Holy crap!! CNN just reported the truth behind unemployment numbers.

[Robin Hood]

The reason that the unemployment numbers went down is not because of job creation but rather because the people that were unemployed were no longer eligible for unemployment and there for no longer counted as unemployed.

I have seen posts here over the last few months asking if people off of unemployment are counted in the unemployment numbers. There has been a lot of confusion on this issue, but CNN reported this morning that no they are not counted once their unemployment runs out.


So, What is the true unemployment numbers? 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%. Who the hell knows? Why can't the world's super power keep accurate numbers of their populations unemployed? Hell, they got numbers for every other stupid pop science study done, but they can't get accurate numbers for something as serious as lack of livelihood?

Now this issue can be put to rest, people that run out their unemployment are no longer counted as unemployed.

[Redleg]

1. I heard that too.

People are not counted as unemployed if they stop looking for work. Some economists try to account for some of those things but the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not.

[Chef]

2. Unemployment

There was a piece on (I think)PBS last night that added back in the number who have given up, those in prison whao were working when arrested, etc. and the real figure was above 10%.

[Robin Hood]

6. And how many in the work force?

THere are 350 million people in this country. let's say half are not of working age. So that leaves us with 175 million people. 10% of 175 million is 17.5 million people without work.

[DagmarK]

34. I think the US has about 250 million.............I could be wrong......

but i take your point.

[GiovanniC]

55. Actual numbers

As of 2000 Census, the total US population was 281,421,906.

[Mairead]

75. We have abt 285M people, abt 205M voting age, abt 200M working age

(by 'working age' I mean people who want/need to work, regardless of age)

Oh, and the government does keep the true figures, but they don't publish them--for obvious reasons. I read one report that said a good rule of thumb in a long recession is years x official figure, so that would make the true unemployment number around 18% (3 years x 6%) now.

(edit)The official rate is called the U-5 rate, while the full rate is the U-7 rate.

Let's get Kucinich into office--he's the only one talking about a jobs program.

[chiburb]

32. The REAL Numbers:

PAUL SOLMAN: When the government adds the white-collar unemployed to out-of-work urban youth, plus the manufacturing workers who've borne the brunt of the recession and jobless recovery, it comes up with an average official unemployment rate of 6.4 percent, highest in a decade, and more than 50 percent higher than it was just two years ago. Now, there is a positive way to look at it. Today's 6.4 percent is nowhere near the post-depression record of 10.8 percent, set back in the recession of 1982. Chicago-based John Challenger, however, in the outplacement business since the early '80s, says unemployment is much worse than the official number suggests.

JOHN CHALLENGER: 6.4 percent only tells the first part of the story. There are discouraged workers. There are people who have been marginalized, and that puts unemployment up over 12 percent.

PAUL SOLMAN: 12 percent?

JOHN CHALLENGER: They're being pushed out of the workplace. They're being deskilled. The problem is much deeper than it looks.

PAUL SOLMAN: John Challenger's extreme claim, first made to us on the phone, is what motivated this story, and what we came to Chicago to explore: That today's unofficial unemployment rate is much higher than the official 6.4 percent. And in fact, what we found suggests that for men in the workforce, today's number actually rivals the 10.8 percent record of 1982, because, it turns out, there are four factors suppressing today's official number, at least for men: Millions more discouraged workers than there were in 1982; millions more on disability; nearly 1.5 million more incarcerated men; and finally, there's a demographic factor. Today's is an older workforce. To make it comparable to 1982, the economists we spoke with would adjust today's number upward for that reason alone. And the same is true for each of these categories. Take discouraged workers, who aren't officially counted as unemployed unless they say they actively looked for work in the past four weeks.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/unemployment_07-29.html


The lives of a farmer, the lives of a doctor should be running parallel. Shrewd politicians meet wealthy morticians, do they really burn in hell? "

[loudsue]

51. OMG! ..."nearly 1.5 million MORE incarcerated men" !!!???

There is a VERY insidious trend going on in this country that more people need to be paying attention to:

POINT 1. 1.5 million people is about 1 in 300 U.S. Citizens who are in jail. But this article says "1.5 MORE incarcerated MEN" (how many women?) than there were in the depression of 1982.

POINT 2. A great number of the new prison cells built in the last 15-20 years, are built by private corporations, who get a contract (money $$) from the State & Fed. government to house/feed/drug these prisoners. In the past 20 years, there have been (a little over) 10 times more new prisons built than schools.

POINT 3. Prisons are contracting out VERY cheap prison labor to huge corporations. Many people in prison owe (sometimes outrageous) fines for their crimes, as well as the prison time they do. And they are often given very little time after they get out of prison to pay those fines. Some are not ALLOWED out of prison until they pay their fines. (Many of these U.S. prisoners are in jail for drugs...not many of the BIG drug dealers get put away, so a lot of these people are small potatoes.) So being able to work all day at $2 or $3/hr. is a way to pay those fines. Many prisoners don't even make that much, while doing assemblyline work (electronics, etc.) during their time in prison -- while the corporations that run the prisons, and their buddies, the corporations that get REALLY CHEAP labor, get even richer and richer.

POINT 4. Voting districts are based on population numbers. Prison populations count toward the number of people living in a district. Repukes have been building their "privatized" prisons in areas where there is a slight but critical active repuke majority. This is why there are so many fights, nationwide, going on over redistricting....and why the redistricting lines are often so bizzare looking....they're reaching out to pull in population centers that help their majority status, edging out and marginalizing Dem areas wherever they can, and hoping to get numbers who won't vote against them in their districts. Prisoners don't get to vote!

This trend...more prisons/cheap labor/fewer schools....is, to me, the epitome of what the neocons want for this country. And so much of it is what is behind the "Killer D's" in Texas fighting for their lives, politically.

If only "1.5 million men" were incarcerated, that's still one out of every 300 people (men OR women) incarcerated. But it's "nearly 1.5 million MORE men"!!!! than during the 1982 depression. THAT'S A HELLUVALOTTA MEN!!!!

So, how the hell many of America's population are locked up?? (Pre-1982 prisoners still there, and how many women??) One out of 250?? One out of 200?

With the way this is going....it's going to be one out of 10 Americans locked up, working for $2 or $3 bucks an hour.

<sarcasm> Hmmm! Sounds like a good economic plan to me! <sarcasm off>

And it's our tax dollars keeping these prisons under construction, and keeping the CEO's of the prison contract corporations in mega-bucks w/ perks and parachutes, and then we're still paying the regular high prices for the products assembled and built in those prisons, just as if they were made by a dude with a REAL JOB with a family and a future.

Something is way too scarey about this picture. Too much of that "republican love of God & country" for my taste.

:kick::kick::kick:

[amazona]

56. it's a return to slavery NT

.

[Simeon Salus]

100. Agree

This is the battle for wage slavery Huey Newton foretold in the 60's.

They have the money, we have the right ideas.

This may get bloodier, kids...

[drdigi420]

71. This is a result of the drug war

Mandatory minimum sentences are putting people in jail for longer for non-violent 'crimes'.

Why do you think the prison-industrial complex spends so much money lobbying for tougher drug laws?

[FlashHarry]

3. Um, this may be facile, but...

...the IRS knows how many people are working and the Census Bureau knows how many people there are living... so couldn't the government simply subtract the number of people working from the total number of adults between 18 and 65 to figure out the number of unemployed? (Factoring out those on disability, etc.)

I mean, jeez, we're 'the greatest country in the world,' right? Can't we figure this one out?

On edit: Apparently, Wall Street's figured it out....

[w13rd0]

5. Too much fuzzy math...

...they can't handle that sorta thing...

[zoidberg]

19. Couple reasons

There are many people who don't work because they willingly decide not to. People retire early, raise a kid, or do other things with their time. So it's meaningless to count those people as unemployed. It's important to know how many people want to work but aren't. IRS figures won't tell you that.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

92. Also the Chronically Unemployed

People whose unemployment benefits have run out and are no longer counted in the rolls. Twenty years ago these were manufacturing workers, now it's skilled white collar workers.

[quinnox]

4. Because it would make the prez look bad

I agree, the true number should be calculated and given. But I guess it is too embarrassing for the president, or they are worried about what it would do to markets, such as the NYSE.

Note, I am not only referring to Bush here, in general, whoever the prez is at the time would have a worse time if the true numbers were given.

[zoidberg]

7. Issue is not put to rest

You are drawing faulty conclusions. When somebody stops looking for work, they are no longer part of the labor force and are not counted as unemployed. People can stop looking for a number of reasons: they can retire, they can decide to take care of a child, they can become discouraged. The unemployment rate IN NO WAY depends on how many people receive unemployment checks.

Indeed, if you (or the media) took the time to actually read what the BLS puts out, you'd be surprised by the details of their work. For example: In July, about 1.6 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Of the 1.6 million, 470,000 were discouraged workers who were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as child-care or transportation problems. (See table A-13.) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So even if you include those people, the unemployment rate would only go up by about 1.1%.

[Robin Hood]

13. That is not what CNN reported.

They said that the reason unemployment numbers went down is because peoples unemployment ran out and they are no longer counted as unemployed.

[zoidberg]

16. I don't give a damn what CNN said

Do you have a link by any chance? I think I trust a primary source from an apolitical government institution much more than second hand information from somebody on an internet message board. And even if CNN did say that (I bet anything you didn't hear correctly), then they are wrong.

[Robin Hood]

23. Yeah, I must have heard it wrong.

Evrything is OK, nothing to see here folks.

[DagmarK]

36. The reliable number is that 9 million people would work if they could

That's A LOT of people.......

How many is that per state? That's 180,000 per state (if each state had the exact same number, of course).

That's larger than the population of the city limits of Portland.

Imagine 180,000 people concentrated and camped out in one georgraphical area in your state.....all of whom would LOVE to have a livable wage job today.

And combine the employment ads for all cities and towns in your state and do the math.....

ASTOUNDING>.............

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. Pardon me, zoig

But who really gives a fuck who you trust and who you don't trust? It's good to see that you trust (and link to) the federal government over another poster here who transcribed something he/she saw on television.

People run out of unemployment compensation every week when they're still looking for a job. If you don't want to hear about that, why don't you get the hell off of the "internet message board" that you don't trust in the first place. Do you really think you can come here and pass judgement on what's said and act as though your word is final? I have news for you--no one gives a damn what you think.

[zoidberg]

46. Very mature

Two months ago CNN was the devil, now they are the gospel truth. Give me one link that even suggests what the original poster implies and I'll take everything back and kiss everybody's ass. I think I can pass judgement when it is a basic point of fact that is being disputed. I haven't said a thing about people who run out of unemployment insurance. All I said was that these people are still counted as unemployed. I'm waiting for refutation of that point.

[rasputin1952]

96. If you listen to the 'unemployment' numbers when they come out...

They always begin with, "the number of new unemployment claims is (whatever number, let's say), 15,300, for the week ending_______".

Then will come the percentage, let's say 5.7%.

Those that have left the roles, either by becoming employed, or by exhausing their benefits, are no longer counted. It has been this way for years. Since the Depression, when there was no unemployment insurance fund, the numbers have been skewed. During the Depression, it is said that 25% of the population was unemployed. That number only included those that were layed off or fired from industrial and service jobs; rarely, if ever, are the agricultural jobs mentioned.

In any case.....once you are off the roles; you are no longer a part of the calculation, employed or not. I do not have the link handy, but you can look up the facts on the Dept. of Labor site.

[zoidberg]

97. I'm going to slam my head into the monitor

I've linked the facts on the Dept of Labor site many times. But it looks like facts mean nothing to a majority of the people here. A survey is done (another poster here knows much more about this than I do) each month to determine unemployment numbers. They do count the number of claims, but that is in no way used to determine the unemployment rate.

[smirkymonkey]

42. Wow, you are pretty sure about things, aren't you?

No two ways about it. However, I take it with a grain of salt considering that the source is someone who believes in "apolitical government institutions." Interpretation of "objective" data is quite another thing, and open to debate.

[Zero Gravitas]

27. Why overcomplicate things?

If a person a) wants aj ob & b) doesn't have a job then they are "unemployed". It is irrelevant if they are "discouraged" or not, wehter they looked for a job in the last 4 weeks or not, or whether they are recieving unemployment payments. These criteria only serve to minimize the number of unemployed to make it easier to sweep the problem under the rug.

[Robin Hood]

28. Absolutely.

Like a shell game.

[zoidberg]

29. "Want" is much too subjective to measure

Ask a guy if he 'wants' a job and of course he'll say yes. But if you ask him if he's done anything about it in the past month, you might get a different answer. And as been posted elsewhere, unemployment payments have nothing to do with determining the unemployment rate.

[Zero Gravitas]

49. OK then

unemployed = not having a job (unless they are retired or a student).

It doesn't matter if they've done anything about it in the last month or not, they still don't have a job. If they look every day for a year and do not get a job, then quit looking for a month, all of a sudden they stop being unemployed? Rubbish!

[zoidberg]

50. What about stay at home moms?

Should they be unemployed? What if you take a year off after college to volunteer somewhere? Are you still unemployed? It's more complicated than you make it out to be.

[Zero Gravitas]

52. good point

ok retirees, students, & stay at home parents don't count as unemployed. This stuff about not looking in the last four weeks is just obsfucation though IMO.

[DagmarK]

37. Heck, I am unemployed. Not getting unemployment. No one has called me.

Not one statistics org on earth has counted me in their numbers..........

[Robin Hood]

38. i am about to be layed off.

And no it past years when my unemployment ran out. No one called to ask if I was still unemployed.

[zoidberg]

39. It's called sampling

They don't have to call every person in the country (or even that many really) to get a pretty accurate view of what's going on. You sound like the Republicans who got pissed when the Census wanted to use sampling to include under-represented groups.

[DagmarK]

54. Ah ha! You are foiled zoidberg. Your numbers are from some POLL?

CALLING a SAMPLE is all about polling. It isn't about obtaining REAL data. Real data seeks ALL the numbers.


And many on DU take POLLS for what they are worth -- a drop in the bucket and most likely skewed for many reasons.

[zoidberg]

63. So is all statistics bunk?

A representative cross section of a population can give you a pretty damn good estimate of the entire population. It's not like they make a thread on DU and ask, "Are you unemployed?"

If you can figure out a way to call 200 million people every month, I'd love to hear it.

[BiggJawn]

78. OK, Zoid...

When these folk's benefits run out, what's their incentive to waste time every week waiting in line at the job centre just to "report in" as still actively seeking work?

Your reasoning is faulty. It is in the best interest of the BFEE (or any Government, for that matter) to count as "unemployed" only those people getting benefits. It's a built-in safety valve for them, since everyone drops off the unemployment benefit rolls in time, the numbers stay low. and in those months where more people exhausted benefits and dropped into Limbo than there were new claims, the chimp gets to go on TV and crow about how "Unemployment is DOWN! the Tax Cuts WORKED!!"

It's at least Libertarian, if not out and out Republican to insist that a "discouraged worker" isn't unemployed because he "chooses" to not look for work. sounds like something Limbaugh would say...

[Aries]

83. They call people up at home...

they don't have to "show up at the call center", of which there aren't that many anymore since claims are taken by telephone in most states. The Census Bureau calls up the households in the monthly survey, and asks them whether they looked for work in the past four weeks. If yes, and they are not working, they are "unemployed".

There are plenty of things to be paranoid about, but this is not one of them.

[zoidberg]

87. *sigh*

The BLS has a survey that they do every month. They've been doing it since the Great Depression. They ask around 60,000 about their employment situation. They use that information to determine the unemployment rate. They don't have to 'report in' to anybody to be counted as unemployed. When mister BLS survey man calls and asks you if you've looked for work, all you have to do is say 'yes'. Perhaps you should look at the numerous links I've posted before you question my reasoning.

[Mairead]

82. That's the U-5 number you're quoting--the 'official' rate

The full rate is captured by the U-7 statistic...but try to find current U7 numbers on the BLS site.

[zoidberg]

88. What is the U-7?

I can only find U-1 through U-6. And using the BLS site, U-3 looks like the 'official' unemployment.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/business/5962629.htm

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

[zoidberg]

89. Eureka!

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

The U-1 through U-7 series was replaced by the U-1 through U-6 series back in 1994. That's why you can't find the U-7 number. But keep looking for a conspiracy.

[Mairead]

99. Thanks for the clarification

You do realise, I hope, that giving U3 as the official number while virtually hiding U6 is not an improvement over giving U5 while hiding U7. You do realise that, right?

[Mairead]

98. Apparently that change was made in a quiet way, since there seem to be

a lot of people who don't realise that it happened. But good that it's cleared up.

[cosmicdot]

8. let's have junior* give us an extemporaneous explanation

of the figures ... since he's all learned and knows fuzzy math when he hears/sees it and stuff ...

there sure are a lot of people on the road during the day ... not sure where they're all going, or if they're coming or going, or if it means anything at all ... may just need bread and milk ...

how are self-employed consultants/independent contractors handled in the figures ... if someone does software consulting (basically outsourcing by the hiring company), and is 'between jobs' ... which could be a day or years ... can these folks claim unemployment or are they 'unique'

[papau]

9. Per PBS/NOVA - We are above Reagan 83 level if counted the same

The magic number is estimated as 16.6%, higher than the equivalent method 16.3% of Reagan 83.

The above factors in the non-violent (mostly black crack users) in the prison system, the discouraged, - indeed it workes backward from total folks to total folks that could be employeed and compares to those actually working. So now about 83% of us have jobs.

A further study reviewed the hidden disaster of high pay jobs to India making folks previousaly making $70,000 per year into Burger King and Wal Mart $18,000 per year clerks.

But let's not talk about it in the media - might upset Bush - God only knows how much the GOP will scream at PBS.

Could someone memo Dean and Kerry and Gep and Dennis and Meet the Press about this?

[zoidberg]

12. But that assumes nobody in prison would get a job

Let's say all non violent drug users were released (as I believe they should be). Compared to the population as a whole, would they be more or less likely to be productive members of society? Surely some of these prisoners would contribute in a positive way to the economy. Add in the savings to states from smaller prison population, and this might be a net positive. So it's not right to just assume that all people in prison would be unemployed.

[On the Road]

10. NPR Had a Great Analysis on Wednesday Evening

They looked at the unemployment rate now (6.4%) versus its 1982 post-WWII high of 10.2%.

They then factored in changes in things like discouraged workers, prisoners, and people on disability, all of which take people out of the workforce and artificially lower the offical unemployment number.

When you look at all the reasons people are not working, today's unemployement is 17.8%, even higher than the comparable number in 1982.

chiburb beat me to it by finding the link and posting it:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/unemployment_07-29.html

[Nederland]

11. CNN is Wrong

I have seen posts here over the last few months asking if people off of unemployment are counted in the unemployment numbers. There has been a lot of confusion on this issue, but CNN reported this morning that no they are not counted once their unemployment runs out.

I seriously doubt that is what CNN said, but if they did they are wrong.

[Robin Hood]

15. I must have imagined it.

And so did the other poster on here who heard it as well. So, either CNN is wrong or we must have heard them wrong?

[Nederland]

30. Yup

See zoidberg's post #25

[berry]

47. Fred Katayama repeated it just now on Judy Woodruff's show.

Standing on the floor of the stock exchange, he said the drop of .2% in the unemployment rate was because of people running out of unemployment benefits, and so they were no longer counted. Anyway, the message is that just because the rate drops does not mean there are more jobs. In fact, the number of jobs lost went up by 44,000 (I don't remember the time period this covers)--and this number comes from surveying companies about jobs they have eliminated (one way or another).

[zoidberg]

48. The message is correct, the statement isn't

What he should have said (if he knew how these things work) is that people who no longer receive unemployment benefits become discouraged and then stop looking for a job. I'm sure there are plenty of people who only 'look' for employment to keep the check coming, and then once the check runs out, they stop looking. But I wish people would stop repeating the lie that BLS used unemployment insurance records to calculate the unemployment rate.

[arcane1]

21. how do they keep count of the unemployed, then?

going door-to-door?

:shrug:

[zoidberg]

25. Well, basically

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques2
Where do the statistics come from?
Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey.

[arcane1]

45. this actually works?

I've never seen such a survey, nor has anyone I've asked... I doubt if I would fill it out and mail it, either.. seems like this would be even less reliable than just going by unemployment data..

[HFishbine]

14. Snippets

From the Bereau of Labor Statistics for July, 2003
-----------------------------------------------

- the number of unemployed persons was 9.1 million.

- The labor force participation rate fell to 66.2 percent.

- In July, about 1.6 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were
marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Good news! If you don't have a job, but haven't looked for one either in the past four weeks, you're not unemployed!

[Robin Hood]

17. I'm sorry, but...

Who the hell gives up looking for work when they are unemployed? No matter how many rejections you get, looking for work at least gives one hope. Who would stop looking for work when the bills keep piling up every month? Do they count homelessness?

[bicentennial_baby]

24. Me!

I tried for 6+ months, and gave up. I live in a small town, only so many to go round. I'm in school now, and very happy to no longer be looking for a job, for the time being.

[Robin Hood]

26. Yes, but.

You are in school now, probably getting retrained for another job. That is hope.

[amazona]

58. in school getting more in debt, is that really hope?

How many times can people keep investing their time and money in being trained and retrained when the playing field keeps changing under them?

[robbedvoter]

18. Here's the link to dept of labor numbers

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
Click U-4 or 5 (then retrieve)and you'll see that the number is 6.6 - it went up, not down!

[DagmarK]

20. nationwide.....it is about 18%. But there's more......

for young black males, it is 35%

If you are in Oregon...where the feds' numbers say 8.7%, then you raise that to about 23%.

Source: PBS News Hour.....special report earlier this week.

[Robin Hood]

22. I am in Oregon

And the State is devastated by the Bush economy. Foreclosures are at an all time high.

[DagmarK]

33. I am in Oregon as well........

and we are just sooooooooo screwed!!!

(I was remiss......PBS didnt give the number I gave for Oregon. I am just rounding our numbers up .....in a guesstimate).

but I think it is SAFE to say that 1/5th of all Americans willing to work are out of a job. 1/5th.

[chiburb]

43. See my post #32... Link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=113564&mesg_id=113865&page=

[Wonder]

31. I don't think those that fell off unemployment

due to claim expiration EVER WERE included in unemployment stats. I am glad if this is confirmation of that. Of course with all the conflict in news reporting I will not be at all surprised if a freeper comes up with stats to refute these. Debating tactics are oh so so much fun!

[zoidberg]

35. And how did you draw that conclusion?

Unemployment insurance is in no way used to determine the unemployment rate. That is a fact that's been proven on this thread (unless somebody cares to challenge the BLS FAQ page regarding their own methods). So why would you claim that people drawing unemployment were never counted as unemployed? Your logic baffles me.

[DagmarK]

40. I don't think that FACT has been proven.......

data is compiled based on the number of applications filed each week at the state unemployment offices.

But, hey, if you want to believe that everything is honkey-dorey.....and that we are all in a twist about a whole lotta nuthin'.....by all means, carry on. But, shouldn't you be getting some work done? Cause you are obviously someone who isn't unemployed. Somehow looking at the numbers when YOU ARE ONE adds a little more depth and couriosity about what it means.

[zoidberg]

44. My head is spinning

All I did was correct a blatant and persistant piece of misinformation that shows up on this board at least once a day. The unemployment statistic is NOT determined by how many people are on unemployment. Unless you can somehow prove that the BLS is lying on their website about THIER OWN METHODOLOGY, then there is no reason not to take them at their word, especially given the complete lack of other information.

I've never argued that everything is honkey-dorey. I'm just letting people know how things work. An emotion plea does not change the fact that I have posted.

[DagmarK]

57. And you are making REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS

which is not too appreciated around these parts!

"I'm sure there are plenty of people who only 'look' for employment to keep the check coming, and then once the check runs out, they stop looking."

yep.......people just send out resumes if it gets them $100 a week. yep, these unemployed people don't want to work. They are just a bunch of lazy welfare scabs.......

"they stop looking" -- How dare you.

[zoidberg]

65. Give me a break

How dare I what? Tell me you've never known anybody who half-assed looked for a job just to keep the check (probably much more than $100 a week) coming. There are plenty of George Costanzas out there.

[jafap]

85. been there, done that

Unemployment was like my first paid vacation in about ten years. It was $193 a week, so it did not pay very well. Sure I milked it for all it was worth, but if it had run out I can not afford to drop out of the labor force. I would have had to move 300 miles and take my old temp job back. They were still talking about extended benefits back then.

[ferg]

53. Because that "fact" is wrong

There are three sets of statistics

1) Each week they report on the number of new unemployment insurance claims. This weeks number was 388,000. It's called "Initial Claims".

2) Each month they survey businesses and ask how many people they have hired.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm

That number shows that we've lost 400,000 jobs since July of last year.

3) Each month they report unemployment numbers. This is based on a survey and has nothing at all to do with unemployment insurance. That's the 6.2% number.

3a) People who are no longer looking for work have "dropped out of the labor pool", i.e. they're no longer counted. This has nothing to do with unemploment insurance, but is based on their response to the survey.

3b) However, that survey is pretty weird, because it ignores people who "aren't actively looking for work", i.e. people who haven't either sent a resume by mail or had an interview in the last 4 weeks. A more accurate unemployment rate is something like 10% because that 10% includes "discouraged workers", but even that 10% doesn't include stuff like people starting school.

The 10% number is reported here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

CNN: probably meant to report that the "labor pool" dropped by 500,000 (based on the survey.) Since those 500k aren't "part of the labor pool", they don't count in the 6.2%, which is one reason the 6.2% number is pretty bogus.

However, if CNN reported that the 500,000 was because of "unemployment insurance running out", instead of "dropping out of the labor pool" then they're just plain wrong.

[ferg]

70. Oops. I'd meant the "fact" is correct.

[Catshrink]

59. 4 weeks 'til my unemployment runs out....

But luckily, my job starts in two weeks. I've been on unemployment since March. Arizona's payout is max $205/week. It's something like $500 in Washington State.

[Ruminator]

61. motives

I think the government doesn't wan't to bother finding out who is genuinly unemployed but not getting unemployment benefits, and who is a stay at home mom who dosn't wan't a job because if the government doesn't they don't have to give an accurate figure of who is unemployed, which would make them look even worse.

[sendero]

62. exactly...

... the official numbers are vastly understated, and if the methodology they used to come up with those numbers actually worked, they'd change the methodology to understate again.

The government, and this is not just Bush* but whoever is in charge, doesn't really want to tell the truth about this, that would be "bad for the economy".

[geniph]

73. It's $444 in Washington state

unless it's changed since the last time my husband filed, a couple of months ago.

That's the MAXIMUM.

[Catshrink]

81. I stand corrected

I just knew it was a lot more than Arizona....

[bluestateguy]

60. Also

Summer unemployment numbers tend to go down because of all the kids doing summer jobs, hence the EMPloyment rate goes up, reducing the unemployment rate. Come late August, the numbers return to equilibrium. This .2% drop is nothing real.

[ferg]

69. summer jobs

Hmmm. Interesting point

In theory, since the kids are joining the labor pool and because teen unemployment is pretty high, there would be a bigger jump in the labor pool and a smaller jump of employment so unemployment should go up. For example, 1 million kids might be looking for jobs, but only 500,000 got jobs.

However, I would bet that most kids who did not get jobs would answer "I'm not looking for work" if asked during the summer. So only the kids with jobs would answer that they're employed and the unemployment rate would go down.

Also, there's the question of who answers the phone. Does the kid answer or does Dad or Mom answer for the kid.

Yet another reason why the unemployment number is dodgy at best.

[Yavin4]

64. Zoidberg Is Correct About How The UE Rate Is Compiled

They do indeed take a telephone poll and use that poll to produce the UE rate.

With that said, taking such a poll is also highly manipulative. From my classes in stats, you can get a poll result to say whatever you want it to say based on your selection of the sample. For instance, they can poll a lot of military towns which would have higher employment rates because of the build up to war and ignore an entire state like Oregon which has been devastated by the IT outsourcing movement. There are a multitude of ways to make that UE number look like whatever you want it to look like.

IMHO, the responsibility for compiling the UE rate should be taken away from the DOL because it's too important to be used as a political football.

[zoidberg]

67. BLS is pretty independent from the DOL

Every employee at BLS is civil service (opposed to political appointee), except for the Commissioner who must be confirmed by Congress. Sure there are plenty of ways for data to be manipulated, but that power is less likely to be abused in an agency like the BLS than anywhere else. To the best of my knowledge, BLS has never been used as a political football. But I think that a great deal of oversight and openness is required.

[zoidberg]

72. One more thing

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homtoc.htm

You can take a look at the BLS Handbook of Methods to figure out exactly how they come up with the numbers. It details sampling and all that other fun stuff. You might be interested since you are so into Stat.

[Aries]

79. Another point...

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not pick the sample in the Current Population Survey, from which unemployment data is derived. The Bureau of the Census does the sample selection AND the actual survey under contract for the BLS. The Census Bureau...the people Democrats were supporting during the brouhaha over statistical sampling in the 2000 Census. So it's not a political football, at least in the way the numbers are collected. Although you could argue that the definitions of unemployment and employment under-represent economic distress. You only need to work for ANY pay at all, even 1 hour or less, to qualify as EMPLOYED, for example.

Also, to be unemployed all you have to do is tell the Census survey enumerator that you have looked for work in the past few weeks. There is nothing in the survey questionnaire about unemployment benefits, and I've seen it, because I do the unemployment data for one of the states, using BLS-prescribed (and funded) methods.

This question comes up on DU a lot, and now apparently CNN is perpetuating misinformation. What a SURPRISE! They've NEVER done THAT before!!!

(Edited for emphasis)

[DemoTex]

66. This country runs on lies.

Unemployment statistics are just another of the many lies. In December 2002, the Bu$h regime quietly dropped one of the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports - Mass Layoff Statistics - because the numbers were getting so bad. Labor statistics generated by Bu$hco are not to be believed. Labor statistics from Bu$hco are as useless as certain WMD dossiers.

Lies, lies, lies.

[zoidberg]

68. Whatever

The Mass Layoff Statistics are back in business. Do you perhaps have one shred of evidence that any numbers put out are lies? It's very fair to question if unemployment statistics should cover discouraged workers or the underemployed (in fact, some measures do include that, they just aren't reported), but it's not justify to question the validity of the numbers. But perhaps you are sitting on information to back up your claim.

[Robin Hood]

74. They have already lied about the numbers before.

What makes you think that they are telling you the truth right now?

[Rex]

76. The BFEE brought it back after the WP caught them.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085481/

"The administration muzzles routine economic information that's unfavorable. Last year, for example, the administration stopped issuing a monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report, known as the Mass Layoff Statistics program, that tracked factory closings throughout the country. The cancellation was made known on Christmas Eve in a footnote to the department's final report—a document that revealed 2,150 mass layoffs in November, cashiering nearly a quarter-million workers. The administration claimed the report was a victim of budget cuts. After the Washington Post happened to catch this bit of data suppression, the BLS report was reinstated. (Interestingly, President George H.W. Bush buried these same statistics in '92, also during a period of job losses. They were revived by President Clinton.)"

These guys make Nixon look like a saint.

EDIT- added the link.

[Centered]

77. Too many factors and sometimes not enough

It is easy to see that the jobless rates need to be looked at more carefully yet it is also important to realize that more factors should be brought into play.

I would like to find statistics about the percentage of unemployed who lost jobs at certain income levels. It would be one thing to say there are 1 million jobless however if 30 percent of those lost jobs earning less than 10 to 15,000 per year then it would be a case of not wanting to go work in retail or bussing tables etc and the actual figue would be less. (perhaps a poor example but I hope someone sees my point.)

I would also like to see stats on the effect NAFTA has had on these figures as well as 9/11 Does anyone know how badly the travel/resort industry was hit as well as how much they have recovered since then? How many jobs have moved to Canada and Mexico because labor unions are increasing the cost of industrial goods compared to cheaper labor out of the country.

What were the total effects of the ENRON fold as well as the effect on accounting firms and brockerage houses (i.e. Fidelity Investments and H&R Block both cut their workforces as a result of the ENRON rap going to accounting firms and people losing faith in the stock market.)

The recent Stikes at Seaports and Trucking coupled by the shutdown of San Francisco ports and streets by protesters could also have affected these figures.

Does anyone have or know where to find that information? Also what is the average unemployment rate based on population from the 1970s 80s 90s and today? As we can factor these things in they would give us a good idea of how bad things are VS how good they could be.

I would like to make an educated decision on the situation before I lean one way or the other on the situation. Perhaps we could start a thread on ideas to stimulate growth in unemployment.

[leftofthedial]

80. And then there's underemplyment

I am working at a paying job about 25 hours per week after being laid off twice since the Bushco junta seized power. I'm making about a third of my 1999 income.

I'm not "unemployed" by any measure, but I'd sure like to find work like I once had.


I think the actual number of the completely unemployed in the US is about 17 million, or about 12%. I use 1.5 employable people in each of 109.3 million households to determine the number of employable Americans. By unemployed I mean those who actively want to work but can't find a job. I do not base this definition on any of the government's caveats and criteria such as whether or not people are drawing unemployment benefits or have actively searched in the last 4 weeks. Many industries are so depressed that actively seeking emplyment is futile.

[Robin Hood]

84. Same here

I the last year, I have been working at a part time job as well, for 25 hours a week. My insurance is pro rated, wich means that I pay about 200.00 a month for the insurance. After all is said and done I am making 1,000.00 a month for driving a city bus.

I might as well work at Burger King, If they'd hire me.

[sendero]

86. the Cheap Labor Republicans...

.. are remarkably effective at scuttling the economy to drive down labor costs :)

[PassingFair]

90. You and me both...

4 years ago, my husband and I paid more in TAXES than we make now. Many, many entrepreneurs, homebased business and selfemployed people are crashing right now. Many, many more are running up incredible credit tabs trying to hold on to their stuff, or downsizing.After 12 years in business for ourselves, I had to take a low paying job so that we could get health benefits. My husband is staying in the game, working and watching the kids thru summer. Hopefully, biz will bust open and we'll still be there to vacuum up some jobs.

Point is, people like us are not even entitled to unemployment, so we don't show up in the stats, and we are legion!

[xray s]

93. Your post says it all

We should stop our obsession with "lies, damn lies and statistics" and start paying attention to the real world.

[gulliver]

91. True! Why isn't there a poll?

Do you consider yourself unemployed?

Do you consider yourself under-employed?

...

[PassingFair]

95. I was unemployed

now I'm underemployed, but by the stats, I guess I'm "newly employed". Wow! A bush-era Horatio Alger. Riches to rags to, well, rags!

[are_we_united_yet]

94. Perhaps this CBS new article

Will clear things up.

(I trust them more than CNN)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/01/national/main566203.shtml

[treepig]

101. people! people!! people!!!

having quickly scanned this column, zoidberg is correct, cnn is wrong (and it's not easy for me to agree with a character from FOX television so i'm not just saying that).

anyway, another way to look at things it to accept the statistics, however they're compiled, and just focus on the comparision between bush2 and previous times.

basically, when clinton left office there were 132,436,000 people with jobs and 5,297,440 unemployed people.

over the past 50 years job growth has averaged 2.07% a year, therefore if bush2 created jobs at the average rate over the 2.5 years since he was installed in the wh, there would now be 6,960,330 MORE jobs. but since there aren't any new jobs, maybe we can consider that this lack of expected job creation has left 6,960,330 people jobless who would be otherwise employed?

in fact, there are now 2,566,000 LESS jobs than when clinton left, so let's add those into the mix too, and the total number of unemployed are:

5,297,440 from when clinton left office
6,960,333 from jobs that have not been created as expected
2,566,000 from jobs that have been lost

14,823,773 is the total number of unemployed

and with 129,870,000 people still working for the time being, the unemployment rate is therefore (14,823,773)*100/(14,832,773 + 129,870,000) or 10.2%

see, who needs government statistics when you can easily come up with your own?

on edit, more fun with statistics:

In order of relative job growth:

Kennedy/Johnson: +3.67%/year
Carter: +3.26%/year
Clinton: +2.59%/year
Reagan: +2.20%/year
Nixon/Ford: +2.03%/year
Eisenhower: +0.87%/year
Bush I: +0.64%/year
Bush II: (-)0.78%/year

Republican average: 1.358%
Democratic average: 3.156%
Overall average: 2.070%

by just looking at the numbers, it might not be obvious that there is a huge gap in the rates of job growth between republican and democratic presidents. but if the rates were to be projected over the next fifty years, here's what happens:




note that with democrats continually in office, the total number of jobs would exceed the population!! that would mean, among other things, that all the children would have to start working, like in bangladesh or in the middle ages. i can just see the media having a field day with this type of analysis (along the lines of 'be sure to vote republican because the democrats want to bring back child labor . . .)