TUITION INCREASE - da University of Hawaii system

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> [Moderator's note: Bring the discussion back on
> topic, please. --Susan]
>
>
> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1115880600-sch@news.lava.net...

>> I'm not an economist and I don't intend to research
>> this. As I have said, this is a reporting issue. And I
>> don't think that it's a problem to have zero rates
>> reported. And inflation is not a given. It's probably
>> based on a number of assumptions.
>>
> Then why do you make statements about a subject
> matter you do not know about? The reason very low
> unemployment rates cause inflation to heat up is
> simply because people spend what they earn. And the
> fewer people who are unemployed, the bigger the
> problem is.

Yes we do need to bring this problem back to Hawaii. I
am refering to the statement made by Maren in this
thread. Hawaii's 2% rate could just be the number that
are changing jobs. Well, suppose that is the case, then
IIRC people who quit rather than are fired, do not
receive benefits for one month. But if they find a new
job right away, then there is little or no benefits
paid out. Then why report the unemployed that way if
there are no benefits? It's kind of a misleading
statistic. We are really already at zero unemployment
in that case.

Also, you make some assumptions that our population is
stable We actually have an enormous number of visitors
to the islands that are not employed here-- tourists.
Their spending competes with residents and we could
have inflation even without low employment in a number
of areas. But why worry about spending, we expand the
labor pool-- especially at Waikiki hotels-- to
continuously have full employment. Most of the
unemployment you worry about is not reported. But it is
only a small fraction of who receive benefits---
because they have families. People who are single are
simply homeless-- and have been so for a long time.
They don't receive unemployment benefits.

--alvin

In article <1116043816-sch@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net>
wrote:

<snip>

Just a couple of comments:

> Hawaii's 2% rate could just be the number that
> are changing jobs. Well, suppose that is the case, then
> IIRC people who quit rather than are fired, do not
> receive benefits for one month.

If one quits, there are no unemployment benefits, period.

<snip>

> Most of the
> unemployment you worry about is not reported. But it is
> only a small fraction of who receive benefits---
> because they have families. People who are single are
> simply homeless-- and have been so for a long time.
> They don't receive unemployment benefits.

Sadly, a large fraction of the homeless I see daily are obviously families.

Also, you haven't noted it, but people who have been unemployed for long
enough that their
benefits have run out (6-9 months IIRC) and haven't found work, are no
longer counted as
unemployed. The "zero unemployment" is a farcical statistic for large
portions of Oahu... likely
throughout the state.


>
> --alvin
>

On Sat, 14 May 2005, just another wrote:

> In article <1116043816-sch@news.lava.net>, "Alvin E. Toda"
> <aet@lava.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Most of the unemployment you worry about is not
>> reported. But it is only a small fraction of who
>> receive benefits--- because they have families.
>> People who are single are simply homeless-- and
>> have been so for a long time. They don't receive
>> unemployment benefits.
>
> Sadly, a large fraction of the homeless I see daily
> are obviously families.
>
> Also, you haven't noted it, but people who have been
> unemployed for long enough that their benefits have
> run out (6-9 months IIRC) and haven't found work, are
> no longer counted as unemployed. The "zero
> unemployment" is a farcical statistic for large
> portions of Oahu... likely throughout the state.

Actually, I did note it. I think the 2% doesn't reflect
the real unemployment that we have here. IE it's more
than 2%. This is a reporting problem.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1116177308-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> Actually, I did note it. I think the 2% doesn't reflect
> the real unemployment that we have here. IE it's more
> than 2%. This is a reporting problem.
>
That is a phony argument. What is the reported unemployment rate. It is a
number based on a set of established acceptable criteria of what that number
means. So, by definition, it is what it is. To say that the actual number
is either higher or lower, is only valid if you change the definition of
what the number should include, in which case you are comparing apples to
oranges, or you can prove that the way they collect the data, is skewed in
one direction or the other.

On Sun, 15 May 2005, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1116177308-sch@news.lava.net...

>> Actually, I did note it. I think the 2% doesn't
>> reflect the real unemployment that we have here. IE
>> it's more than 2%. This is a reporting problem.
>>
> That is a phony argument. What is the reported
> unemployment rate. It is a number based on a set of
> established acceptable criteria of what that number
> means. So, by definition, it is what it is. To say
> that the actual number is either higher or lower, is
> only valid if you change the definition of what the
> number should include, in which case you are
> comparing apples to oranges, or you can prove that
> the way they collect the data, is skewed in one
> direction or the other.

The definition is pretty clear. But I don't see
agreement on how to measure it. The definition isn't
the same thing as the reported number-- nor is it meant
to be.

The question here because so many choose not to leave,
but will become homeless in the Leeward area, is
actually how much unemployment do we have? It might be
good to allow some supervised temporary shelters to be
build on City parks, so voters can pressure the state
to release some funds for the problem. The homeless are
invisible when they squat on beaches off Makua and
Makaha.

---alvin