop joint where the workers were treated as interchangable cogs, due to the way the owners ran their franchises. There were huge problems with shrinkage at the truck stop because the people working felt no loyalty to the place and had the get while the getting's good mentality. Food quality at both became spotty the more the owners interfered and after he left the Burger King in disgust with the owners, it dropped several places in the ratings against other Burger Kings in the state and garnered some health code violations.
Treat people like gak, gak is what you will reap.

fast food places seem to be dropping like flies around here lately, well a couple of them in past couple of months and that is just in my part of town, the Burger King I worked for the owner hardly ever showed up if at all, he hired the managers to handle the job and he collected his money and signed paperwork and that was it. it was a good store, but ugh it got busy on weekend nights (we were at a popular cruise turn around) and think I hustled more in that job then any other job and this was back in the late 80's where work was available, if you were breathing, you were hired, and sometimes you didn't need to be breathing to be hired.

That goes right along with what I am saying about proper training and treatment of people. A business that does both is more likely to do well while most that go the opposite way might as well not even open their doors.

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
McDonalds has a 30 minute training period

Why do you make gak like this up?

My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.

Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.

I can assure you it takes more than 30 minutes to explain food standards and prep to a new employee. Whether or not the location actually takes the time to bother training anyone is another matter (I've worked jobs where I was supposed to be trained but no one bothered). I'm not really sure why we're using Macy D's as a bar for standards. That's about as low a bar as you can set without getting into trash pits that will fail their first health inspection.

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
McDonalds has a 30 minute training period

Why do you make gak like this up?

My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.

Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.

The safety training alone would easily eat up more than half an hour, I would think. This is just me, thinking though, as I imagine people working around fries and grills as well as handling hot food. Surely they must have hygiene and food handling training in these MacDonald's that would eat up a fair chunk of time as well as how to deal with the public, company policies, etc. etc. If I am correct in my imaginings, my hat is off to anyone who can effectively teach all of that in half an hour, because they are a god among trainers.

all health and safety is covered on the video you watch alone, whether you watch it or not is on you and

Relapse wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.

never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.

I have a son working in a fast food joint, so I have an idea of what it's like. A friend of mine also managed a Burger King, and before that a franchise truck stop joint where the workers were treated as interchangable cogs, due to the way the owners ran their franchises. There were huge problems with shrinkage at the truck stop because the people working felt no loyalty to the place and had the get while the getting's good mentality. Food quality at both became spotty the more the owners interfered and after he left the Burger King in disgust with the owners, it dropped several places in the ratings against other Burger Kings in the state and garnered some health code violations.
Treat people like gak, gak is what you will reap.

fast food places seem to be dropping like flies around here lately, well a couple of them in past couple of months and that is just in my part of town, the Burger King I worked for the owner hardly ever showed up if at all, he hired the managers to handle the job and he collected his money and signed paperwork and that was it. it was a good store, but ugh it got busy on weekend nights (we were at a popular cruise turn around) and think I hustled more in that job then any other job and this was back in the late 80's where work was available, if you were breathing, you were hired, and sometimes you didn't need to be breathing to be hired.

That goes right along with what I am saying about proper training and treatment of people. A business that does both is more likely to do well while most that go the opposite way might as well not even open their doors.

yes, that describes pretty much all fast food businesses it seems.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
McDonalds has a 30 minute training period

Why do you make gak like this up?

My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.

Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.

I can assure you it takes more than 30 minutes to explain food standards and prep to a new employee. Whether or not the location actually takes the time to bother training anyone is another matter (I've worked jobs where I was supposed to be trained but no one bothered). I'm not really sure why we're using Macy D's as a bar for standards. That's about as low a bar as you can set without getting into trash pits that will fail their first health inspection.

thats what I have been saying Mickey D's is on par with any and all fast food, low skilled, low trained workers that can be replaced easily whether with another worker or a robotic/computer station.

@Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.

ok answer this someone calls you with a survey, do you take time out to answer it? especially if they call around dinner time like most survey takers do? if so you are doing a lot more then I would.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Unless of course, they are lumping it in with "international affairs"

I'm not sure where it sits on that chart, but the US spends about $35 billion a year on foreign aid, whereas welfare spending is $1,066 billion (more than half is medicaid).

So the claim that the government looks after foreign countries before it looks after it's own people is wrong many times over.

Lol, that was the claim that I was backing up with my lumped in comment.... I fully recognize (unlike some here) that there are documents and facts out there, ready to be read by those who care to.

I recall a meeting that I had a number of months back with one of the political science professors at my school, and the issue of "foreign aid" was a hot button issue, both in the news, and in class. I forget my question, but her response was basically, "look at the countries that we send food, money or "aid" to, and you will see the majority of the time, there is something for us in return."

Asterios wrote:
and my question is still sidestepped, all i'm asking is where does it say that BLS does phone surveys asking people who are not collecting Unemployment if they are looking for work? its a simple question and if true should be easy to prove.

What exactly is your means of thinking, that you'd question this? Exactly what is that you doubt? Do you think I'm just making up the BLS, or the survey work that it does? If so, why didn't you go and look this up for yourself?

Anyhow, here's the BLS themsevles on the process.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. In 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau took over responsibility for the CPS. The survey has been expanded and modified several times since then. In 1994, for instance, the CPS underwent a major redesign in order to computerize the interview process as well as to obtain more comprehensive and relevant information.

There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys, which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state."

Read through that. Read more on the link, if you want. Then take a long think about how silly you've been in this thread, why you've been that silly, and what you might do differently in future. It really shouldn't be up to other people to establish with you something a simple as the existence of a government survey on unemployment.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Unless of course, they are lumping it in with "international affairs"

I'm not sure where it sits on that chart, but the US spends about $35 billion a year on foreign aid, whereas welfare spending is $1,066 billion (more than half is medicaid).

So the claim that the government looks after foreign countries before it looks after it's own people is wrong many times over.

Lol, that was the claim that I was backing up with my lumped in comment.... I fully recognize (unlike some here) that there are documents and facts out there, ready to be read by those who care to.

I recall a meeting that I had a number of months back with one of the political science professors at my school, and the issue of "foreign aid" was a hot button issue, both in the news, and in class. I forget my question, but her response was basically, "look at the countries that we send food, money or "aid" to, and you will see the majority of the time, there is something for us in return."

problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often, or are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even? or certain Serbian immigrant situations ?

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and my question is still sidestepped, all i'm asking is where does it say that BLS does phone surveys asking people who are not collecting Unemployment if they are looking for work? its a simple question and if true should be easy to prove.

What exactly is your means of thinking, that you'd question this? Exactly what is that you doubt? Do you think I'm just making up the BLS, or the survey work that it does? If so, why didn't you go and look this up for yourself?

someone beat you to directing me there, and I thanked them for something you just couldn't do earlier since I was asking for said information before.

Asterios wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.

ok answer this someone calls you with a survey, do you take time out to answer it? especially if they call around dinner time like most survey takers do? if so you are doing a lot more then I would.

That really depends on the survey. I haven't been called by BLS (they must be made up and aren't really contacting people based on my personal experience ), but if I were, I would take the time as it is important information for a govt. to know. I'm taking the time to discuss something on a Dakka forum with someone who doesn't seem to want to learn anything though, so I might be a bad example.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.

ok answer this someone calls you with a survey, do you take time out to answer it? especially if they call around dinner time like most survey takers do? if so you are doing a lot more then I would.

That really depends on the survey. I haven't been called by BLS (they must be made up and aren't really contacting people based on my personal experience ), but if I were, I would take the time as it is important information for a govt. to know. I'm taking the time to discuss something on a Dakka forum with someone who doesn't seem to want to learn anything though, so I might be a bad example.

I usually don't get that far I hear the words survey and say no thanks and hang up.

Asterios wrote:
problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often, or are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even? or certain Serbian immigrant situations ?

There are projections and estimates... A number of my professional acquaintances have worked in government agencies like the USGS and the like, where their job was to use historical data combined with "up to the minute" data (think, volcanic activity, fault line readings, that sort of thing).

This is why, on a state level, in a state like Colorado, you may hear a negative news report in January stating that the upcoming blizzard will be especially bad, because the blizzard in November used too much of the state's "snow money."


As for reacting to foreign natural disasters, I know from those same people that the USGS works with most other nation's similar bureau's to project disasters, and when things like the Nepal quakes, or flooding/tidal waves around Bali happen, we have some sort of fund that is annually budgeted for, which is in part why we do not always send aid to every single disaster area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.

ok answer this someone calls you with a survey, do you take time out to answer it? especially if they call around dinner time like most survey takers do? if so you are doing a lot more then I would.

That really depends on the survey. I haven't been called by BLS (they must be made up and aren't really contacting people based on my personal experience ), but if I were, I would take the time as it is important information for a govt. to know. I'm taking the time to discuss something on a Dakka forum with someone who doesn't seem to want to learn anything though, so I might be a bad example.

Well, I know back during the 08 economic thing, my dad lost his job, and was on unemployment... Part of the unemployment agreement was, aside from actively looking for work, was also to answer those phone surveys if called.

Asterios wrote:
because those CEO's jobs entail much more then pushing buttons on a screen or making a sandwich, i have never worked a Subway, but can run the register and make sandwiches, its not rocket science nor does it require a degree, unlike being a CEO does.

Except historically CEO pay was a fraction of what it is today. For a long time CEO pay was about 20 times the average company worker. Then it started trending up, before exploding in the 1990s, and is now more than 200 times the average worker. Exactly what changed that made a CEO 10 times more valuable than he used to be?



Thing is, we can point at degrees and other professional qualifications, at hard work and genuine talent for leadership, and sure those things should command a greater rate of pay. But how much? We pretty just shrug and say the market decides, so it must be right. But we also know that the price of labour in any market is heavily controlled by expectations and norms (finance is very well paid more through an expectation that finance is very well paid, than actual demand and supply, for instance). And we know that CEO remuneration boards are screwed, they set the pay for their own CEO based on 'peer' companies that generally include companies much bigger than their own, often an order of magnitude or two bigger.

So yeah, that's the state of executive remuneration. Pretending it's normal or as it should be is a real head in the stand position.

Asterios wrote:
problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often

Do you happen to have anything to back that claim up? I know it's easy to just throw gak against the wall to see what sticks, but it's a pretty nasty habit.

are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even?

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. Where did you come up with that?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often

Do you happen to have anything to back that claim up? I know it's easy to just throw gak against the wall to see what sticks, but it's a pretty nasty habit.

are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even?

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. Where did you come up with that?

he is going by his little pie chart which I ignore since it does not come from a reputable site, but says so much is put towards foreign aid thereby indicating that is all that is put towards foreign aid, so if a natural disaster happens over seas or any number of things, that means our government will say sorry no money in the budget for that?

here is a counter from his site, watch as foreign aid goes:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/foreign-aid/

Unless we want 5 more pages of someone pulling stuff out of their rear, it is really for the benefit of everyone to just walk away and ignore the obvious.

Asterios wrote:
and once again you misquote me, I said you are going by one number when its not the factual number,

Nope. that's nonsense. There are many measures, because underemployment and discouraged workers are also measured. But to claim that the unemployment rate, the number of people who are actively looking for a job but don't have one isn't a factual number is just ridiculous.

and this so called survey you claim and have yet to prove(just checked their site, they do a survey, but not for who is working or seeking work, but for who bought what and where

They survey many things. They are one of the primary sources of economic information for the country. It is what they do, it is what the survey is about. How and why you are trying to deny this is beyond me. You are being utterly ridiculous.

 d-usa wrote:
Unless we want 5 more pages of someone pulling stuff out of their rear, it is really for the benefit of everyone to just walk away and ignore the obvious.

yes that you are wrong, you seem to think fast food jobs are skilled jobs and require what was it 2 weeks you said to train for?

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and once again you misquote me, I said you are going by one number when its not the factual number,

Nope. that's nonsense. There are many measures, because underemployment and discouraged workers are also measured. But to claim that the unemployment rate, the number of people who are actively looking for a job but don't have one isn't a factual number is just ridiculous.

and this so called survey you claim and have yet to prove(just checked their site, they do a survey, but not for who is working or seeking work, but for who bought what and where

They survey many things. They are one of the primary sources of economic information for the country. It is what they do, it is what the survey is about. How and why you are trying to deny this is beyond me. You are being utterly ridiculous.

oh it is a real number, but it is not the actual number of people who do not have jobs in the US. it is a guestimate at best, and thats only on a select few who qualify under their parameters.

 Ouze wrote:
I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.

Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.

In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.

Asterios wrote:
I ignore since it does not come from a reputable site

You have a penchant for ignoring anything that doesn't confirm what you think you already know so that's not very surprising.

says so much is put towards foreign aid thereby indicating that is all that is put towards foreign aid, so if a natural disaster happens over seas or any number of things, that means our government will say sorry no money in the budget for that?

Most likely.

There are lots of natural disasters across the globe every year and we don't help with every single one of them. If something major were to happen (like a massive earthquake or tsunami) even if there was no money left in the, I'm sure we would still offer as much assistance as we could because you know... We're a global leader?

At some point we just need to realize that we cannot win an argument with a learned 40something year old unemployed former assistant manager of various fast food operations. That level of knowledge takes a lifetime to earn, and none of our fancy schooling and training can beat that even if it was more than a week of videos.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.

Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.

In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.

actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again., you know what I quit believe what you want, i'll believe what I want, neither effects me either way, I don't collect SS or will need to, I've got my retirement plan down stat, got my house paid off and survive and don't have a job, so not much more the government can take from me anyway. also don't need a job so don't have to worry about looking for non-existent work and so forth.

Asterios wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.

Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.

In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.

actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again., you know what I quit believe what you want, i'll believe what I want, neither effects me either way, I don't collect SS or will need to, I've got my retirement plan down stat, got my house paid off and survive and don't have a job, so not much more the government can take from me anyway. also don't need a job so don't have to worry about looking for non-existent work and so forth.

Can I ask what your secret is? How does one not work and still have enough money to survive? I have yet to crack this life riddle.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.

Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.

In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.

actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again., you know what I quit believe what you want, i'll believe what I want, neither effects me either way, I don't collect SS or will need to, I've got my retirement plan down stat, got my house paid off and survive and don't have a job, so not much more the government can take from me anyway. also don't need a job so don't have to worry about looking for non-existent work and so forth.

Can I ask what your secret is? How does one not work and still have enough money to survive? I have yet to crack this life riddle.....

Don't you know? His bank account, his hands, or anything else are more than large enough.


I have to believe we're being trolled.

Asterios wrote:

McDonalds has a 30 minute training period...

The only places I have ever worked at which had anything close to a 30 minute training period were canvassing offices, and even then we're talking at least a day of training. In an industry which is noted for being "sink or swim".