And intitial unemployment claims continue to go down.

[Avorysuds]

the other video is better.

 

[Avorysuds]

DEMCAD's Channel - YouTube

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Latest numbers reflelect the fact there are so few jobs out there to loose.

I have been working temp the last two weeks. (Yah!) But the job ends tomorrow.

 

[pinqy]

DEMCAD's Channel - YouTube

Do I need to listen past the first untrue statement? That's at 45 seconds in when he claims the U-3 only counts people unemployed 15 weeks or longer. That's the U-1 and is not the official number. It's at 5.1%
The U-2 is job losers as % of the labor force and is at 4.9%
The official U-3 is all unemployed as % of labor force and is at 8.6%
The U-4 is all unemployed + discouraged as % of labor force + discouraged at 9.3%
The U-5 is all unemployed + marginally attached as % of labor force + marginally attached at 10.2%
The U-6 is all unemployed + marginally attached + part time for economic reasons as % of the labor force + marginally attached: 15.6%

So....tell me how you know the UE rate isn't really 8.6% without redifining terms to mean something different?

 

[Avorysuds]

DEMCAD's Channel - YouTube

Do I need to listen past the first untrue statement? That's at 45 seconds in when he claims the U-3 only counts people unemployed 15 weeks or longer. That's the U-1 and is not the official number. It's at 5.1%
The U-2 is job losers as % of the labor force and is at 4.9%
The official U-3 is all unemployed as % of labor force and is at 8.6%
The U-4 is all unemployed + discouraged as % of labor force + discouraged at 9.3%
The U-5 is all unemployed + marginally attached as % of labor force + marginally attached at 10.2%
The U-6 is all unemployed + marginally attached + part time for economic reasons as % of the labor force + marginally attached: 15.6%

So....tell me how you know the UE rate isn't really 8.6% without redifining terms to mean something different?

As I said, you want he UE number to be 8.6 more than you care about what it really is... There is no point in doing the debate. Next month they could say the UE is 3% and all I could do is say I don't agree.

So, I do not agree that the UE rate is 8.6, I think it is much higher.

 

[grunt11b]

The left always try to find a way to defend there presidents failures. I could care less how they fudge the unemployment numbers, if you look at the unemployment percentage it has not moved, so there is no way in hell I will believe that less people are unemployed now then there where a month ago when that number has not changed one bit.

 

[grunt11b]

I wish there where less people unemployed, but I am not going to pretend it is so. I live in reality, not wonderland.

 

[Oldstyle]

All that shows me is at best we are reaching a bottom...

And how does it show you that? Back in 2000, when the UE rate was an avg of 4% for the year, avg initial weekly UI claims was 303,726. In 2006, pre-recession when UE averaged 4.6%, initial weekly UI claims was 311,343 And in 2009, with 9.3% UE rate, avg initial claims was 565,025
So keeping below 400,000/week is a trend in the right direction.

UE could be 16% right now but we all know it's not 8.6%.

I know no such thing. Please give your sources and methodology disputing the official number. I'm betting you'll just redefine terms, comparing apples to oranges.

The Jobless Effect: Is the Real Unemployment Rate 16.5%, 22%, or. . .? - DailyFinance

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In the week ending Dec 3rd, 528,793 people applied for UI benefits with their state (there's always a surge in the first week of Dec, probably because it's the week after Thanksgiving). Last week, ending Dec 10th, 433,287, (95,506 fewer) applied.

But wait, it's Christmas season, UI claims always go down 2nd week of Dec. So seasonally adjusted to eliminate the usual decrease, the change was from 385,000 to
366,000...a drop of 19,000. 366,000 claims (seasonally adjusted) is the fewest number of claims since May 2008.

In a couple of weeks, we'll get to see how many from state and federal programs are receiving benefits.

Get back to me when you want to use numbers that accurately portray what's going on out there with jobs.

Well, that's monthly with the Employment situation. This is number of claims, and new claims are steadily decreasing, almost back down to pre recession levels.

At the moment we've got the largest number of long term unemployed since the Great Depression

True, though it's getting better.

and when the majority of their benefits run out they simply stop being counted. They literally fall through the cracks in our joke of a system for determining unemployment levels.

Absolutely untrue. The Unemployment rate has never been based on UI benefits. If you're looking for work, you're unemployed regardless of whether you ever applied for benefits or even if you ever had a job.

Also untrue. Doesn't matter if your looking for work or not. The govt does a sample survey to determine UE. Has no bearing on the reality many face as they go uncounted.

 

[pinqy]

DEMCAD's Channel - YouTube

Do I need to listen past the first untrue statement? That's at 45 seconds in when he claims the U-3 only counts people unemployed 15 weeks or longer. That's the U-1 and is not the official number. It's at 5.1%
The U-2 is job losers as % of the labor force and is at 4.9%
The official U-3 is all unemployed as % of labor force and is at 8.6%
The U-4 is all unemployed + discouraged as % of labor force + discouraged at 9.3%
The U-5 is all unemployed + marginally attached as % of labor force + marginally attached at 10.2%
The U-6 is all unemployed + marginally attached + part time for economic reasons as % of the labor force + marginally attached: 15.6%

So....tell me how you know the UE rate isn't really 8.6% without redifining terms to mean something different?

As I said, you want he UE number to be 8.6 more than you care about what it really is...

no, I do care what it really is. Though if you want to be precise, it's really 8.2%. 8.6% is the seasonally adjusted number.

There is no point in doing the debate. Next month they could say the UE is 3% and all I could do is say I don't agree.

Based on what?

So, I do not agree that the UE rate is 8.6, I think it is much higher.[/QUOTE]

 

[pinqy]

Get back to me when you want to use numbers that accurately portray what's going on out there with jobs.

Well, that's monthly with the Employment situation. This is number of claims, and new claims are steadily decreasing, almost back down to pre recession levels.

True, though it's getting better.

and when the majority of their benefits run out they simply stop being counted. They literally fall through the cracks in our joke of a system for determining unemployment levels.

Absolutely untrue. The Unemployment rate has never been based on UI benefits. If you're looking for work, you're unemployed regardless of whether you ever applied for benefits or even if you ever had a job.

Also untrue. Doesn't matter if your looking for work or not.

Yes, it does. Looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week is the question that determines if someone is classified as unemployed. People not looking for work are not unemployed.

The govt does a sample survey to determine UE. .

Yes, and they ask about job search.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well, that's monthly with the Employment situation. This is number of claims, and new claims are steadily decreasing, almost back down to pre recession levels.

True, though it's getting better.
Absolutely untrue. The Unemployment rate has never been based on UI benefits. If you're looking for work, you're unemployed regardless of whether you ever applied for benefits or even if you ever had a job.

Also untrue. Doesn't matter if your looking for work or not.

Yes, it does. Looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week is the question that determines if someone is classified as unemployed. People not looking for work are not unemployed.

The govt does a sample survey to determine UE. .

Yes, and they ask about job search.

You missed the point I see. If your not polled your not counted. The govt is fucking guessing off a god damn telephone poll. It's pathetic. I bet the actual UE number is between 11 and 13%

 

[Toro]

Actually, it has been estimated that using the U-6 methodology - what you call the "real" level of unemployment, it did reach 45%. And then it collapsed.

It was a good report, absolutely no doubt about it. Economists thought last week's 380k was an aberration. Maybe not.

The employment picture continues to improve, albeit slowly.

Econoday Report: Jobless Claims*December*15,*2011

All that shows me is at best we are reaching a bottom... UE could be 16% right now but we all know it's not 8.6%.

Even the depression hung around 20% UE, just because it didn't got to 45% UE didn't mean things were getting better, just that they hit a bottom.

 

[Toro]

Also untrue. Doesn't matter if your looking for work or not.

Yes, it does. Looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week is the question that determines if someone is classified as unemployed. People not looking for work are not unemployed.

The govt does a sample survey to determine UE. .

Yes, and they ask about job search.

You missed the point I see. If your not polled your not counted. The govt is fucking guessing off a god damn telephone poll. It's pathetic. I bet the actual UE number is between 11 and 13%

That's why they do statistical sampling. They can't possibly ask everyone. So they make an estimate.

But you have to demonstrate some sort of statistical bias. What are the methodological flaws in the design of the study?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yes, it does. Looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week is the question that determines if someone is classified as unemployed. People not looking for work are not unemployed.

Yes, and they ask about job search.

You missed the point I see. If your not polled your not counted. The govt is fucking guessing off a god damn telephone poll. It's pathetic. I bet the actual UE number is between 11 and 13%

That's why they do statistical sampling. They can't possibly ask everyone. So they make an estimate.

But you have to demonstrate some sort of statistical bias. What are the methodological flaws in the design of the study?

In all honesty I have no clue what the best method would be as I've been self employed my entire life. I have never applied for it. It just seems to me that a more accurate method should be used.

A sample size poll shows a generic republican beats Obama. But then in the same damn poll a named republican loses. Polls are good indications but far from accurate. We all discredit polls daily on here yet we are supposed to accept these manipulated numbers at face value?

 

[pinqy]

A sample size poll shows a generic republican beats Obama. But then in the same damn poll a named republican loses.

There is a huge, huge difference between an opinion poll and the type of survey used for the Labor Force figures. We're not talking some random number dialing survey here. From Technical Paper 66

The CPS sample is a multistage stratified sample of approximately 72,000 assigned housing units from 824 sample areas designed to measure demographic and labor force characteristics of the civilian noninstitutionalized population 16 years of age and older. Approximately 12,000 of the assigned housing units are sampled under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion that has been part of the official CPS sample since July 2001. The CPS samples housing units from lists of addresses obtained from the 2000 Decennial Census of Population and Housing. The sample is updated continuously for new housing built after Census 2000. The first stage of sampling involves dividing the United States into primary sampling units (PSUs)—most of which comprise a metropolitan area, a large county, or a group of smaller counties. Every PSU falls within the boundary of a state. The PSUs are then grouped into strata on the basis of independent information that is obtained from the decennial census or other sources.

The strata are constructed so that they are as homogeneous as possible with respect to labor force and other social and economic characteristics that are highly correlated with unemployment. One PSU is sampled in each stratum. The probability of selection for each PSU in the stratum is proportional to its population as of Census 2000.

In the second stage of sampling, a sample of housing units within the sample PSUs is drawn. Ultimate sampling units (USUs) are small groups of housing units. The bulk of the USUs sampled in the second stage consist of sets of addresses that are systematically drawn from sorted lists of blocks prepared as part of Census 2000. Housing units from blocks with similar demographic composition and geographic proximity are grouped together in the list. In parts of the United States where addresses are not recognizable on the ground, USUs are identified using area sampling techniques. The CPS sample is usually described as a two-stage sample, but occasionally, a third stage of sampling is necessary when actual USU size is extremely large. In addition, a sample of building permits is selected to provide coverage of construction since 2000. The sample
of building permits is based on listings of new construction obtained from local jurisdictions in sample PSUs.

Each month, interviewers collect data from the sample housing units. A housing unit is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, dropped out of the sample for the next 8 months, and interviewed again in the following 4 months. In all, a sample housing unit is interviewed eight times. Households are rotated in and out of the sample in a way that improves the accuracy of the month-to-month and year-to-year change estimates. The rotation scheme ensures that in any single month, one-eighth of the housing units are interviewed for the first time, another eighth is interviewed for the second time, and so on. That is, after the first month, 6 of the 8 rotation groups will have been in the survey for the previous month—there will always be a 75 percent month-to-month overlap. When the system has been in full operation for 1 year, 4 of the 8 rotation groups in any month will have been in the survey for the same month, 1 year ago; there will always be a 50 percent year-to-year overlap. This rotation scheme upholds the scientific tenets of probability sampling and each month’s sample produces a true representation of the target population. The rotation system makes it possible to reduce sampling error by using a composite estimation procedure2 and, at slight additional cost, by increasing the representation in the sample of USUs with unusually large numbers of housing units.

Each state’s sample design ensures that most housing units within a state have the same overall probability of selection. Because of the state-based nature of the design, sample housing units in different states have different overall probabilities of selection. The system of state based designs ensures that both the state and national reliability requirements are met.

It's a long document. But in short it's not some random opinion call, and margin of error is low. For the Labor Force and the Unemployment level it's +- 0.4% Unemployemt margin of error is higher, of course, at +-2.4%.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And does that take into account those who simply gave up? No
Does it take into account communities hit much harder with abnormally high UE? I doubt it.

 

[pinqy]

All that shows me is at best we are reaching a bottom...

And how does it show you that? Back in 2000, when the UE rate was an avg of 4% for the year, avg initial weekly UI claims was 303,726. In 2006, pre-recession when UE averaged 4.6%, initial weekly UI claims was 311,343 And in 2009, with 9.3% UE rate, avg initial claims was 565,025
So keeping below 400,000/week is a trend in the right direction.

UE could be 16% right now but we all know it's not 8.6%.

I know no such thing. Please give your sources and methodology disputing the official number. I'm betting you'll just redefine terms, comparing apples to oranges.

The Jobless Effect: Is the Real Unemployment Rate 16.5%, 22%, or. . .? - DailyFinance

Like I said...most of that is just redefining terms and trying to say who "should" be counted without a coherent arguement as to why.

For the one actual complaint of accuracy:

Raghavan Mayur, president at TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, follows unemployment data closely. So, when his survey for May revealed that 28% of the 1,000-odd households surveyed reported that at least one member was looking for a full-time job, he was flummoxed.

Let's look...he sampled 1,000 households and asked about looking for full time work. Presumably many of those people were part time workers looking for full time work, so we can't really count them as unemployed. But sample size is an issue, too. The CPS samples 60,000 households every month. 1,000 from a telephone survey is hardly comparable. Gallup does a phone survey of about 30,000 individuals each month and has a UE rate margin of error of +-0.7 percentage points (compared to BLS's 0.2 % points). What's the margin of error for 1,000 that can't be representative of the entire country?

However, Mayur's polls continued to find much worse figures. The June poll turned up 27.8% of households with at least one member who's unemployed and looking for a job, while the latest poll conducted in the second week of July showed 28.6% in that situation. That translates to an unemployment rate of over 22%, says Mayur, who has started questioning the accuracy of the Labor Department's jobless numbers.

His numbers have to be off. Gallup's poll always tracks alongside the BLS numbers with no statistically significant difference. I'm betting his questions aren't the same (Galllup uses the same definitions as BLS) and his sample size is just too small.

 

[pinqy]

And does that take into account those who simply gave up? No

And why should they be counted as unemployed? I can tell you why they're not, but you go first. Start with WHY we calculate the UE rate and what information we want from it. And then explain why adding those who "simply gave up" are important for that. And keep in mind that alternate measures that include discouraged and other marginally attached are published every month alongside the official rate.

Does it take into account communities hit much harder with abnormally high UE? I doubt it.

Sure does. State and local area rates are derived from the National Sample. Hard hit areas like El Centro, CA (>30% unemployment) are certainly included.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Those who gave up should still be counted because they want to work but can't. This isn't a normal situation where jobs are readily available and simply aren't being taken.

At any rate this conversation is beyond my ability to deal with. I'm no math wizard and have never dealt with statistical analysis. Thanks for the articles though.