RRC Archives

caribe wrote: Did you feel that you had to translate/ clarify that statements that I included with the graph?

Well...yes, since what you were trying to say was apparently not clear to me.

caribe wrote: That calculation is simple, and you know from the news that the negative integral (absolute value of the area between the curve and the zero line) must approximately equal 10% of the total jobs in the USA.

How would I know that from the news? This graph shows dx/dt, as do most news reports. That is very different than dx/x. The given information makes no assumptions on total jobs available. 10% unemployment does not imply that the total jobs lost is equal to 10% of the total jobs out there. Some of those unemployed may just be entering the workforce and have never been employed to begin with. They would not even appear on this chart since their jobs were never "lost".

mike_a_lafontaine wrote:10% unemployment does not imply that the total jobs lost is equal to 10% of the total jobs out there.

point taken

sympathy toward the other side will not be tolerated. purity is freedom.

Oh yeah and after your unemployment runs out they drop you from the unemployment roles. So the actual numbers are higher.

but wouldn't that be a business solution adopted by government?

your sarcasm is lost on me.

I really like this unemployment debacle that went on, and is still ongoing, today. O's got it right.