April Jobs report looks dismal, March numbers to be revised????

[pinqy]

And we already know that if you are unemployed receiving unemployment benefits and your benefits are exhausted you are no longer considered unemployed by obama's labor department.

You realize that no matter how many times you repeat that lie, it'll never be true.

Show me where I am wrong? if there's a lie you're defending it. We've been through this before do I have to beat you down again?

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
...Because unemployment insurance records 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.

In other words, only counting UI benefits wouldn't work because they don't include people who have exhausted benefits, so a household survey is used instead.
More from the same page:

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

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. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. ...
Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a count of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, during 2008, only 36 percent of the total unemployed received UI benefits. The weekly data on UI claims do have important uses, however, and provide a timely indicator on labor market conditions.

Seems pretty explicit to me.
And now negative evidence:
BLS Handbook of Methods makes no mention of UI benefits.
Employment and Earnings gives full definitions and no mention of UI benefits.
Technical Paper 66 describes in detail how the data is collected: no mention of UI benefits.
The Survey Questions used to get unemployment data don't even ask about UI benefits.

So we have explicit denial that UI benefits are used in any way. We have technical definitions that don't mention UI benefits as a factor. We have technical documentation used tell the Census and BLS workers how to collect unemployment data and no mention of UI benefits is made.

So how on earth can you continue to make this claim?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You realize that no matter how many times you repeat that lie, it'll never be true.

Show me where I am wrong? if there's a lie you're defending it. We've been through this before do I have to beat you down again?

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
...Because unemployment insurance records 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.

In other words, only counting UI benefits wouldn't work because they don't include people who have exhausted benefits, so a household survey is used instead.
More from the same page:

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

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. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. ...
Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a count of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, during 2008, only 36 percent of the total unemployed received UI benefits. The weekly data on UI claims do have important uses, however, and provide a timely indicator on labor market conditions.

Seems pretty explicit to me.
And now negative evidence:
BLS Handbook of Methods makes no mention of UI benefits.
Employment and Earnings gives full definitions and no mention of UI benefits.
Technical Paper 66 describes in detail how the data is collected: no mention of UI benefits.
The Survey Questions used to get unemployment data don't even ask about UI benefits.

So we have explicit denial that UI benefits are used in any way. We have technical definitions that don't mention UI benefits as a factor. We have technical documentation used tell the Census and BLS workers how to collect unemployment data and no mention of UI benefits is made.

So how on earth can you continue to make this claim?

If you are not receiving unemployment benefits are you considered employed by obama's labor department? Yes or NO/

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

If you are not receiving unemployment benefits you are not considered unemployed if you are receiving unemployment benefits you are considered unemployed but what about those who have exhausted those benefits?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.1% as 342,000 workers dropped out of the labor force.

April jobs report: Hiring slows, unemployment falls - May. 4, 2012

How can unemployment fall when you have 342,000 workers dropping from the labor force? And don't say those are just retiring baby boomer ed.

 

[pinqy]

If you are not receiving unemployment benefits are you considered employed by obama's labor department? Yes or NO/

It depends. If you could take a job if offered and have actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks: YES. If you are not available and/or haven't actively looked, then NO. Eligibility or receipt of benefits is no more relevant than dog ownership.

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

Yay! You got it right. Note that there's no mention of benefits.

If you are not receiving unemployment benefits you are not considered unemployed

Whoa! Now you're contradicting yourself. You can be available and looking for work without receiving benefits. So where are you getting this idea from? I showed you a blatent denial, and showed that UI benefits are not even considered in the classification, so why do you keep saying it is?

For April, BLS counted as Unemployed 997,000 who quit their jobs (no UI benefits), 1,384,000 who never had a job before and started looking for one (no UI benefits) and 3,341,000 reentrants, who hadn't worked or looked for work in a while and started looking again (no UI benefits. And that's not even talking about the people fired for cause.

if you are receiving unemployment benefits you are considered unemployed

Mostly true, but only coincidentally. People receiving benefits are required to look for work, so they'd also be counted as unemployed. But some people are employed and receive partial benefits and would be considered Employed. And some people receive benefits but aren't looking and would be Not in the Labor Force.

but what about those who have exhausted those benefits?

Same as people receiving benefits. Unemployed if available and looking, Not in the Labor force if not available or not looking.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you are not receiving unemployment benefits are you considered employed by obama's labor department? Yes or NO/

It depends. If you could take a job if offered and have actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks: YES. If you are not available and/or haven't actively looked, then NO. Eligibility or receipt of benefits is no more relevant than dog ownership.

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

Yay! You got it right. Note that there's no mention of benefits.


Whoa! Now you're contradicting yourself. You can be available and looking for work without receiving benefits. So where are you getting this idea from? I showed you a blatent denial, and showed that UI benefits are not even considered in the classification, so why do you keep saying it is?

For April, BLS counted as Unemployed 997,000 who quit their jobs (no UI benefits), 1,384,000 who never had a job before and started looking for one (no UI benefits) and 3,341,000 reentrants, who hadn't worked or looked for work in a while and started looking again (no UI benefits. And that's not even talking about the people fired for cause.

if you are receiving unemployment benefits you are considered unemployed

Mostly true, but only coincidentally. People receiving benefits are required to look for work, so they'd also be counted as unemployed. But some people are employed and receive partial benefits and would be considered Employed. And some people receive benefits but aren't looking and would be Not in the Labor Force.

but what about those who have exhausted those benefits?

Same as people receiving benefits. Unemployed if available and looking, Not in the Labor force if not available or not looking.

It depends. If you could take a job if offered and have actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks: YES. If you are not available and/or haven't actively looked, then NO. Eligibility or receipt of benefits is no more relevant than dog ownership

IF? There is no if. Unemployed you don't have a job, employed you have a job.
If you are no longer looking for work and have exhausted your benefits you are no longer regarded as unemployed. I realize this pains you because it's obama's labor department that's cooking the numbers but it's the truth.

 

[JRK]

April BLS Jobs numbers just came out & jobs are slowing.

Yea I seen that on CNBC
good debate on the joke this number has become to some (including myself) As well as to the effort to get this number below 8% before October
Rick S un loaded on the group and I was surprised had some support from others in the group
The not in number is having a heavy influence on these reports, whether it matters or not to most, it is

 

[JRK]

If you are not receiving unemployment benefits are you considered employed by obama's labor department? Yes or NO/

It depends. If you could take a job if offered and have actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks: YES. If you are not available and/or haven't actively looked, then NO. Eligibility or receipt of benefits is no more relevant than dog ownership.

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

Yay! You got it right. Note that there's no mention of benefits.


Whoa! Now you're contradicting yourself. You can be available and looking for work without receiving benefits. So where are you getting this idea from? I showed you a blatent denial, and showed that UI benefits are not even considered in the classification, so why do you keep saying it is?

For April, BLS counted as Unemployed 997,000 who quit their jobs (no UI benefits), 1,384,000 who never had a job before and started looking for one (no UI benefits) and 3,341,000 reentrants, who hadn't worked or looked for work in a while and started looking again (no UI benefits. And that's not even talking about the people fired for cause.

if you are receiving unemployment benefits you are considered unemployed

Mostly true, but only coincidentally. People receiving benefits are required to look for work, so they'd also be counted as unemployed. But some people are employed and receive partial benefits and would be considered Employed. And some people receive benefits but aren't looking and would be Not in the Labor Force.

but what about those who have exhausted those benefits?

Same as people receiving benefits. Unemployed if available and looking, Not in the Labor force if not available or not looking.

The problem with anything that has people involved is, there is people involved in it. The not-in numbers is way out of whack with any thing that is common sense
According to that there are 88 million people not in the work force

 

[Trajan]

You can blame me all you want for your unprovoked habitual incivility rather than take responsibility for your OWN actions. You only make yourself look smaller.

towards you? I take full responsibility and I told you why. your lack of reading/comprehension skillz are legendary here, you aren't helping yourself ....stop gilding the lilly.

Your dishonesty is legendary here. You can always rationalize your unprovoked incivility but but you can never back up your claims.

"but but".... what? I got you stuttering now?You're babbling ed.

You know, I always wondered why guys like you dean TM have below 200 rep and over 10K in posts ...hell man, even a lamppost here does better than that, ever wonder why ed? Maybe, its because you're a nasty venal dishonest poster, ergo, even others of your 'ilk' cannot abide you. Repent....bang out a few mia culpas for us......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

towards you? I take full responsibility and I told you why. your lack of reading/comprehension skillz are legendary here, you aren't helping yourself ....stop gilding the lilly.

Your dishonesty is legendary here. You can always rationalize your unprovoked incivility but but you can never back up your claims.

"but but".... what? I got you stuttering now?You're babbling ed.

You know, I always wondered why guys like you dean TM have below 200 rep and over 10K in posts ...hell man, even a lamppost here does better than that, ever wonder why ed? Maybe, its because you're a nasty venal dishonest poster, ergo, even others of your 'ilk' cannot abide you. Repent....bang out a few mia culpas for us......

Ed needs to change his moniker to ed the liar, ed the partisan hack, or ed the sill because theirs nothing cynical about him.

 

[Trajan]

You realize that no matter how many times you repeat that lie, it'll never be true.

Show me where I am wrong? if there's a lie you're defending it. We've been through this before do I have to beat you down again?

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
...Because unemployment insurance records 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.

In other words, only counting UI benefits wouldn't work because they don't include people who have exhausted benefits, so a household survey is used instead.
More from the same page:

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?
The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

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. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. ...
Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a count of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, during 2008, only 36 percent of the total unemployed received UI benefits. The weekly data on UI claims do have important uses, however, and provide a timely indicator on labor market conditions.

Seems pretty explicit to me.
And now negative evidence:
BLS Handbook of Methods makes no mention of UI benefits.
Employment and Earnings gives full definitions and no mention of UI benefits.
Technical Paper 66 describes in detail how the data is collected: no mention of UI benefits.
The Survey Questions used to get unemployment data don't even ask about UI benefits.

So we have explicit denial that UI benefits are used in any way. We have technical definitions that don't mention UI benefits as a factor. We have technical documentation used tell the Census and BLS workers how to collect unemployment data and no mention of UI benefits is made.

So how on earth can you continue to make this claim?

I asked a few pages ago, I'll make this easier ( for me to ask at least)...

-the term chart definition used to reflect folks who are looking for and would if they work and/or accept work, is called;______________________.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The numbers aren't dismal but they aren't good either.

No.
It's dismal and nothing less than dismal.
Since in a real recovery we would need upwards of 350,000 to 400,000 per month...after month, after month - a measly 115k is lousy...lousy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.
So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


Read more: Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data | Fox Business

I praise BHO visiting the troops no matter the politics
Job report according to ADP is no existent for April
News Headlines
If this continues BHO loses in a land slide. I have down 31-19 right now

Bad news for the Obama. Three more reports like this and he will have a less than even chance to beat Romney.

Which would be great news.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Absolute horrid numbers. 88,000,000 unemployed, just staggering numbers.

 

[JRK]

The numbers aren't dismal but they aren't good either.

No.
It's dismal and nothing less than dismal.
Since in a real recovery we would need upwards of 350,000 to 400,000 per month...after month, after month - a measly 115k is lousy...lousy.

The problem with 115 jobs is the 14+% U-6 UE rate that goes with it
The left makes such of a huge deal of GWB and his job record
Maintaining a 5% and less than 5% UE rate is one thing, job creation with millions still UE from end of 08 numbers is another

 

[itfitzme]

And we already know that if you are unemployed receiving unemployment benefits and your benefits are exhausted you are no longer considered unemployed by obama's labor department.

You are intentionally an idiot. What is that called? Oh, yeah, ignorant. You ignore the facts.

1) The BLS doesn't use "unemployed receiving unemployment benefits and your benefits are exhausted". They never have. They do a survey, call people up and ask, "Do you have a job?. "If you don't have a job, are you looking for one?", "If you not looking, would you take one it someone offered on?" It is called the Current Population Survey.

2) You've been told this, or read it before, but you still insist on sticking with the same incorrect belief. By all means, prove that it is based on unemployment benefits. You can't.

3) It's the same process that they have used regardless of who was in office.

I once thought it was based on unemployment recipients. I don't know why, I must have heard it somewhere. Then I found out different. I learned.

I also thought that everyone was, at least, in touch with reality. Then I found out different. You have further confirmed that there actually are people that are not just stupid, but also ignorant. You are proof that insanity exists.

Do the world a favor and explain why you are mentally ill.

 

[pinqy]

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.1% as 342,000 workers dropped out of the labor force.

April jobs report: Hiring slows, unemployment falls - May. 4, 2012

How can unemployment fall when you have 342,000 workers dropping from the labor force? And don't say those are just retiring baby boomer ed.

It's called math. The formula is Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed)
March 2012 the numbers were: Employed = 142,034,000, Unemployed = 12,673,000
For a rate of 12,673,000/(142,034,000 + 12,673,000) = 12,673,000/154,707,000 = 0.082 = 8.2%

April 2012, the numbers were Employed = 141,865,000 Unemployed = 12,673,000
For a rate of 12,673,000/(141,865,000 + 12,673,000) = 12,673,000/154,365,000 = 0.081 = 8.1%

What part of that is unclear?

 

[pinqy]

Absolute horrid numbers. 88,000,000 unemployed, just staggering numbers.

No, there are 12,500,000 Unemployed, defined as Looking for work.

There are 88,419,000 people not working and NOT TRYING TO WORK. That's not unemployed, that's retirees, full time students, stay home moms/dads, and some, who would want to work but aren't able and a small minority, less than 1 million, who "gave up" looking.

 

[pinqy]

I asked a few pages ago, I'll make this easier ( for me to ask at least)...

-the term chart definition used to reflect folks who are looking for and would if they work and/or accept work, is called;______________________.

oooh, I know: Unemployed.

 

[KissMy]

April BLS Jobs numbers just came out & jobs are slowing.

Yea I seen that on CNBC
good debate on the joke this number has become to some (including myself) As well as to the effort to get this number below 8% before October
Rick S un loaded on the group and I was surprised had some support from others in the group
The not in number is having a heavy influence on these reports, whether it matters or not to most, it is

This is what the real US jobs situation looks like. Job creation has already peaked for the year a couple months back. We are headed for our 4th bounce along the bottom. Obama is officially the No-Recovery / No Jobs President unless you are a rich Wallstreet executive.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

April BLS Jobs numbers just came out & jobs are slowing.

Yea I seen that on CNBC
good debate on the joke this number has become to some (including myself) As well as to the effort to get this number below 8% before October
Rick S un loaded on the group and I was surprised had some support from others in the group
The not in number is having a heavy influence on these reports, whether it matters or not to most, it is

This is what the real US jobs situation looks like. Job creation has already peaked for the year a couple months back. We are headed for our 4th bounce along the bottom. Obama is officially the No-Recovery / No Jobs President unless you are a rich Wallstreet executive.

But...but...it isn't all that bad....but...Obama...but