Economy: Question For Trump Supporter

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, everything is correct here, but it is BECAUSE we began to export more, our economy now less benefits from oil price drops. The economic growth of lower gas prices is offset by loss of American energy sector profits and jobs. On the net we now benefit less from low oil prices than in the past.

When oil prices first plunged in 2014, there was hope that cheap gasoline would be a giant stimulus for the U.S. economy. Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen cited a statistic that the average household would save $700 in fuel costs.

Two years on, it’s not at all clear that oil prices provided a major net boost to economic growth. As oil prices declined, many U.S.-based oil producers were forced to sharply curtail their drilling activity. Waves of layoffs followed in the oil and gas industry. The drop presented both good and bad news for the overall U.S. economy.

Why the Stimulus from Low Oil Prices Never Really Boosted the Economy

I couldn't read the article because it disappears after 30 seconds or so unless you subscribe. However going by what you posted, JP Morgan had an exact opposite take on it:

How Falling Gas Prices Fuel the Consumer | JPMorgan Chase Institute

 

[edthecynic]

Huh?

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force
The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.

 

[owebo]

Huh?

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

No, that's the correct definition.
If you aren't looking for work because you're retired, a student, institutionalized, disabled or discouraged, you're not part of the workforce.

And it's been horrific, no, terrifying under Obama.....

 

[AntonToo]

Again, everything is correct here, but it is BECAUSE we began to export more, our economy now less benefits from oil price drops. The economic growth of lower gas prices is offset by loss of American energy sector profits and jobs. On the net we now benefit less from low oil prices than in the past.

When oil prices first plunged in 2014, there was hope that cheap gasoline would be a giant stimulus for the U.S. economy. Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen cited a statistic that the average household would save $700 in fuel costs.

Two years on, it’s not at all clear that oil prices provided a major net boost to economic growth. As oil prices declined, many U.S.-based oil producers were forced to sharply curtail their drilling activity. Waves of layoffs followed in the oil and gas industry. The drop presented both good and bad news for the overall U.S. economy.

Why the Stimulus from Low Oil Prices Never Really Boosted the Economy

I couldn't read the article because it disappears after 30 seconds or so unless you subscribe. However going by what you posted, JP Morgan had an exact opposite take on it:

How Falling Gas Prices Fuel the Consumer | JPMorgan Chase Institute

No problem with me viewing the article in Chrome (get it, get it!).

But my article seems more comprehensive because it covers both the consumer and supplier side of price effects, where your articles views issue only from consumer standpoint.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No problem with me viewing the article in Chrome (get it, get it!).

But my article seems more comprehensive because it covers both the consumer and supplier side of price effects, where your articles views issue only from consumer standpoint.

Yes, but doesn't it make sense to view it from a consumer standpoint; at least when discussing the financial benefits?

Better still, can you tell me you know one person negatively impacted by lower fuel prices? I can't, and I work with the public all day long.

When more money is in more pockets across the US, of course it's a great advantage. This is especially true up north because over here, staying warm can get quite expensive. Our company is paying half of what we used to pay for diesel fuel just a few years ago. How can that possibly be a bad thing? Tractor-Trailers get about 6 mpg and our straight trucks get about 13 mpg. That's a hell of a lot of savings for my employer and trucking outfits across the country.

 

[Iceweasel]

Huh?

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

No, that's the correct definition.
If you aren't looking for work because you're retired, a student, institutionalized, disabled or discouraged, you're not part of the workforce.

He said the unemployed were part of the workforce. Nothing about your qualifiers. That's NOT the correct definition.

 

[Iceweasel]

Huh?

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force
The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.

I quoted the definition from that page. It says either or, not and. Learn to read.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

No, that's the correct definition.
If you aren't looking for work because you're retired, a student, institutionalized, disabled or discouraged, you're not part of the workforce.

He said the unemployed were part of the workforce. Nothing about your qualifiers. That's NOT the correct definition.

He said the unemployed were part of the workforce.

You're considered unemployed if you're not working, but have looked for a job in the last month.
If you meet those criteria you are both unemployed and part of the workforce.

 

[Iceweasel]

You're considered unemployed if you're not working, but have looked for a job in the last month.
If you meet those criteria you are both unemployed and part of the workforce.

And for how many days, months or years of not finding any work would you be still be considered part of the work force?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're considered unemployed if you're not working, but have looked for a job in the last month.
If you meet those criteria you are both unemployed and part of the workforce.

And for how many days, months or years of not finding any work would you be still be considered part of the work force?

As long as you looked in the last month, you're considered part of the workforce.

 

[Iceweasel]

You're considered unemployed if you're not working, but have looked for a job in the last month.
If you meet those criteria you are both unemployed and part of the workforce.

And for how many days, months or years of not finding any work would you be still be considered part of the work force?

As long as you looked in the last month, you're considered part of the workforce.

So if you looked for ten years you are part of the work force? Not in my world.

 

[Onyx]

And for how many days, months or years of not finding any work would you be still be considered part of the work force?

It sounds indefinite.

If you go years without finding a job or establishing an income, you are not interested in working. Nothing to get worked up about.

 

[Windship]

Missing WorkersThe Missing Part of the Unemployment Story



Press release




Updated September 2, 2016

In a complex economy, conventional measures sometimes fall short.
In today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities. This is due to the existence of a large pool of“missing workers”–potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate.





As part of its ongoing effort to create the metrics needed to assess how well the economy is working for America’s broad middle class, EPI tracks “missing worker” estimates, updated on this page on the first Friday of every month immediately after the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its jobs numbers. The “missing worker” estimates provide policymakers with a key gauge of the health of the labor market.









Current “missing worker” estimates at a glance
Updated September 2, 2016, based on most current data available

• Total missing workers, August 2016: 2,220,000
• Unemployment rate if missing workers were looking for work: 6.2%
• Official unemployment rate: 4.9%

• Chart: Total number of missing workers
• Chart: Unemployment rate if missing workers were looking for work
• Chart: Missing workers by age and gender
• Methodology

MISSING WORKERS
Millions of potential workers sidelinedMissing workers,* January 2006–August 2016
Date Missing workers
2006-01-01 620,000
2006-02-01 160,000
2006-03-01 190,000
2006-04-01 290,000
2006-05-01 170,000
2006-06-01 100,000
2006-07-01 70,000
2006-08-01 -140,000
2006-09-01 110,000
2006-10-01 -130,000
2006-11-01 -390,000
2006-12-01 -660,000
2007-01-01 -660,000
2007-02-01 -480,000
2007-03-01 -410,000
2007-04-01 330,000
2007-05-01 200,000
2007-06-01 80,000
2007-07-01 100,000
2007-08-01 570,000
2007-09-01 150,000
2007-10-01 480,000
2007-11-01 -150,000
2007-12-01 -260,000
2008-01-01 -780,000
2008-02-01 -330,000
2008-03-01 -470,000
2008-04-01 -290,000
2008-05-01 -740,000
2008-06-01 -610,000
2008-07-01 -630,000
2008-08-01 -640,000
2008-09-01 -350,000
2008-10-01 -550,000
2008-11-01 -300,000
2008-12-01 -300,000
2009-01-01 -100,000
2009-02-01 -230,000
2009-03-01 210,000
2009-04-01 -130,000
2009-05-01 -200,000
2009-06-01 -260,000
2009-07-01 120,000
2009-08-01 410,000
2009-09-01 1,220,000
2009-10-01 1,350,000
2009-11-01 1,400,000
2009-12-01 2,100,000
2010-01-01 1,660,000
2010-02-01 1,540,000
2010-03-01 1,320,000
2010-04-01 770,000
2010-05-01 1,330,000
2010-06-01 1,710,000
2010-07-01 1,880,000
2010-08-01 1,490,000
2010-09-01 1,850,000
2010-10-01 2,320,000
2010-11-01 1,960,000
2010-12-01 2,390,000
2011-01-01 2,470,000
2011-02-01 2,640,000
2011-03-01 2,390,000
2011-04-01 2,490,000
2011-05-01 2,650,000
2011-06-01 2,670,000
2011-07-01 3,130,000
2011-08-01 2,480,000
2011-09-01 2,470,000
2011-10-01 2,530,000
2011-11-01 2,510,000
2011-12-01 2,490,000
2012-01-01 2,800,000
2012-02-01 2,550,000
2012-03-01 2,510,000
2012-04-01 2,870,000
2012-05-01 2,560,000
2012-06-01 2,280,000
2012-07-01 2,790,000
2012-08-01 2,770,000
2012-09-01 2,590,000
2012-10-01 2,090,000
2012-11-01 2,490,000
2012-12-01 2,080,000
2013-01-01 2,410,000
2013-02-01 2,720,000
2013-03-01 3,090,000
2013-04-01 2,850,000
2013-05-01 2,840,000
2013-06-01 2,640,000
2013-07-01 2,860,000
2013-08-01 2,950,000
2013-09-01 2,980,000
2013-10-01 3,750,000
2013-11-01 3,370,000
2013-12-01 3,570,000
2014-01-01 3,540,000
2014-02-01 3,270,000
2014-03-01 2,810,000
2014-04-01 3,660,000
2014-05-01 3,540,000
2014-06-01 3,400,000
2014-07-01 3,170,000
2014-08-01 3,180,000
2014-09-01 3,370,000
2014-10-01 2,960,000
2014-11-01 3,030,000
2014-12-01 3,250,000
2015-01-01 2,930,000
2015-02-01 3,140,000
2015-03-01 3,350,000
2015-04-01 3,200,000
2015-05-01 2,870,000
2015-06-01 3,430,000
2015-07-01 3,390,000
2015-08-01 3,470,000
2015-09-01 3,920,000
2015-10-01 3,520,000
2015-11-01 3,340,000
2015-12-01 2,910,000
2016-01-01 2,850,000
2016-02-01 2,400,000
2016-03-01 2,180,000
2016-04-01 2,500,000
2016-05-01 3,020,000
2016-06-01 2,630,000
2016-07-01 2,330,000
2016-08-01 2,220,000

2,220,000-2,000,000-1,000,00001,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,000200620082010201220142016
ChartData
* Potential workers who, due to weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking work

Note: Volatility in the number of missing workers in 2006–2008, including cases of negative numbers of missing workers, is simply the result of month-to-month variability in the sample. The Great Recession–induced pool of missing workers began to form and grow starting in late 2008.

Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey public data series

Tweet
Embed Download image
MISSING WORKERS
The unemployment rate is vastly understating weakness in today’s labor marketUnemployment rate, actual and if missing workers* were looking for work, January 2006–August 2016
Date Actual If missing workers were looking for work
2006-01-01 4.7% 5.1%
2006-02-01 4.8% 4.9%
2006-03-01 4.7% 4.8%
2006-04-01 4.7% 4.9%
2006-05-01 4.6% 4.7%
2006-06-01 4.6% 4.7%
2006-07-01 4.7% 4.8%
2006-08-01 4.7% 4.6%
2006-09-01 4.5% 4.6%
2006-10-01 4.4% 4.3%
2006-11-01 4.5% 4.3%
2006-12-01 4.4% 4.0%
2007-01-01 4.6% 4.2%
2007-02-01 4.5% 4.2%
2007-03-01 4.4% 4.1%
2007-04-01 4.5% 4.7%
2007-05-01 4.4% 4.6%
2007-06-01 4.6% 4.6%
2007-07-01 4.7% 4.7%
2007-08-01 4.6% 5.0%
2007-09-01 4.7% 4.8%
2007-10-01 4.7% 5.0%
2007-11-01 4.7% 4.6%
2007-12-01 5.0% 4.8%
2008-01-01 5.0% 4.5%
2008-02-01 4.9% 4.7%
2008-03-01 5.1% 4.8%
2008-04-01 5.0% 4.8%
2008-05-01 5.4% 5.0%
2008-06-01 5.6% 5.2%
2008-07-01 5.8% 5.4%
2008-08-01 6.1% 5.7%
2008-09-01 6.1% 5.9%
2008-10-01 6.5% 6.2%
2008-11-01 6.8% 6.6%
2008-12-01 7.3% 7.1%
2009-01-01 7.8% 7.8%
2009-02-01 8.3% 8.2%
2009-03-01 8.7% 8.8%
2009-04-01 9.0% 8.9%
2009-05-01 9.4% 9.3%
2009-06-01 9.5% 9.4%
2009-07-01 9.5% 9.5%
2009-08-01 9.6% 9.8%
2009-09-01 9.8% 10.5%
2009-10-01 10.0% 10.8%
2009-11-01 9.9% 10.7%
2009-12-01 9.9% 11.1%
2010-01-01 9.8% 10.8%
2010-02-01 9.8% 10.7%
2010-03-01 9.9% 10.6%
2010-04-01 9.9% 10.4%
2010-05-01 9.6% 10.4%
2010-06-01 9.4% 10.4%
2010-07-01 9.4% 10.5%
2010-08-01 9.5% 10.4%
2010-09-01 9.5% 10.5%
2010-10-01 9.4% 10.8%
2010-11-01 9.8% 10.9%
2010-12-01 9.3% 10.7%
2011-01-01 9.1% 10.6%
2011-02-01 9.0% 10.6%
2011-03-01 9.0% 10.4%
2011-04-01 9.1% 10.5%
2011-05-01 9.0% 10.6%
2011-06-01 9.1% 10.7%
2011-07-01 9.0% 10.8%
2011-08-01 9.0% 10.4%
2011-09-01 9.0% 10.5%
2011-10-01 8.8% 10.3%
2011-11-01 8.6% 10.1%
2011-12-01 8.5% 10.0%
2012-01-01 8.3% 9.9%
2012-02-01 8.3% 9.8%
2012-03-01 8.2% 9.7%
2012-04-01 8.2% 9.9%
2012-05-01 8.2% 9.7%
2012-06-01 8.2% 9.5%
2012-07-01 8.2% 9.8%
2012-08-01 8.1% 9.7%
2012-09-01 7.8% 9.3%
2012-10-01 7.8% 9.0%
2012-11-01 7.7% 9.2%
2012-12-01 7.9% 9.1%
2013-01-01 8.0% 9.4%
2013-02-01 7.7% 9.3%
2013-03-01 7.5% 9.3%
2013-04-01 7.6% 9.2%
2013-05-01 7.5% 9.1%
2013-06-01 7.5% 9.1%
2013-07-01 7.3% 9.0%
2013-08-01 7.3% 9.0%
2013-09-01 7.3% 9.0%
2013-10-01 7.2% 9.4%
2013-11-01 6.9% 8.9%
2013-12-01 6.7% 8.8%
2014-01-01 6.6% 8.6%
2014-02-01 6.7% 8.6%
2014-03-01 6.7% 8.3%
2014-04-01 6.2% 8.4%
2014-05-01 6.2% 8.3%
2014-06-01 6.1% 8.1%
2014-07-01 6.2% 8.1%
2014-08-01 6.2% 8.0%
2014-09-01 6.0% 7.9%
2014-10-01 5.7% 7.5%
2014-11-01 5.8% 7.6%
2014-12-01 5.6% 7.5%
2015-01-01 5.7% 7.4%
2015-02-01 5.5% 7.4%
2015-03-01 5.5% 7.4%
2015-04-01 5.4% 7.3%
2015-05-01 5.5% 7.2%
2015-06-01 5.3% 7.3%
2015-07-01 5.3% 7.3%
2015-08-01 5.1% 7.2%
2015-09-01 5.1% 7.4%
2015-10-01 5.0% 7.1%
2015-11-01 5.0% 7.0%
2015-12-01 5.0% 6.7%
2016-01-01 4.9% 6.6%
2016-02-01 4.9% 6.3%
2016-03-01 5.0% 6.3%
2016-04-01 5.0% 6.5%
2016-05-01 4.7% 6.5%
2016-06-01 4.9% 6.4%
2016-07-01 4.9% 6.2%
2016-08-01 4.9% 6.2%

6.2%4.9%If missing workers were looking for workActual20062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201724681012%
ChartData
* Potential workers who, due to weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking work

Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey public data series

Tweet
Embed Download image
MISSING WORKERS
Missing Workers are found across the boardMissing workers,* by age, August 2016
Age Share of missing workers** Number of missing workers
45-54 32.4% 1,040,000
55-64 55.5% 1,780,000
65-74 12.1% 390,000

45-54: 32.4%55-64: 55.5%65-74: 12.1%
ChartData
* Potential workers who, due to weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking work

** Share of missing workers calculated from groups with positive numbers of missing workers

Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey public data series

Tweet
Embed Download image
Methodology
How do we estimate the number of missing workers?
First, we estimated trends in age- and gender-specific labor force participation rates between 1986 and 1996 as well as 1996 and 2006. We then took a weighted average of the age/gender specific labor force participation trends in those two periods and projected they would continue through 2016. We weighted the earlier period by a fifth and the latter period by four-fifths. Because the years we chose (1989, 1996, and 2004) had near-identical overall unemployment rates, we think this largely purges the age/specific participation trends of any cyclical impact. Given this, we assume that these projected participation rates capture the structural, long-run trends of these groups.

Any shortfall between these projections and the actual labor force participation rate is thus a good measure of the cyclical impact on the labor force participation rate, i.e., the change that is a direct result of the weak labor market in the Great Recession and its aftermath. These shortfalls do not count, for example, those retiring baby boomers who would have left the labor force whether or not the Great Recession happened.

Based on this logic, missing workers are estimated in the following way: The labor force participation rate projections for 2016 by gender and age group (age groups 16-19, 20-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75+) that we constructed based on earlier trends as described above are assumed to be structural rates. The current month’s structural rates (by gender and age group) are calculated by linearly interpolating between 2006 and 2016. The size of the potential labor force is calculated by multiplying the current month’s structural rates by actual population numbers (available by gender and age group from the Current Population Survey public data series). The difference between the size of the potential labor force and size of the actual labor force (also available by gender and age group from the Current Population Survey public data series) is the number of missing workers.

 

[Windship]

Say "bah, baaah".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're considered unemployed if you're not working, but have looked for a job in the last month.
If you meet those criteria you are both unemployed and part of the workforce.

And for how many days, months or years of not finding any work would you be still be considered part of the work force?

As long as you looked in the last month, you're considered part of the workforce.

So if you looked for ten years you are part of the work force? Not in my world.

Yup. You could look for 100 years, still be part of the work force.

 

[AntonToo]

No problem with me viewing the article in Chrome (get it, get it!).

But my article seems more comprehensive because it covers both the consumer and supplier side of price effects, where your articles views issue only from consumer standpoint.

Yes, but doesn't it make sense to view it from a consumer standpoint; at least when discussing the financial benefits?

Better still, can you tell me you know one person negatively impacted by lower fuel prices? I can't, and I work with the public all day long.

When more money is in more pockets across the US, of course it's a great advantage. This is especially true up north because over here, staying warm can get quite expensive. Our company is paying half of what we used to pay for diesel fuel just a few years ago. How can that possibly be a bad thing? Tractor-Trailers get about 6 mpg and our straight trucks get about 13 mpg. That's a hell of a lot of savings for my employer and trucking outfits across the country.

It makes sense to view ALL the effects, to pretend that American energy industry doesn't exist doesn't help in getting the full picture of how lowered gas prices have affected economy.

In the recent 2016 article I linked to the upside on consumer side is weighed against downsides on oil industry side.

In the article you linked to only consumer side effects are considered and it is therefore half-blind to full effect on economy.

 

[AntonToo]

Methodology
How do we estimate the number of missing workers?
First, we estimated trends in age- and gender-specific labor force participation rates between 1986 and 1996 as well as 1996 and 2006. We then took a weighted average of the age/gender specific labor force participation trends in those two periods and projected they would continue through 2016. We weighted the earlier period by a fifth and the latter period by four-fifths. Because the years we chose (1989, 1996, and 2004) had near-identical overall unemployment rates, we think this largely purges the age/specific participation trends of any cyclical impact. Given this, we assume that these projected participation rates capture the structural, long-run trends of these groups.

Any shortfall between these projections and the actual labor force participation rate is thus a good measure of the cyclical impact on the labor force participation rate, i.e., the change that is a direct result of the weak labor market in the Great Recession and its aftermath. These shortfalls do not count, for example, those retiring baby boomers who would have left the labor force whether or not the Great Recession happened.

Based on this logic, missing workers are estimated in the following way: The labor force participation rate projections for 2016 by gender and age group (age groups 16-19, 20-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75+) that we constructed based on earlier trends as described above are assumed to be structural rates. The current month’s structural rates (by gender and age group) are calculated by linearly interpolating between 2006 and 2016. The size of the potential labor force is calculated by multiplying the current month’s structural rates by actual population numbers (available by gender and age group from the Current Population Survey public data series). The difference between the size of the potential labor force and size of the actual labor force (also available by gender and age group from the Current Population Survey public data series) is the number of missing workers.

That's a ridiculously convoluted method for no good reason.

There is already a metric on discouraged workers that is much less prone to estimation error as it comes from household survey statistics.

 

[pinqy]

The labor force is employed plus unemployed

It isn't how many people are working, it's how many people are working or looking for work

How are the unemployed in the labor force?

labor force is employed plus unemployed...that's how.

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

No, that's the correct definition.
If you aren't looking for work because you're retired, a student, institutionalized, disabled or discouraged, you're not part of the workforce.

He said the unemployed were part of the workforce. Nothing about your qualifiers. That's NOT the correct definition.

Labor Force, not workforce. The two are not interchangeable.

The Labor Force has been defined for over 70 years as the sum of employed and unemployed persons. This represents those available for work in a given mointh. People working are obviously available, and those trying to find work and are ready to start (which has always been the definition of unemployed) are also available.

People not trying to work, are not available for work.

Think of it like a literal market....people show up and either find work or don't.

The population are those free to enter oir leave the market: those age 16 and older who are not in the military or in prison or in an institution (mental hospital, nursing home, etc).

Those who show up at the market are the labor force, and those who getbhired are employed and vthoise who don't are unemployed. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed as a percent of the labor force....representing the proportion of people who could be working but aren't.

Those in the population don't show up to the market, because they don't want to or can't or have other obligations are "not in the lkabor force."

The labor force participation rate is the percent of the population in the labor force The employment-population ratio is the percent of the population that is employed.

Doies that make more sense? Those are the internationally accepted economic definitions.

 

[Iceweasel]

The labor force participation rate is the percent of the population in the labor force The employment-population ratio is the percent of the population that is employed.

Doies that make more sense? Those are the internationally accepted economic definitions.

No, it doesn't make more sense. Labor means work. Those not working are unemployed if they are looking. Those not looking and not employed would not be in the labor force. Labels don't make things true.

 

[pinqy]

Missing WorkersThe Missing Part of the Unemployment Story



Press release




Updated September 2, 2016

In a complex economy, conventional measures sometimes fall short.
In today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities. This is due to the existence of a large pool of“missing workers”–potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate.





As part of its ongoing effort to create the metrics needed to assess how well the economy is working for America’s broad middle class, EPI tracks “missing worker” estimates, updated on this page on the first Friday of every month immediately after the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its jobs numbers. The “missing worker” estimates provide policymakers with a key gauge of the health of the labor market.









Current “missing worker” estimates at a glance
Updated September 2, 2016, based on most current data available

• Total missing workers, August 2016: 2,220,000
• Unemployment rate if missing workers were looking for work: 6.2%
• Official unemployment rate: 4.9%

• Chart: Total number of missing workers
• Chart: Unemployment rate if missing workers were looking for work
• Chart: Missing workers by age and gender
• Methodology

The problem is that all that is Prescriptive, not Descriptive. It's not measuring anything specific, but opining how many should be looking for work.

More useful: BLS looks at WHY people aren't looking.
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex