So is the unemployment rate twice what is being reported?

[seemslikeadream]

:shrug:


http://www.nypost.com/seven/12092008/business/obama_white_house_is_in_for_a_nasty_surp_143334.htm




Right now, the unemployment rate would be more than twice as bad if you go back to the way this figure used to be calculated.

In 1994 the Clinton White House decided that the unemployment rate needed to be modernized.

So anyone who had been out of work for at least a year was no longer counted as unemployed - they were just too lazy and discouraged to find work.

Those clever Clintons also changed the way the questions were asked, so that more people would drop out of the unemployment statistics.

[leftofthedial]

1. more than twice.

It was between 12 and 15% in July, before the flood of layoffs.

raygun made the deepest changes in the unemployment statistic, knowing that his supply-side policies would create the illusion of a strong economy as long as the unemployment propaganda hid the problems of the commoners.

[havocmom]

2. When the numbers tell a sad tale....

fudge the numbers!

Seems to be a long-standing tradition with American pols.

[drmeow]

3. I thought Reagan had been the one

who made the change in the way unemployment was counted. It was Clinton?

[Phred42]

15. This is NY Post remember.......

I'd check that before repeating it.

[slampoet]

32. Reagan decided to count ALL THE MILITARY as Employed. He's the first one who started manipulating,

[shraby]

4. They're forgetting that in the Reagan years,

people didn't have to go to an unemployment office for their checks and to give job search reports. After initial sign-up it was all done by mail, thereby eliminating long unemployment lines that could be put on the nightly news.

[stopbush]

30. IIRC, Reagan started the practice of counting the military as being

part of the workforce, which wasn't done before.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. My bad, never mind

:yoiks:

[TahitiNut]

14. WRONG! This is an Urban Myth ... repeatedly corrected here and elsewhere.

It takes almost NOTHING to get the FACTS. Read about the Current Population Survey on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website.
http://www.bls.gov/bls/unemployment.htm

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. I was confusing two different metrics; my apologies

I did some research starting with your link and found that there are A LOT of different measures that get called "unemployment." The National Unemployment Rate, the number released today, is not the one I described.

I sit corrected. :hi:

[TahitiNut]

28. Let's never confuse "unemployment CLAIMS" with the unemployment rate.

Yes, the number of CLAIMS for Unemployment COMPENSATION is reported periodically, but it should NEVER be confused with the unemployment rate(s). The Unemployment Rate(s) ((there are SIX of them tracked by the BLS)) are based on the Current Population Survey (CPS or "household survey") conducted by the Bureau of the Census and the Employment Rate is based on the "establishment survey." These statistical surveys are fed into a computerized stochastic model and reported monthly. As in ALL statistical models and the surveys upon which they're based, there are techniques and assumptions that change over time. Over the last 30-40 years, these techniques and assumptions have been modified (major and minor) AT LEAST two or three dozen times. The BLS reports on every change, the vast majority of which are so esoteric that only professionals understand them.

[amdezurik]

17. do try to check things out first

your knee-jerk attempt to blame Clinton first has betrayed your hidden agenda.

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

This was the law signed by President Clinton which "ended welfare as we knew it." Among many other changes, it required that people find work and leave the welfare system within two years of starting to receive assistance, and placed a maximum life-time cap of five years of benefits. It added many restrictions regarding who qualified for benefits and shifted the bureaucratic burden of management and oversight from the federal government to the states, who had to shift a great deal of money away from what was available for benefits to cover the overhead.

While this law did not directly affect state unemployment insurance programs (which provide benefits to people who are able and willing to work and who are actively seeking employment), it still had a profound impact. In most states, you must be unemployed for several months before you can draw unemployment benefits; in the past, many people relied on federal social service programs such as food stamps to get through this period. Also, there has always been a limit to how long you can draw unemployment; in a tight economy -- especially now, when so many American jobs have plain vanished -- people have needed federal assistance in the event that their unemployment runs out and they have been unable to find work. Since 2001, there has been a growing population of Americans who have run out their "lifetime" social benefits limit and are still unable to find livable employment. If they are between jobs and have no income, they are screwed.

[babylonsister]

6. NYT: Grim Job Report Not Showing Full Picture

Grim Job Report Not Showing Full Picture


By DAVID LEONHARDT and CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: December 5, 2008


As bad as the headline numbers in Friday’s employment report were, they still made the job market look better than it really is.

The unemployment rate reached its highest point since 1993, and overall employment fell by more than a half million jobs. Yet that was just the beginning. Thanks to the vagaries of the way that the government’s best-known jobs statistics are calculated, they have overlooked many workers who have been deeply affected by the current recession.

The number of people out of the labor force — meaning that they were neither working nor looking for work and that the government did not consider them unemployed — jumped by 637,000 last month, the Labor Department said. The number of part-time workers who said they wanted full-time work — all counted as fully employed — rose by an additional 621,000.

Take these people into account, and the job market may be in its worst condition since the early 1980s. It is still deteriorating rapidly, too.

Already, the share of men older than 20 with jobs was at its lowest point last month since 1983, and very close to the low point of the last 60 years. The share of women with jobs is lower than it was eight years ago, which never happened in previous decades.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/business/economy/06idle.html?em

[Idealism]

7. Firstly

Don't read the NY Post and take it as gospel.

Second, go to the Bereau of Labor Statistics, they have broader measures of unemployment, namely the U6. The U6 measures "discouraged" people who have lost their job and no longer looking (those out of employment for more than I thought 6 months; perhaps its a year) and those "underemployed" (people who are working part time but who would like to be working full time). The U6 currently says 12.5% is unemployed/underemployed/discouraged, which is close to double the standard unemployment rate. In 1940, the least unemployed year of the great depression, unemployment was 12.5%-- so technically we are at the same level.

[Doremus]

18. Unemployment in 1933 was almost 25%.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

[Idealism]

23. I didn't say 1933 did I

In 1940, when the US was starting to come out of the depression, the lowest point of unemployment was 12.5%

[Doremus]

24. Ah ha.

least unemployed year, aka the year with the highest employment

Now I gotcha.

:hi:

[Idealism]

25. Yeah sorry for the wording

Still waking up :)

[Doremus]

27. No worries.

BTDT. With frequency. :)

Take care.

[blueclown]

8. Do we have a better source than the NY POST?

I searched the Shadow Stats website and couldn't find anything at all about this.

[seemslikeadream]

10. I would check the NYT but there was this little thing about Iraq

[PDJane]

9. Yes is the short answer.

[madokie]

11. I would say the true number is much closer to 25% as it is to what ever they say it is

Those numbers were originally and are still now intended to mislead and mislead only.

[Phred42]

12. Ever read Kevin Phillips: Numbers Racket? - This is a better explaination

Here's your answer.......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Numbers Racket
Why the economy is worse than we know
KEVIN PHILLIPS

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2008/Pollyanna-Creep-Economy1may08.htm

If Washington's harping on weapons of mass destruction was essential to buoy public support for the invasion of Iraq, the use of deceptive statistics has played its own vital role in convincing many Americans that the U.S. economy is stronger, fairer, more productive, more dominant, and richer with opportunity than it actually is.

The corruption has tainted the very measures that most shape public perception of the economy—the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), which serves as the chief bellwether of inflation; the quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which tracks the U.S. economy's overall growth; and the monthly unemployment figure, which for the general public is perhaps the most vivid indicator of economic health or infirmity. Not only do governments, businesses, and individuals use these yardsticks in their decision-making but minor revisions in the data can mean major changes in household circumstances—inflation measurements help determine interest rates, federal interest payments on the national debt, and cost-of-living increases for wages, pensions, and Social Security benefits. And, of course, our statistics have political consequences too. An administration is helped when it can mouth banalities about price levels being "anchored" as food and energy costs begin to soar.

The truth, though it would not exactly set Americans free, would at least open a window to wider economic and political understanding. Readers should ask themselves how much angrier the electorate might be if the media, over the past five years, had been citing 8 percent unemployment (instead of 5 percent), 5 percent inflation (instead of 2 percent), and average annual growth in the 1 percent range (instead of the 3–4 percent range). We might ponder as well who profits from a low-growth U.S. economy hidden under statistical camouflage. Might it be Washington politicos and affluent elites, anxious to mislead voters, coddle the financial markets, and tamp down expensive cost-of-living increases for wages and pensions?

Let me stipulate: the deception arose gradually, at no stage stemming from any concerted or cynical scheme. There was no grand conspiracy, just accumulating opportunisms. As we will see, the political blame for the slow, piecemeal distortion is bipartisan—both Democratic and Republican administrations had a hand in the abetting of political dishonesty, reckless debt, and a casino-like financial sector. To see how, we must revisit forty years of economic and statistical dissembling.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ALSO

The only Republican I can think of worth listening to. This thing is 3 hours long and worth the time.

CSPAN-2 BookTV

In Depth: Kevin Phillips

Upcoming Schedule
Saturday, December 13, at 9:00 AM EST

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9941&SectionName=In%20Depth&PlayMedia=No

Or watch now

About the Program
Author, former political strategist and historian Kevin Phillips will be our guest for In Depth on Sunday, December 7 (LIVE from 12 to 3 pm ET). Mr. Phillips was formerly a special assistant to the U.S. Attorney General in 1969 and was a regular political contributor to CBS News, NPR, and the Los Angeles Times. He is the author of over a dozen books including, "The Emerging Republican Majority," "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich," "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush," and his latest book "Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism." You can join the discussion by calling in during the program or by e-mailing your questions to [e-mail].

About the Author
Kevin Phillips is the author of "The Emerging Republican Majority," (1969) "Mediacracy: American Parties and Politics in the Communications Age," (1974) "Post-Conservative America: People, Politics and Ideology in a Time of Crisis," (1982) "Staying on Top: The Business Case for a National Industrial Strategy," (1984) "The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath" (1990), "Boiling Point: Democrats, Republicans and the Decline of Middle-Class Prosperity," (1993) "Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street and the Frustration of American Politics" (1994) "The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America" (1999) "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich," (2002) "William McKinley," (2003) "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush," (2004) "American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money" (2006) and "Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism."

[seemslikeadream]

19. Thank you love me some Kevin Phillips

:hi:

[Phred42]

22. YW - me too

[Selatius]

13. About 13% unemployment, if you follow U-6 unemployment figures, not U-3.

Everybody reports the U-3 unemployment figures, but the definition is a little too narrow. If you add in the people who were defined away during Clinton's changes, it's probably a bit higher than that.

[Lerkfish]

16. at least twice, probably closer to triple

because unemployment figures do NOT count people who've been unemployed long enough to run out of unemployment benefits.

[defendandprotect]

20. The rigged statistics have large impact --- especially re unemployment --

Considering long-term unemployed -- and this attack on labor got real active

beginning right after coup on JFK -- I'd guess it's at least double -- and

maybe more ...

GOP was heavy after these issues -- and Clinton offered no resistance --

Bill was, after all, DLC and moving to the right on policy making only takes

us backwards into world of Robber Barons and GOP's "third world America" --

[TahitiNut]

21. The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps SIX different measures of unemployment ...

... depending upon WHO you would include or exclude from that measure -- including discouraged workers and the underemployed.

See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force ....................... 2.5

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force .... 3.7

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate) .......... 6.5

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers ............................... 6.8

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers ....................... 7.6

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.. 12.2

[Greyhound]

31. At least twice. n/t

[robertpaulsen]

33. The stats have been rigged on both unemployment AND inflation.

Thanks for reminding everyone of how unemployment numbers are constantly lower than reality. Inflation is rigged too, because the price of oil and the price of food are no longer used to calculate the inflation rate. I'm not sure if this started during the Reagan, Bush or Clinton years, but that is the reality now.

Even if the price of food was used to calculate inflation, food companies have found ways to sneak around that. There was a piece on The Today Show this morning about how companies like Frito-Lay and Skippy keep the price frozen but reduce the amount they sell per package.

:hi: