Half a Million a week are still filing for Unemployment Insurance.

[Neubarth]

The number jumps around a lot, but the reality is still there. Half a million workers who feel they are qualified to receive their unemployment insurance file each and every week for that money. That adds up to two million people a month.

Yet the government will tell you that only one tenth of that number are actually unemployed at the end of the month. Supposedly all those people who filed for UI were not really out of employment after six months to a year of former steady employment, or were just demented delusional people because they never show up in the actual unemployment numbers.

I interview these people on a regular basis, and they are not finding work. they are not being counted as unemployed by the Federal Government even though they are receiving their UI checks.

Who are you going to believe? The people who are out of their jobs, or the Government Unemployment numbers? I, personally, believe the people. They really look distraught when I talk to them. Somehow, they are absolutely convinced that they are really unemployed.

Obama is looking for medicine for them so they will be continually happy and THINK that they still have their jobs.

 

[Limey]

Who are you going to believe?

Official unemployment figures are never up-to-scratch. Better to use a labour force survey, using a random sample to assess the number that are 'actively seeking work'. The ILO provide such information

 

[Neubarth]

Here is a perfect example of more Government Mind Control. This morning's headlines, just like the weeks before.


ap
New jobless claims fall unexpectedly to 457K
New jobless benefit claims fall unexpectedly to 457,000, lowest level in more than a year

The numbers did, indeed, go down. The reality is that in California like most of the other states, the number of people who filed decreased because of the holiday for Thanksgiving. In California the state offices were operative for three days last week so tabulation was greatly decreased. In addition, a lot of smaller employers try not to lay anybody off the week and days before Thanksgiving. Ditto the weeks and days before Christmas.

 

[uscitizen]

Who are you going to believe?

Official unemployment figures are never up-to-scratch. Better to use a labour force survey, using a random sample to assess the number that are 'actively seeking work'. The ILO provide such information

Hmm surveys....

In my 60 some years of life I have never been surveyed for labor statistics.

 

[JWBooth]

Half a Million a week are still filing for Unemployment Insurance.

One more indication that the recession is past us and happy days are here again.





[/sarcasm]

 

[Neubarth]

Who are you going to believe?

Official unemployment figures are never up-to-scratch. Better to use a labour force survey, using a random sample to assess the number that are 'actively seeking work'. The ILO provide such information

Hmm surveys....

In my 60 some years of life I have never been surveyed for labor statistics.

Nor I, or anybody I have ever talked to in researching the info for a book I wanted to write.

Has anybody ever been called?

 

[uscitizen]

The unemployment rate varies widely in my state. Some counties are near 30% while a few are more like 7%. Surveys would properly reflect this?

 

[Limey]

In my 60 some years of life I have never been surveyed for labor statistics.

Random sampling techniques would predict that result.

 

[uscitizen]

In my 60 some years of life I have never been surveyed for labor statistics.

Random sampling techniques would predict that result.

Yeah right.

You seem to be a bit hung up in textbook based economics.

In case you had not noticed they are one reason we are where we are and no longer have a high degree of validity.

 

[Limey]

In my 60 some years of life I have never been surveyed for labor statistics.

Random sampling techniques would predict that result.

Yeah right.

You seem to be a bit hung up in textbook based economics.

Nope. The use of random sampling techniques to measure "actively seeking work" is merely best practice. The only aspect of economic theory is the definition of unemployment. This is only a problem if there is specific noise in the data. For example, use of sickness benefit to reduce official unemployment figures (as used by Thatcherism), by impacting on work perceptions, would make a labour force survey questionnaire approach more difficult.

In case you had not noticed they are one reason we are where we are and no longer have a high degree of validity.

We're here because of neo-liberalism, generating additional economic instabilities through the profiteering behaviour of the financial class

 

[The Rabbi]

The number jumps around a lot, but the reality is still there. Half a million workers who feel they are qualified to receive their unemployment insurance file each and every week for that money. That adds up to two million people a month.

Well no, it doesn't. It's more than that.
Anyway, I have not seen fresh figures for overtime and temporary labor. If those are improving then the economy is in recovery. If they aren't then it isn't.

 

[pinqy]

Who are you going to believe?

Official unemployment figures are never up-to-scratch. Better to use a labour force survey, using a random sample to assess the number that are 'actively seeking work'. The ILO provide such information

The US official unemployment figures (released tomorrow) are from a labor force survey that meets the ILO definitions (minor variations aside, such as the ILO has an upper limit on age, US doesn't). Neubarth doesn't accept that, though and only goes off of the initial UI claims and thinks that changes in the Unemployment level (from the Current Population Survey) should match up with the increase in UI claims.

Eligibility for UI benefits has never ever been part of US calculations of the official Unemployment level/rate.

 

[Limey]

The US official unemployment figures (released tomorrow) is from a labor force survey that meets the ILO definitions (minor variations aside, such as the ILO has an upper limit on age, US doesn't). Neubarth doesn't accept that, though and only goes off of the initial UI claims and thinks that changes in the Unemployment level (from the Current Population Survey) should match up with the increase in UI claims.

Much about nothing then! How frequently does the US provide unemployment figures that include discouraged worker effects?

 

[American Horse]

Official unemployment figures are never up-to-scratch. Better to use a labour force survey, using a random sample to assess the number that are 'actively seeking work'. The ILO provide such information

Hmm surveys....

In my 60 some years of life I have never been surveyed for labor statistics.

Nor I, or anybody I have ever talked to in researching the info for a book I wanted to write.

Has anybody ever been called?

The last several years before I closed my business the US Dept of Labor required monthly submittals from me. I told them my business was too small for them to bother with, but still, if I was late they'd call for data to keep it up to date. They were friendly about it but was one more hassle that gave me the feeling that my profile was too high and it was time to close the business, eliminating all employees.

 

[pinqy]

The US official unemployment figures (released tomorrow) is from a labor force survey that meets the ILO definitions (minor variations aside, such as the ILO has an upper limit on age, US doesn't). Neubarth doesn't accept that, though and only goes off of the initial UI claims and thinks that changes in the Unemployment level (from the Current Population Survey) should match up with the increase in UI claims.

Much about nothing then! How frequently does the US provide unemployment figures that include discouraged worker effects?

Every month. In addition to the Official rate, the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides "Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization.
U-1 Unemployed more than 15 weeks
U-2 Job losers and those who completed temporary jobs
U-3 Unemployed (the official rate)
U-4 Unemployed plus discouraged
U-5 Unemployed plus all marginally attached (not currently looking for any reason, not just discouragement but have looked in the last year and want to work and are available to work)
U-6 The U-5 plus those working part time because hours were cut or unable to find full time work.

 

[uscitizen]

And what media posts those revealing numbers?

 

[pinqy]

And what media posts those revealing numbers?

Few if any do. But why is that important? Anyone who actually uses the numbers doesn't get them from the media anyway, but straight from BLS where the news release and tables are far longer than any newspaper could publish (29 pages last month). News media likes to report just the highlights/main points and that's it. You don't get serious analysis from a newspaper. I just find it weird that I've heard some idiots claim that the Government is lying because the media doesn't report all the details or the not-seasonally adjusted numbers etc, as if the government is putting out requirements of what they report.

 

[Limey]

Every month. In addition to the Official rate, the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides "Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization.
U-1 Unemployed more than 15 weeks
U-2 Job losers and those who completed temporary jobs
U-3 Unemployed (the official rate)
U-4 Unemployed plus discouraged
U-5 Unemployed plus all marginally attached (not currently looking for any reason, not just discouragement but have looked in the last year and want to work and are available to work)
U-6 The U-5 plus those working part time because hours were cut or unable to find full time work.

I've always been aware that the BLS provided more detail than the British ONS, but thats quite impressive. It certainly makes conspiracy theories more difficult to pull off

 

[Neubarth]

I've always been aware that the BLS provided more detail than the British ONS, but thats quite impressive. It certainly makes conspiracy theories more difficult to pull off

None of the data that the government puts out has any validity. They are so far off that they do not even try to pretend that their numbers have any real basis behind them. They just post shit because that is what their job is. Nobody takes that crap seriously and everybody who looks at the numbers knows from the get go that they are totally bogus. Survey, What Survey?

 

[Neubarth]

Who are you going to believe?

Official unemployment figures are never up-to-scratch. Better to use a labour force survey, using a random sample to assess the number that are 'actively seeking work'. The ILO provide such information

The US official unemployment figures (released tomorrow) are from a labor force survey that meets the ILO definitions (minor variations aside, such as the ILO has an upper limit on age, US doesn't). Neubarth doesn't accept that, though and only goes off of the initial UI claims and thinks that changes in the Unemployment level (from the Current Population Survey) should match up with the increase in UI claims.

Eligibility for UI benefits has never ever been part of US calculations of the official Unemployment level/rate.

I take you off of ignore, and the first thing that I see is that you are lying like hell again. You are the damndest lying arse that I have ever encountered. You have no morals or ethics and just lie like hell all of the time.

I have never said that the UI claims have to match up with the Survey. I have always dismissed the survey out of hand as totally ludicrous. Everybody who knows me know that THAT is my position and has been my position since Reagan was President. The tremendous under count of Unemployment in this country is a disgrace. It has gotten worse since Obama took office. In Washington they have started playing games with the UI Claims numbers to see how totally asinine they can make them appear.

MY beef with the UI claims is that the government uses their artificial data that has no correlation with reality to say week after week that UI claims have been going down for months, when, in reality they have been going up and up and UP and UP and UP. The government has lied brazenly about the so called economic revival, and it starts with the phony Unemployment Insurance numbers.