Question about reporting on the economy ...

[ColbertWatcher]

Every day all the networks reserve a space on their screens to the Dow, where it is and where it's going.

But no other indicator is discussed on a day-to-day basis.

I don't see a space in the corner every Friday showing that bank that closed that week, I don't see the unemployment number or the number of people on food stamps.

I can kinda understand why the TV only shows the Dow--because it moves around--making it for "good TV." What I can't understand is why the viewing public seem to be satisfied with this level of reporting.

It wasn't that long ago when Stephen Colbert's Jewish Friend trashed Jim Cramer as a representative of bad financial reporting. Where's the follow up?

Was there a change that I missed?

I've always thought that whenever the quarterly profits are bandied about, that the CEO's salary should be as well.

When it comes to the economy, besides the Dow, what else would you like to see reported with more frequency ?

[OhioChick]

1. Layoffs and Outsourcing. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

5. Oh, that would be good! n/t

[napi21]

2. Wellll................

Unemployment isnn't tracked on a daily basis, so that's why they don't report it daily.

Most of the networks are tracking "consumer confidence" at least several times a week, but it's done via polls. Who knows how accurate that is?

The stock market really IS a decent barometer on the economy. You have to realize that it's people and institutions with the big money that make the market move, and when they move it up, it improves consumer confidence, thus improves spending, thus expands demand that enables hiring.......

It's all a very intertwined spiral network with everything depending on everything else.

I honestly can't think of anything that could be reported on a daily basis that would enable us to see anything more clearly.

[ColbertWatcher]

4. I understand that, but ...

... it does seem that reporting on the economy is done in the laziest way.

[CoffeeCat]

3. I would like to see the REAL unemployment numbers!!!

We have the reported unemployment number--which is the number of people who are collecting unemployment. Therefore, they
are in the system, they've filled out the paperwork and they're on the unemployment rolls.

That is not the complete picture! That number hides the REALITY of the American economy.

The following people are not counted as "unemployed" but they should be. Their situations detrimentally affect the economy, that's
for sure.

---People who quit looking for work (discouraged workers) and are no longer collecting unemployment
---People who are working less than full time, because their company can no longer afford to give them more hours. So,
they work part time--hanging onto their jobs but not working as much as they have in the past.
---People who have been unemployed for so long that their unemployment benefits expire and they can no longer be "on the
unemployment rolls". They're out of the system, but they're hurting.
---The underemployed. Many people have taken ANY job, because they can't find work in their field or they can't find
a job at the income they were previously making. I have a friend with 10 years experience as an architect. She's
now working as an office assistant at a city-planning office. She's making half of what she did before. This is common, and
it's not counted, because these people are unemployed.
---People who have taken pay cuts, participated in furloughs or have had health benefits or other benefits cut. I sometimes
wonder if companies take this route to avoid the bad press that ensues when a company lays off workers. Cut salaries by
10-20 percent, and it happens quietly. Our family took a $1,000 per month paycut, and I can tell you that are spending has
been drastically reduced. We're in panic mode, as if we were unemployed.

All of this is hidden...There is no widely disseminated statistic that reveals how many people are either unemployed OR fall into
one of these categories.

I bet the percentages is close around 20-24 percent nationally. The hidden reality...

[pinqy]

6. Again with the misinformation

"People who quit looking for work (discouraged workers) and are no longer collecting unemployment"

Unemployment insurance has nothing to do with the Unemployment rate...it's not asked about at all. People who aren't looking for work won't find work so they're hardly a good measure of the difficulty of finding work. It's too subjective.

"People who are working less than full time, because their company can no longer afford to give them more hours. So, they work part time--hanging onto their jobs but not working as much as they have in the past."

For any rational measure, people who have a job shouldn't be counted as unemployed. Because they're employed. Part-time for Economic reasons (people working part-time because their hours have been cut, work is slow, or they cannot find full-time work) are counted and those numbers can be tracked. There's no need to lump them in with people who can't find ANY work except as an alternative measure (and that's done).

"People who have been unemployed for so long that their unemployment benefits expire and they can no longer be "on the unemployment rolls". They're out of the system, but they're hurting."

Completely untrue....again Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the Unemployment rate...it doesn't matter in the least how long you've been out of work, just whether or not you're actually looking for work.

"The underemployed. Many people have taken ANY job, because they can't find work in their field or they can't find a job at the income they were previously making. I have a friend with 10 years experience as an architect. She's now working as an office assistant at a city-planning office. She's making half of what she did before. This is common, and it's not counted, because these people are unemployed."

No, they're Employed because they have a job...that's kind of the definition of Employed. Besides which, there's no way to objectively determine on a statistical basis what job someone "should" have. Some people choose to work at a "lesser" job.

"People who have taken pay cuts, participated in furloughs or have had health benefits or other benefits cut. I sometimes wonder if companies take this route to avoid the bad press that ensues when a company lays off workers. Cut salaries by 10-20 percent, and it happens quietly. Our family took a $1,000 per month paycut, and I can tell you that are spending has been drastically reduced. We're in panic mode, as if we were unemployed."

That has nothing to do with Employment status. Those figures are tracked in various other surveys that track pay and benefits.

With the exception of "underemployed" (working below your qualifications) everything you mention is calculated and tracked. There's no reason to include any of them in the definition of Unemployed because the methodological difficulties would be huge and it would distort what the UE rate is supposed to monitor, which is objectively how difficult it is for someone to get a job.

So none of this is "hidden," you just don't know where to look.