Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 46

Thread: Global Unemployed To Surge Past 200 Million in 2013

  1. #1



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    That is not really all that high compared to 8 billion.
    Last edited by Working Poor; 01-27-2013 at 06:19 AM.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    That is not really all that high compared to 8 billion.
    exactly! I love when people throw out numbers without context.

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    It will be the highest in history, and not getting better , not very good news for the young .

  6. #5
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    19,635

    Default

    Population will also be the highest in history. As a percent of the population, (I don't have figures at this moment) I doubt it would be the highest in history. It was worse during the Great Depression. (200 million out of 8 billion would be 2.5%).
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 01-27-2013 at 12:49 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  7. #6

    Default

    THIS THIS THIS.

    The % of these people is OVERWHELMINGLY THE YOUTH. 16-25 year olds and into the late 20s.

    How the hell is society supposed to work like a well oiled machine when an entire generation, those who are to drive progress for the next 30 years...CANT GET A JOB TO FEED THEMSELVES?!?!

    Look at Greece and Spain...These are first world nations that have slipped into 2nd world status in just a few years...50% youth unemployement.

    The problem is the same in the USA, England, Ireland...

    This is a total rape of all FUTURE endeavors.


    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    It will be the highest in history, and not getting better , not very good news for the young .
    "Like an army falling, one by one by one" - Linkin Park

  8. #7
    Member Pauls' Revere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    California (Socialized Hell)
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Population will also be the highest in history. As a percent of the population, (I don't have figures at this moment) I doubt it would be the highest in history. It was worse during the Great Depression. (200 million out of 8 billion would be 2.5%).
    also, how will it be dispersed? in other words which countries would have most of those unemployed people?
    - SUPPORT FREE TRADE, SMUGGLE -

    2 + 2 = 5.[/CENTER]

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    It will be the highest in history, and not getting better , not very good news for the young .
    I have been thinking about that alot lately, what kind of sick joke is it that the young always pay for the predations of the old. The most innocent are without exception the most affected. The young are not our prey, they are ourselves with less wrinkles.

    It is my ace in the hole on gun debates: Are you willing to force conditions on the future, when you do not know what the future will bring? Best let the young grow with the right to defend themselves, and the unborne too. Stalin may have died, Mao may be dead, Hitler may be rotted, but they will be back... Thats a fact.

    Once liberties are taken they are not peacefully given back. Take the Patriot act and the 4th for example.
    Last edited by bolil; 01-27-2013 at 01:24 PM.
    I yearned for a reason, I sought and I fought only to realize that there are no reasons but the ones we choose.
    As in all things, choose wisely. You are, after all, the aggregate of your choices.

    Choose your reason, become you're reason

    Semper Fi

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    The world's population is 7 billion, not 8 billion. The PDF link to the report doesn't seem to work for me, but 26.3% of the population is younger than 15 and 7.9% is older than 65, and if they don't count those, then the "working age" population is about 4.6 billion, or about 4.3% unemployed.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Population will also be the highest in history. As a percent of the population, (I don't have figures at this moment) I doubt it would be the highest in history. It was worse during the Great Depression. (200 million out of 8 billion would be 2.5%).
    Yeah, tell that to overpopulation deniers.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    The world's population is 7 billion, not 8 billion. The PDF link to the report doesn't seem to work for me, but 26.3% of the population is younger than 15 and 7.9% is older than 65, and if they don't count those, then the "working age" population is about 4.6 billion, or about 4.3% unemployed.
    even that is completely pointless. Are retired people employed or unemployed? does unemployed equate to poor, starving and suffering?

  13. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    Actually , due to population , employment in the US is worse now than the Great Depression.Then there were about 5 people looking for every job available, we have been about 6 to 1 for some time.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Actually , due to population , employment in the US is worse now than the Great Depression.Then there were about 5 people looking for every job available, we have been about 6 to 1 for some time.
    but due to the technology and social programs available, even the unemployed today are much better off than anybody during the great depression.

  15. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    but due to the technology and social programs available, even the unemployed today are much better off than anybody during the great depression.
    But the Govt.'s were in better position then than now because of the burden of cost of those social programs.

  16. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    even that is completely pointless. Are retired people employed or unemployed? does unemployed equate to poor, starving and suffering?
    Only people looking for work count as unemployed. If you're retired or underage, you're probably not looking for work. If those people were included, the US would account for most of that 200 million by itself. There are only about 141 million employed persons in the US.

  17. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    even that is completely pointless. Are retired people employed or unemployed? does unemployed equate to poor, starving and suffering?
    It probably will equate to that when the govt.'s fail .

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    But the Govt.'s were in better position then than now because of the burden of cost of those social programs.
    better position for what?

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    It probably will equate to that when the govt.'s fail .
    well, which country is there yet? And are retired people counted as unemployed?

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    Only people looking for work count as unemployed. If you're retired or underage, you're probably not looking for work. If those people were included, the US would account for most of that 200 million by itself. There are only about 141 million employed persons in the US.
    Cool. So basically unemployed is defined as people who need and want income, regardless of their status?

  21. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    better position for what?
    The govt.'s were in better position to weather the storm of down turn, reduced revenue because they had little debt , expenditures were so much less .No food stamps, no medicare , no social security. Govt was smaller and tried to do less.

  22. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    well, which country is there yet? And are retired people counted as unemployed?
    I think many countries are nearing the point of no return , including the US.Retirement for people under 45 now, will pretty well cease, most likely and even people in 50's and early sixties will likely continue to work or at least part time as long as they are able.

  23. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    By 2016 we could be looking @ around 23 Trillion in debt , not sure if anyone even knows how many trillions of unfunded liabilities on top of that. I think the first Country that backs a currency with any metal , puts everyone elses currency in the dirt.

  24. #23
    Member Pauls' Revere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    California (Socialized Hell)
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    By 2016 we could be looking @ around 23 Trillion in debt , not sure if anyone even knows how many trillions of unfunded liabilities on top of that. I think the first Country that backs a currency with any metal , puts everyone elses currency in the dirt.
    I'd say your pretty spot on and Forecast.com agrees with you.

    http://forecast-chart.com/chart-national-debt.html
    - SUPPORT FREE TRADE, SMUGGLE -

    2 + 2 = 5.[/CENTER]

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    The govt.'s were in better position to weather the storm of down turn, reduced revenue because they had little debt , expenditures were so much less .No food stamps, no medicare , no social security. Govt was smaller and tried to do less.
    aren't you basically saying money is a zero sum game and either it's spent on social programs making the dependents happier, or it's saved and makes government more powerful?

  26. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    aren't you basically saying money is a zero sum game and either it's spent on social programs making the dependents happier, or it's saved and makes government more powerful?
    No , if the govt's are smaller , take and spend less it makes the people more empowered.You have more control of your own destiny in a lifetime . Govt of excessive taxation , spending , debt , war, welfare .... that steals from your planning and abilities to take care of your own and others. Charity is good and should be voluntary.

  27. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    24,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    I'd say your pretty spot on and Forecast.com agrees with you.

    http://forecast-chart.com/chart-national-debt.html
    I am only an old and simple man, this is only what I surmise. I could be wrong , would not mind if I was, using simple math , common sense, I do not feel that I could be...

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    No , if the govt's are smaller , take and spend less it makes the people more empowered.
    So how does government ever increase?

  29. #28
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    19,635

    Default

    A few numbers to compare. In 1933 (the worst year of the Great Depression in terms of unemployment), the total population was 95.95 million and the workforce was measured at 51.84 million (a 54 percent particiaption rate vs 63.6% today so workforce participation was lower http://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_...icipation_rate and the total considered unemployed was 12.83 million or 24.75% of the workforce.
    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

    That converts to 13.4% of the total population unemployed.

    Compare to today's total of 12.2 milllion total unemployed people today http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm (which is about the same total unemployed in 1933) out of a much bigger population of 311 million or 3.9% of the total population.

    Consider also that in 1933 there was likely only one person in a family who would have worked. Them losing their job had a much bigger impact on the family than today where there are often multiple wage earners so one losing their job still hurts- but not as much. Then add in all the unemployment assistance available today vs none then and it is much easier to survive without a job than it was in 1933.

    Things were much worse in 1933.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  30. #29
    Unapologetic Masculinist Origanalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    WA.
    Posts
    17,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post

    Things were much worse in 1933.
    How could that be? They didn't have a war on terror, government education loans to pay back or having to figure out how to get a free cell phone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Fuck sakes, if you shoved a lump of coal up AmeriKa's collective ass, it would shit out a diamond.

  31. #30
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    19,635

    Default

    Many didn't even have phones- and if you did, you probably shared the line with others. Can't find numbers for 1933 but in 1920 only one third of homes had one. http://www.maineahead.com/back-then-3/

    Party Lines

    May 18, 1933, Ellsworth, Maine

    This quartet of telephone operators seem to be calmly doing their jobs in 1933 Ellsworth. But close inspection reveals a scene that may have puzzled Alexander Graham Bell, had he still been alive. A makeshift “switchboard” consists of boards and sawhorses, and the old phones could have been lifted from Ike Godsey’s general store in TV’s Depression-era series The Waltons.

    On the evening of May 7, one day before this photo was taken, the worst fire in the city’s history reduced downtown to ashes. After phone service west to Blue Hill was knocked out, quick-thinking executives set up an exchange in a Victorian home at Church and Oak streets. Operators kept Ellsworth linked to the outside world.

    By 1933, telephones were a mainstay in Maine. Governments often claimed phone system ownership in other countries, but private enterprise prevailed in the U.S., giving way to evolving local and long-distance price structures that impacted Maine. By 1920, more than a third of all households nationwide had Bell telephones. Most had party lines with two to four households on the same circuit. Callers were urged to be brief and courteous—no eavesdropping.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •