The REAL Unemployment numbers: Out Of Work, Out Of Sight

[deacon]

CBS/AP) A falling unemployment rate may be spurring President Bush's prospects for reelection, but it is masking millions of Americans who do not have full time jobs, a newspaper reports.

The Los Angeles Times reports that while the nation's unemployment rate of 5.9 percent is relatively low, it fails to include the 4.9 million people who want full-time positions but are working part-time jobs. The figure also omits 1.5 million people who have stopped looking for work.

Taken together, the total number of jobless reaches 15.1 million — or 9.7 percent, up from 9.4 percent a year ago, the Times reports.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/16/national/main588815.shtml

[pinto]

1. heard three different mentions of employment today from 3 states...

all were about the loss of "head of household" jobs and the growth of low wage, part-time jobs. A $350 tax cut doesn't stop the financial bleeding the middle class is experiencing. Let alone us blue collar folks. We are history.

[54anickel]

2. And no UE extension. I read that would have given 20 times bang for

the buck than the stupid dividend tax cut.

[thinkingwoman]

5. the middle class

will be a myth to our grandkids...a fairy tale about a time they won't even be able to imagine.

The middle class is being destroyed by BOTH political parties. It's a bipartisan issue--them against the rest of us.

It began in earnest during Reagan. It's almost over. Any idea how we can stop it?

[dawgman]

6. kucinich or revolution are the only two answers I see.

[Myra]

7. You're right thinkingwoman.

And it's probably too late to stop it.

[Just Me]

12. How to break the burgoise?

Are we there yet? Where proletariat vs. burgoise,...again? I thought the "rule against perpetuities" was supposed to help to end the class war. But, then we created the fiction of the "corporation", which has the same rights as a human being (only better because human beings can hide behind its mask),...and everything got screwed up, again,...with a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. The experiment of "democracy" at the mercy of greed, arrogance and power-mongering, just like every other experiment in governance.

How to stop it? Matters have to reach crisis level, as usual, before redress will evolve. I don't buy into my own cynicism, entirely, though, since I believe reality is stinging people and having an effect. We simply have to take the individual responsibility of pointing out what is happening, each day, as often as possible.

[Upfront]

16. Yes

Vote for Dr. Dean. He is trying very hard to get America's attention and make them understand the problem as you stated it.

[ramapo]

27. When the middle class gets truly angry

That's when there will be change. There has been a lot of talk but little done for the middle class over the past 30 years. The Republican Party has done a great job fooling a lot of the people a lot of the time. There's been some fooling from the Democrats also.

When housing and health care become unaffordable, when the low-wage service jobs continue to replace higher paying jobs, the "silent majority" may wake up. Until then nothing much will change.

[damnyankee2601]

32. To paraphrase from the (earlier) Nazi era:

When they downsized the unions, I did not care because I wasn't in a union.
When they downsized manufacturing, I did not care because I did not work in a factory.
When they used H1-B visas to crush tech sector wages, I did not care because I did not work in the tech sector.
When Wal-Mart destroyed downtown, I did not care because I lived in a subdivision.
When my neighbor was laid off from Enron, I did not care because I did not even know his name.
When my company sent my job to India, there was nobody left to care.

[brainshrub]

49. You just inspired my next editorial:

I reworked the poem you the way you did. Here's the link:

http://brainshrub.com/Essays/Globalisation_Version_Niemoller.htm

Enjoy!

[screembloodymurder]

48. I'm afraid the middle class is in a coma

and, even if they awake, they won't know who to blame.

[OzarkDem]

41. You're so right

There's absolutely no difference between Bush and the Democrats on this issue. All that prosperity during the Clinton years was just an illusion.

Your lack of understanding of the real issue is noted. Go vote for Nader.

[Demobrat]

3. I like that phrase

"head of household jobs". I hadn't heard it before and it says a lot.

[SoCalDem]

20. Those jobs used to be the norm

men could enter the workforce with a high school diploms, and get blue collar work (often union) that would support a wife and 3 or 4 kids..

My hometown friend's family was a prime example.

Her dad worked a factory job, and did a few nights part time at the local bowling alley.. Her mom worked a few days a week at Sears' candy counter (this was "extra money" for special things my friend and her two sisters wanted)..

They took vacations.. they bought a new car every 4 or 5 years..when someone was sick they went to the doctor... they owned a home (it was not big and fancy, but it was nice)..and all 3 girls went to college..

This was in Kansas in the 60's..

Those jobs are all but gone now, and in their place we have the "hamster-on-the-treadmill" jobs..

[Southsideirish]

4. How come the unions aren't having protests about no xtnded UI?

Just curious...thought they would want to get in on this one.

[damnyankee2601]

33. The Unions have been co-opted by homophobia

The RNC has systematically employed the distractions of false patriotism and homophobia to distract union vaoters from their own economic interests.

[Just Me]

8. Do they include people like me?

Who have been looking for a job for a couple of years but neither collect unemployment or enroll/subscribe to state/federal employment logs? I mean,...who "exactly" are included in the unemployment ratings. If I could get a handle on who they include, rather than exclude,...I might actually get a better feel for a general reality. All I know is the reality I see around me, people across the spectrum of education and experience and age and race and background,...they are hurtin'.

[stickdog]

10. No.

Didn't you notice the cracks when they slipped you through them?

[Yavin4]

11. For Just Me

In NeoCon America:

If you're unemployed for more than a month, then you're not trying hard enough.

If you're unemployed for more than six months, then you're being too picky.

If you're unemployed for longer than a year, then you must've given up, so you're no longer counted.

If you're unemployed for longer than two years and you complain about it, then you're being disrespectful to glorious, fearless leader, Bush! You will be branded as a terrorist.

Now, does that answer your question.

[Just Me]

14. Ouch,...I knew that already,...

,...need no more brain-bashing reminders since I have been all the way through that hell. I wanted the legally "mandated" heads they actually count. I demand some more solid ground to plant my well beaten, already humbled body and feet, thank you very much!!!

[Frodo]

24. Some "solid ground" for you.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The short answer is "yes, Virginia... you do get counted"

Or at least people LIKE you get counted. But it's a poll of a large chunk of the population intended to reflect all of us... so if YOU don't personally receive a visit from the BLS guys then you hope there is one of those 60,000 people they DO ask who represents your situation.

That is, assuming you are still LOOKING for work. If you've stopped looking because "there just aren't any jobs in this economy" then you are a "discouraged worker" (how's your head now?) and don't make the "final cut" on the "official" unemployment number that now sits at 5.9% ... You ARE counted under the higher figure reported in the article (9.7%) that includes you discouraged types AND the millions of people who are "underemployed" - meaning they they DO have a job... it's just part-time when they prefer full-time.

[GAspnes]

39. put me down as a complaining terrorist, then

I've never seen the job market this dry. Reminds me of a dream I had 15 years ago:

I was dressed in a suit, with a briefcase, standing outside a tall chain-link gate. There were hundreds of other men and women with me, all in suits, all with briefcases.

A guy straight out of "On The Waterfront" came to the gate, flanked by armed guards in uniforms. He climbed onto a step ladder, looked down at us and then at his clipboard. He called out,

"I need 2 C programmers with Intel experience. Job lasts 2 weeks, pays $5 an hour."

A dozen people threw their resumes up to him. He scanned them quickly and then pointed,

"You, and you," and to the guards, "Let 'em through."

The two programmers start towards the gate, and one of the men who threw his resume up shouted,

"No! Take me! I'll do it for ... $4 an hour! Please! My children are starving! Four dollars an hour! Please!"

And the man on the ladder looked at the guards, and said,

"Push one of those back. Let him through. But it's $4 an hour for both of you."

The crowd grumbled, some shoving the man who had cried out as he made his way to the gate and slipped through.

The man with the clipboard looked at his list and shouted:

"Now, I need a data base analyst, 3 days ... $4 an hour..."

Thankfully, my dream ended then. I never thought I'd live to see it actually happen.

[MikeG]

9. I'm from Pittsburgh, PA

When Clinton was president, we had 100 homes per month on the Sheriff's Sale list. For the past two years its been 400 per month.

[Yavin4]

13. Yeah, But Clinton Got A BlowJob

and that makes him a bad man in NeoCon America. So there.

[MikeG]

15. Damn his penis!!!

[NNN0LHI]

17. My local paper has more pages of forclosures than job listings n/t

[Erika]

18. Check out www.jobwatch.org

From February 2001 to now, this country has lost 2.1 million jobs. Bush has created 375,000 new jobs, no where close to his promise on what his tax cuts to the wealthy plan said would be created. He stays "in power" much longer and we will have a bankrupt nation.
The pay of the jobs lost averaged at $17 an hour. His replacement jobs average at $14 an hour.

[Erika]

19. Welcome to Dickens' America

Long lines seen in front of missions and shelters of the worn, hungry, and cold people...no jobs. Forty three million Americans without health coverage. The rich getting richer.
Dickens and Hugo would have all they ever dreamed about material for novels.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. actually "Norquist's America" is more apropos

The philosophical paterfamilias of the Bush White House has longe been an admirer of the historical period called "the guilded age", where the President was McKinley, Corporations had equivalent force as govenment, including their own police forces, there was no income tax, no unions, no "impediment to the free markets", no middle class (well a tiny tiny slice of one) and you were either rich or not rich (aka"poor"), just in varying degrees of not rich.

Ahhh, says Norquist, THOSE were the days...sigh.

[damnyankee2601]

35. Dead right...

When watching "A Christmas Carol" this season, I was stunned to hear neoconservative words coming out of Scrooge's mouth.

"Are there no poor houses? I am taxed heavily enough for them already."

Dickens was a genius. He distilled the minds of reactionary conservatives into words that will stay current forever.

[xchrom]

21. america

the corporate republic.

[Venomous_Rhetoric]

22. I was wondering

Here in Canada, when they "calculate" unemployment, they don't count those who's benefits have run out, and they don't have jobs.They just living off someone else. There are about 2-3 million or more people that fall into this category, can't tell for sure, because nobody counts them.

Is that how they do it in the USA as well? If so, you can multiply that number by 10, giving you another 20-30 million or more unemployed.

[Frodo]

36. No.

Our "insured" unemployment rate is only 2.6%. The rest of the 5.9% are people whose insurance has run out or who don't qualify for it. You can add another ~4% for those who are UNDERemployed or have given up looking for a job.

"Some countries base their estimates of total unemployment on the number of persons filing claims for or receiving UI payments or the number of persons registered with government employment offices as available for work. These data are also available in the United States, but they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. In terms of employed workers, the principal groups not covered are self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other, primarily seasonal, worker categories.

In addition to those unemployed workers whose last jobs were in the excluded kinds of employment, the insured unemployed exclude the following: 1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits; 2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (new entrants or reentrants to the labor force); 3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions, for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job; and 4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits. Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment, although having many important uses (one of which is discussed below), cannot be used as a count of total unemployment in the United States. In 1988, for example, when there were virtually no extended unemployment benefits paid to persons who had otherwise exhausted their benefits, the number receiving UI benefits represented only 31 percent of the total unemployed. In 1992, when extended UI benefits were in effect, this proportion was 51 percent."

[Mari333]

23. Michigan is totally F*cked...no jobs here

http://www.detnews.com/2003/census/0312/28/a01-20136.htm

[tokenlib]

38. Are you sure???

The new Wal-Mart Supercenter is hiring up here. Service sector slavery is on the upswing. Just because good decent jobs have disappeared is no reason to be discouraged. The economy is getting better...

Yup, we are F*cked!!

[tritsofme]

25. Does anyone know how that number rates historically?

I'm only asking because I have no idea.

[Frodo]

26. The overall number is about average. But it depends on the makeup.

The number itself is not remarkably high, the low point was around 7% at the best point of the Clinton administration, but he also had whole years where this figure didn't get under 9.7%. The problem is that we don't know exactly how that number was made up.

Some have started using this number because it makes things look worse than the 5.9% they see reported in the press. But it's a normal economic figure... it's just harder to work with because it involves different categories of unemployment wrapped into one... The "unemployed" (by the traditional measure) the "discouraged workers" (those who are unemployed and have stopped looking for a job - not because they don't need one - because they just don't think there are any to be had) and the "undeemployed" (those who HAVE jobs, but PT when they want FT).

Since all three groups get lumped in together, you need to break them apart again to see where you are. "9.7%" COULD mean "9.7% unemployed or discouraged and NOBODY underemployed" OR it could mean "EVERYONE has a job (0% unemployement) but 9.7% have part-time when they want full-time". Obviously, the first 9.7% is much better than the second "9.7%"

You also have to look at HOW LONG people are unemployed. You could have LOTS of people losing their jobs and finding new ones within a month, or the same figure could represent very few job losses, but nobody getting hired, so the same people stay unemployed for long periods of time. In my mind, that second category is MUCH WORSE and is closer to where we stand today. The statistics for Bush Year3 and Clinton Year3 are MUCH more similar than anyone here wants to accept (because they assume we can't beat him if his numbers look like CLinton's)... but that doesn't mean he's REALLY doing as well.

[tritsofme]

42. Thank you very much for that information,

you wouldn't happen to have links where this information is published?

[Tempest]

28. Some info

Bush is behind in his own job creation estimates by 1,259,000.

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20031212-fri.html#anchor0

"There seems to be a real disconnect between the actual numbers on the hiring front and the impressions that have been formed in financial markets. Total nonfarm payrolls have expanded by only 328,000 workers over the August to November 2003 period -- an average of 82,000 per month. That's far short of the pace of job creation that normally occurs at this stage in a business cycle recovery -- somewhere in the range of 250,000 to 300,000 per month. Yet many have been quick to interpret the recent modest pickup in hiring as a sign that Corporate America is finally breaking the shackles of risk aversion and emerging from the funk of recent years. The mix of recent hiring trends tells a very different picture. It turns out that fully 84% of the total increase in nonfarm payrolls over the August to November period is traceable to hiring in four segments of the labor market -- the temporary staffing industry, health, education, and government -- where combined jobs have increased by 68,000 per month. In other words, the bulk of the so-called hiring turnaround since August has been concentrated in either the contingent workforce (temps) or in those industry groupings that are least exposed to global competition. This hardly speaks of a US business sector that has consciously made an important transition from downsizing to expansion. It merely reflects the fact that scale is increasing in the most sheltered and least productive segments of the economy."

[underpants]

29. but but "New Jobless Claims Lowest of Bush Tenure"

IT's offical W sucks less than ever before well sort of kinda on this one issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=292353

[malachi]

30. A falling unemployment rate may be spurring President Bush's

prospects for reelection. After reading the article and finding how many people are in really bad shape jobwise, if this piece of shit gets reelected we are truly finished as a great country. How many of the unemployed do you think will vote and vote for chimpy?

[area51]

31. voting

malachi said:

"How many of the unemployed do you think will vote and vote for chimpy?"

I think most of them will vote ABB in their own best interest. The unemployed know that things have gotten massively bad ever since George W. Hoover took the White House.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

37. There's more people in the job market today than under Clinton

Is that being figured into the mix? Every job that's posted receives umpteen thousand resumes. I also wonder how that works with regard to 'real' job creation (i.e. not Walmart jobs)

[Kat45]

40. Exactly. And that's what makes it so difficult to get a job now.

Even when I knew sombody/had some help getting an interview, the place had recieved a huge number of resumes from highly qualified people. I had to totally change my job hunting strategy because I realized that there was no way I was going to get any of these jobs when competing with people who had every single software skill needed as well as years of experience not only in the particular kind of job but also in the specific field it was in.

I finally found a decent job, but it's only 16 hours a week--nowhere near enough to pay the bills (including cobra) with.

[SharonAnn]

43. Yes, that is figured into the mix. We're talking about the percent

not the absolute number.

[seixon]

44. And....?

The unemployment figure has always left out the "part-timers who want full-time work" stats. Unemployment means unemployment. Since when did it mean "people who don't have the job they want"-ment?

Sure, if you work at Burger King, you would probably want a full-time position at your company of choice. How does part-time equal jobless? That is an insult to all those who have part-time jobs.

People who have stopped looking for work? Well... why? "Because there are no jobs!" Yeah, that's the spirit...

Did the same people give reasons for why they stopped looking for jobs? Maybe they married a rich person? Maybe they don't really need a job? Maybe they don't want a job and can sustain themselves otherwise? Maybe they won the lottery? Who knows. Many people give up on looking for a job, but that rests ultimately on them.

REAL unemployment numbers?
Yes, if you count employed people as unemployed...

[cosmicdot]

45. so, you think 1.5 million people married rich or won the lottery?

Since when did it mean "people who don't have the job they want"-ment?

where did that come from? the CBS statistics/article?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kat45]

47. Because part-time work doesn't allow a person to support himself

I was looking for a full-time job for quite a while, and did not find one. I did find a part-time job, which at least brings in some money, but it doesn't bring in nearly enough money to pay all my bills. So technically I do have a job, but not enough hours of a job to support myself. So although I am working, I am not fully employed. I'm still looking for a job, but am not "unemployed." But I still feel "unemployed."