Bcom/275 Article Rebuttal Analysis
Article Rebuttal
BCOM/275
Article Rebuttal
In January, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the United States government stated that in December, 2012 “The number of unemployed, 12.2 million, was little changed, and the 7.8 percent unemployment rate has been at, or near, that level since September [2012]”. (Loyd, 2013) I have always found these statistics somewhat suspect and misleading as they do not take into consideration those that stopped looking for jobs, fell off the unemployment rolls, or took jobs at a much lower pay scale then they were at previously in order to re-enter the workforce.
The first fallacy is in regards to how the government calculates the “number of unemployed”. In the simplest of terms, one would think the calculation is simple, just take the population of the …show more content…
From personal experience, I am all too familiar with being unemployed, then having to take a position at a much lower wage than I was previously getting. In my case, I could not find a job in my career for over six months, and I was one of the “unemployed” collecting unemployment benefits. However, as I needed insurance benefits for my children, I took a position at Home Depot for ten dollars per hour (barely more than I was getting on unemployment, but it included health benefits). This was a far cry from the almost fifty dollars per hour I was receiving in my previous position.
According to the unemployment figures, I would be considered employed and part of the positive side of public opinion for the economy. What the unemployment rate does not take into consideration is the part of the workforce that is now considered “employed”, but in reality is “underemployed”. Between this unreported portion of the unemployment rate, and the fallacy of the rate itself, I will always remain skeptical of this data when reported by the
BCOM/275
Article Rebuttal
In January, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the United States government stated that in December, 2012 “The number of unemployed, 12.2 million, was little changed, and the 7.8 percent unemployment rate has been at, or near, that level since September [2012]”. (Loyd, 2013) I have always found these statistics somewhat suspect and misleading as they do not take into consideration those that stopped looking for jobs, fell off the unemployment rolls, or took jobs at a much lower pay scale then they were at previously in order to re-enter the workforce.
The first fallacy is in regards to how the government calculates the “number of unemployed”. In the simplest of terms, one would think the calculation is simple, just take the population of the …show more content…
From personal experience, I am all too familiar with being unemployed, then having to take a position at a much lower wage than I was previously getting. In my case, I could not find a job in my career for over six months, and I was one of the “unemployed” collecting unemployment benefits. However, as I needed insurance benefits for my children, I took a position at Home Depot for ten dollars per hour (barely more than I was getting on unemployment, but it included health benefits). This was a far cry from the almost fifty dollars per hour I was receiving in my previous position.
According to the unemployment figures, I would be considered employed and part of the positive side of public opinion for the economy. What the unemployment rate does not take into consideration is the part of the workforce that is now considered “employed”, but in reality is “underemployed”. Between this unreported portion of the unemployment rate, and the fallacy of the rate itself, I will always remain skeptical of this data when reported by the