Replies

This method of rigging the unemployment figures was brought to you by the Clinton administration. They used it, along with their special accounting "methods", to show a booming economy even when the job market/stock market started to slide. They are to blame for this whole damn mess, and if they hadn't been in office, my brother-in-law would still have a job.

Oh yeah, he's been unemployed for two and a half years - IT, UNIX systems security - and he's taken $9.00/hour construction jobs to try and get by since he too is "over qualified" (over 40 with a large family). But since his unemployment benefits ran out, he doesn't show up on the Labor Dept. radar, either...

There's always decent money in driving an 18 wheeler. I know that that's my plan B, if my IT job goes sour; I got my CDL 2 years ago. But I'm also a fed gov worker, so that may not happen. For all recently displaced conservative IT folks, seriously...look into local/state/federal gov jobs. Obviously the politics, bureacracy, "typical government workers" are detrimental to that decision as well as a cut in pay and benefits as compared to private industry. But the job security, (especially when you have a house, wife and kids, and 2 dogs to feed) outweighs all those negatives...at least IMHO.

This method of rigging the unemployment figures was brought to you by the Clinton administration. They used it, along with their special accounting "methods", to show a booming economy even when the job market/stock market started to slide. They are to blame for this whole damn mess, and if they hadn't been in office, my brother-in-law would still have a job.

I'm curious as to how it was done in the past when compared to how its done now. I wasn't aware that the methodology for determining the rate had changed.