Abbott and Costello on Unemployment :)

[Bill Ryan]

.
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 5.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 23%.

COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.

ABBOTT: 5.6% unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right, 5.6% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 23%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 23% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 5.6%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%?

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you're out of work, you're unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a Democrat.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like Hillary.

[OMG]

Hilarious and creatively done! :clapping: :blink:

[ulli]

Thought provoking stuff here.
First thought was about statistics and their importance for politicians in maintaining a high profile in the political arena.
Second thought was about how they then skew those statistics, via double speak, thus sending false signals to the masses.

And finally, back to my own personal ideas about how an alternative society would work, where work matters more than jobs.

Where the 1% of corporate elite and the 99% percent of work force (or job force) has shifted towards a different more mixed bag, like 20% versus 80%. Or better still, 40% versus 60%.
Where maybe one in five people is an employer, and where everyone strives to leave their jobs by the time they are 40 years old, and after that either have independent income, and become teachers, guides, artists, or start their own business, and give jobs to the next generation of college leavers.

Once people have self knowledge they often discover not only how to find more enjoyable jobs or work, but can actually discover higher levels of creativity where money finds them without them having to strive for it.

In such a world those statistics as are discussed in the OP would then be obsolete.

[Cidersomerset]

same sketch updated and modified for Donald Trump ......

4A1v4AkqYJE

=====================================


6ib9N7L9y08

=====================================



f7pMYHn-1yA

[Cidersomerset]

Heres one for you Bill , I have not watched Abbot and Costello for
decades . They don't make movies quite like this anymore....I'm
going sit down have my dinner and probably fall asleep halfway thru.

W4gXmoC5eFI


Totally un PC , an old school farce as the boys go on Safari in
Darkest Africa ( A studio set on the parking lot ) and get
deeper and deeper into trouble.....

After watching that, I now know why they do not make um
like that any more , they were like fore runners to the Carry
on films , which were also based on the old French concept
of farce. Still sometimes its best to keep your heroes in
your memories...LOL

[Carmody]

this is interesting as this is the real unemployment rate in the USA right now.

In Canada, the neighbor, the real unemployment rate is 6.8%.

In Canada those people out of work and not searching are included. ie, a real unemployment rate.

The USA decided, long ago, to fudge the numbers so the real rate of unemployment would not be noted by the people.

The real USA unemployment rate is actually worse than original US depression era.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif/330px-US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif

basically, the USA has a form of 'not quite' universal income. Food stamps. etc. that it is supporting ~24% of the population and their progeny. Sort of. Only half way. Lots of noted starvation level living going on amidst all that.


And, the province of Ontario, Canada, with it's REAL approximate 7% average unemployment rate (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/lfss01b-eng.htm), wants to create a true 'universal income'. And it is being lambasted for the attempt.

Look at what the USA is doing with a real 24% unemployment rate. (real rate of employable but unemployed adults who can work)

Canada can do better with it's true 7% unemployment rate.

Which in the face of what such a thing does for the stabilization of the region and how it actually LOWERS government costs overall..how it is being lambasted by redneck illiterate conservatives as a 'bad thing', a horrible thing that will wreck the economy.

Not really. However, the problem is that people will flock to Ontario for a chance at a free ride.

It would have to be VERY controlled. Otherwise all of the Canadians with predilection for such and all of the world, in general, will try and flock to Ontario. And that would create a horrid mess.

It would probably have to be made universal for Canada, as Canada has borders, while the provinces within, do not.

The trick is to control corporate infiltration. Corporations want to control through starvation techniques and they'll try and control through universal income techniques. They always move into that which can feed them. There is big money through either given avenue of motion and change. Keep the fascism/corporatism out of it and it can very likely work.

Corporate malfeasance and corporate control is why the USA is suffering with a true ~24% unemployment rate. The country and lands were ate up over the past 270-250 years as an effort to launch an attack on manipulating it ...and the rest of the world, by a small group of elites.

Now the system is depleted, the lands razed, the world razed, and it eats what is left of itself, so there is no living memory in the lands....of what has been done to it by the elites who ate and killed it. They are preparing to burn the evidence.

That's the way they always play it out, as a roving international multi-thousand year lived parasite.

[Sunny-side-up]

Nice, a BIG thx for that post Bill :sun:

Ill and sick people have been made worse here in England through the policies of previous governments!
IE they where aloud to be swept under the "Unemployment" figures, doctors where aloud medicate them but not really help them, and so where aloud to just vegetate/stagnate out of society.
Then the recent Government made people on the long term sick list worse again by doing the exact opposite. They where made to go through impossible tests and victimization by phony health workers/doctors who was paid to mainly tick no to the test questions. They made many, nearly all the long term ill far worse, some even taking their own lives.

You basically failed these tests if you managed to turn up and attend them Doh

Just another cover up (As with your great post example Bill) of numbers and or people dealt with as seen fit by the changes of Government.
Nothing human (humane) going on in there ha (Government)

[Mike]

:ROFL:

So funny...and so true.

Been a crappy.morning. I needed that laugh. Thx Bill!

[gord]

Funny stuff. It made these two things pop into my head:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics (http://www.twainquotes.com/Statistics.html)."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

How to Lie with Statistics (https://archive.org/details/HowToLieWithStatistics)

[Justplain]

Bill, thanks again for this hillarious post. Abbott and Costello are classic comedians that newer generations should watch. Your posts are always appreciated. We are blessed to have you mentoring Avalon. Thanks.

Another farce is the government cost of living index. They keep saying its around 1 percent so that anything geared to coli, such as pensions and wages, never rise much. Meanwhile, the average everyday cost rises multiples of this. For instance, dollar store prices are now well over a buck whereas a year or two back they were less by atleast 25%.

[Cidersomerset]

sort of related good discussion ........

OqDjfnSiqXo

[Cidersomerset]

George Carlin - Dropping high explosives on innocent civilians ,Dealing With
Homelessness

By David on 31 July 2016 GMT

ilipDBclxRc

Uploaded on 17 Jan 2012
George Carlin in 1992 performing 'Jammin In New York'. Talking about Bombing
helpless civilians and the issues of homeless people.

===================================================
=================================================


Children’s Hospital Bombed In Syria Amidst Massive Civilian Casualties From US Air Strikes

By David on 31 July 2016 GMT


https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/get-attachment-15-3.jpg

‘On Monday of last week, airstrikes, led by US coalition forces, killed 21 innocent civilians in
Manbij’s northern Hazawneh quarter in Syria. On the following Tuesday, additional strikes
in the region killed 56 more, including multiple children.

Prior to the strikes last week, more than 100 civilians have already been killed in Manbij in
only a short time by US bombs — nearly half of them children.

On Friday, another tragic air strike hit the Save the Children-supported maternity hospital in
Idlib. This hospital serves over 1,300 women and performs over 300 deliveries each month.’

Read more: Children’s Hospital Bombed In Syria Amidst Massive Civilian Casualties From US Air Strikes

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/07/childrens-hospital-bombed-syria.html

===================================================
===================================================


XLaLKEDI8x0

[shaberon]

Here's something I really need to be explained. Pretty sure I am far from alone in this, as having recently become part of the faceless 23%--something I was suspicious of for a while, and was recently confirmed...

My credit is toast, a really big negative, and most employers look at that stuff and then reject you because...well, that's the part I can't come up with a good reason for. I could understand it with reference to a position where you would be handling substantial financial decisions, but why as an entry barrier for general work?

I am going to fail to see the wisdom in this policy while I transport a cat to the "fried credit hideout", but if anyone can come up with some inspiration why the 23% should be so large due to people in that exact circumstance, that would be spiffy!

[Ernie Nemeth]

Never been worried about my credit. Now I have none, and I'm free! Well, I can't rent a car, or book a room, or order an Ubur taxicab, or do a layaway, or get a cell phone, or...

But the best part is that I actually have to save for everything I might need or want. So high ticket items are out - like house and car. And other expensive things like a TV or couch and such can take me years to save for. Case in point: still saving for a bed now for half a year. Won't be long now.

Carmody, I am pretty sure they fudge the numbers here too. If someone is without official work for more than a year they are no longer counted as in the ranks of the unemployed.

Shaberon, I wonder if what you say is true. Is it possible that employers look at your credit before hiring? That is supposed to be illegal, you know. Could it be that is the reason I never get called for an interview? I've been looking for work for six months now and have not even got one interview. My resume is impressive, but maybe only to me.

The Abbott and Costello bit is not too funny. Really, it falls in the sad but true column.

[shaberon]

Well I try to have a sense of humor even during my own demise.

Things might work a little differently in Canada; not sure. Here in the states, checking up on potential employees is totally typical. The last place I worked only looked for violent offenses, so I was ok for them until they went bankrupt and released me.

Many companies nose into your credit as well, and most of them do it in a "blind policy" fashion; bad history, forget you. At smaller companies, a human decision is required; one place I was working had a good candidate and rejected the guy because he used to work in the World Trade Center, obviously, one day, his office went missing, so that led to problems and ruined his credit, and they wouldn't hire him because of that. But with bigger companies, machines just automatically flag you and throw you away. It's legal at least because you consent to such checking.

People have jobs coming up with ways to prevent you from getting a job. It just seems obvious that, if you have bad credit, and no one will hire you, you can't fix it.

[bogeyman]

Reminds me of a statement made at the 1942 Wannsee Conference, always be "distrustful of language".

[Ernie Nemeth]

The whole thing reminds me of an interview process for a job with a security company many years ago.

I impressed them with my resume. I impressed my prospective boss in the first interview and the big heads in the next. Then came the written test, which was only a formality really, since no one had ever failed it. Guess what? Yup, I failed it!

Here are some of the questions they asked:
1) If you saw an employee stealing from the company, would you tell a superior. I said no, I would not - thinking that showed how loyal I am and not a snitch.
2) If you had a chance to steal from the company and would not be caught, would you? I said yes. Because of course I would steal from the company if I thought I could get away with it - since the question states only if I would, which assumes I have a need to. If I had a need to steal, then the need is already my excuse - I don't care if I get caught in that scenario because I need it. But why would I need your screws or magnetic contact or #22 AWG multi-cable in the first place? I don't need anything your company has on hand so of course I wouldn't steal, there is nothing you got that I want or need. And even if I did so what, I am your employee, therefore I am worth a few bucks in material.
3) If you saw a fellow employee doing work incorrectly but the work is not your responsibility, would you tell anyone? No. If it's not my job it is none of my business and the only one I would tell is the worker themselves.

I don't think like the vast majority, so their, to them, obvious questions are anything but to me, since I don't deal in ethics, only morals.

Questions like that are so obvious that to ask them is ludicrous, so the answers should be the opposite of the expected, since the only possible reason for the test is to trick you into answering the obvious.

I answered truthfully when what they wanted was for me to lie to them so as to assuage their untrusting minds. Learned a lot that day...

[Satori]

The whole thing reminds me of an interview process for a job with a security company many years ago.

I impressed them with my resume. I impressed my prospective boss in the first interview and the big heads in the next. Then came the written test, which was only a formality really, since no one had ever failed it. Guess what? Yup, I failed it!

Here are some of the questions they asked:
1) If you saw an employee stealing from the company, would you tell a superior. I said no, I would not - thinking that showed how loyal I am and not a snitch.
2) If you had a chance to steal from the company and would not be caught, would you? I said yes. Because of course I would steal from the company if I thought I could get away with it - since the question states only if I would, which assumes I have a need to. If I had a need to steal, then the need is already my excuse - I don't care if I get caught in that scenario because I need it. But why would I need your screws or magnetic contact or #22 AWG multi-cable in the first place? I don't need anything your company has on hand so of course I wouldn't steal, there is nothing you got that I want or need. And even if I did so what, I am your employee, therefore I am worth a few bucks in material.
3) If you saw a fellow employee doing work incorrectly but the work is not your responsibility, would you tell anyone? No. If it's not my job it is none of my business and the only one I would tell is the worker themselves.

I don't think like the vast majority, so their, to them, obvious questions are anything but to me, since I don't deal in ethics, only morals.

Questions like that are so obvious that to ask them is ludicrous, so the answers should be the opposite of the expected, since the only possible reason for the test is to trick you into answering the obvious.

I answered truthfully when what they wanted was for me to lie to them so as to assuage their untrusting minds. Learned a lot that day...

Spock might agree with your logic, but argue against its utility. I enjoyed your post.