Legitimate Unemployment Thread

The numbers do not show you the whole truth, PP. They cover only people who have filed claims and whose benefits have not expired.

For the billionth time, the Unemployment rate has NEVER been based on Unemployment insurance. It's not asked in the survey and never has been. I don't get how you could make that post when you've clearly never actually researched it yourself. Where on earth did you get the idea that the Unemployment rate had anything to do with Unemployment benefits?

The official definitions from The Bureau of Labor Statistics
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibilityfor or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
(bolding is mine)

If you remove the "l" from bls you get what the BLS has to say.

They use a bunch of double talk and feel-good rhetoric to cover the few sentences in there that explain how they figure the numbers.

PPL who aren't looking for work are counted as "not in the labor pool". Welfare mothers are not in the welfare pool. People who work odd jobs part time are considered "employed".

Whether you deny the BLS data or not in this manner...

It is true that they have gotten their data the same way for decades, so for the reason of comparison to other presidencies, like Reagan's, it is accurate.
 
The statisticians at the BLS are professionals. Many if not most of them are Ph.D.s who have forgotten more about statistical methodologies than everyone here combined (except for pinqy), and that includes me. I would bet virtually almost every person here (except for pinqy) would think that homoscedasticity has something to do with two men getting it on.

BTW, here is the employment to population ratio. It is the simplest measurement of employment in the country. It estimates the total percentage of employed people to the eligible working population.

EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png


Notice that this "depression" has left this ratio at levels higher than from WWII to 1980. Were we in a depression for those 35 years too? Was unemployment really 25% then?


You do realize that the reason this is true is the gradual addition of women to the eligible workforce, right?
 
You do realize that the reason this is true is the gradual addition of women to the eligible workforce, right?

Er, yes.

But that is why you cannot compare today's rate of unemployment to the Great Depression. The labor productive capacity is far, far greater today than it was back then.
 
Last edited:
You do realize that the reason this is true is the gradual addition of women to the eligible workforce, right?

Er, yes.

But that is why you cannot compare today's rate of unemployment to the Great Depression. The labor productive capacity is far, far greater today than it was back then.

See my last post, my bad :)

But yes I see your point, and there are reasons for that, like automation and technology.
 
PPL who aren't looking for work are counted as "not in the labor pool".
Well, the term is Labor Force, and no, they're not, because they're not participating in the labor market. You really think that stay-at-home spouses, full time high school students, retirees etc are unemployed? If you're not trying to work, then how realistically can you be considered unemployed? Now, there is a set of those not in the labor force called "Marginally Attached" and those are people who have looked in the last year, but not now although they say they would like to work and could be available within 2 weeks, and theoretically could be available labor if they decided to start looking. And a subset of the Marginally Attached called Discourage Workers who aren't looking for work because they don't believe they could find any. These are tracked, and used in the alternative measures of underutilization (U4, U5, and U6). This group was especially important for the July figures, when the reason unemployment dropped was because a lot of people dropped out. But while important, they would distort the picture of the actual labor market.

Welfare mothers are not in the welfare pool.
Not sure what you mean by "welfare pool." It's not a technical term.

People who work odd jobs part time are considered "employed".
While imperfect, a hard line has to be done or it would throw off the figures. Remember we're talking about a survey from which national numbers are extapolated. Without a hard line, thiings would get very complicated. So, if you work at all, you're employed, if you don't work, you're not. Those working part time who would prefer full time are tracked, too.

It's annoying to see people criticize the official number as if that's the only thing looked at. Real economists look at all the details to get the full picture.

For example, the June-July drop in the Unemployment rate was NOT a good sign because it meant a lot of people were just dropping out of the labor force. The July-August raise might actually be a good sign because more people are starting to look for work. I would expect a corresponding increase in the Consumer Confidence Index as well.
 
Last edited:
People who work odd jobs part time are considered "employed".
While imperfect, a hard line has to be done or it would throw off the figures. Remember we're talking about a survey from which national numbers are extapolated. Without a hard line, thiings would get very complicated. So, if you work at all, you're employed, if you don't work, you're not. Those working part time who would prefer full time are tracked, too.

It's annoying to see people criticize the official number as if that's the only thing looked at. Real economists look at all the details to get the full picture.

For example, the June-July drop in the Unemployment rate was NOT a good sign because it meant a lot of people were just dropping out of the labor force. The July-August raise might actually be a good sign because more people are starting to look for work. I would expect a corresponding increase in the Consumer Confidence Index as well.[/QUOTE]

QFT

One can only hope.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top