Legitimate Unemployment Thread

[Centrism'sVoice]

So please clarify: do you want to have a serious discussion of this topic, or do you just want to win?

I simply pointed out your error. I put out the facts, that's it. I have no clue why you refuse to even acknowledge that. I'm willing to have a serious discussion, but you seem more interested in tap-dancing around a basic error.

Okay, I'll put that to the test, then.

First, I'll admit that, having read the technical explanation page you cited, I was mistaken to claim that the BLS stats cover "only" those who apply for or receive benefits. That being said, their analysis still suggests to me that the statistics in practice cover MOSTLY such people. I have a number of reasons on which to base this suspicion.

1. The page claims the numbers are based on a survey, but it's not clear how often this survey is conducted. It appears that it's no more than once per quarter, yet the statistics are revised more often. As a practical matter, I don't see how the BLS can keep up-to-date without the cooperation of state employment departments. Aside from which, I've never even heard of anyone being contacted by the BLS for such a survey: this suggests an extremely small sample size.

2. There are several major flaws in the survey methodology, as they admit to on the website. Two significant examples include the nonsampling error and the relatively low level of statistical confidence (90 percent is low when it comes to making major strategic or policy decisions).

3. It would be impossible for the federal government to grant unemployment insurance extensions without the cooperation of the states. For the BLS not to use this data would be grossly negligent.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I may give both of you rep...this is great reading.

 

[pinqy]

First, I'll admit that, having read the technical explanation page you cited, I was mistaken to claim that the BLS stats cover "only" those who apply for or receive benefits. That being said, their analysis still suggests to me that the statistics in practice cover MOSTLY such people. I have a number of reasons on which to base this suspicion.

Ok.....I don't see how your reasons support your conclusion. 2 and 3 don't seem to be related at all to the argument.

1. The page claims the numbers are based on a survey, but it's not clear how often this survey is conducted. It appears that it's no more than once per quarter, yet the statistics are revised more often.

I have to question your wording here...why do you use the word "claim" instead of "states" or "says?" Do you doubt that the reports are based on surveys?

In any case, both the Establishment and Household surveys are monthly. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was conducted no more than once a quarter.

As a practical matter, I don't see how the BLS can keep up-to-date without the cooperation of state employment departments.

I don't understand this point. Why don't you think they could keep up to date by themselves (and Census conducting the actual survey)? Now, for state and local estimates, the sample is too small, so UI info is included as part of the regression, but that in no way means that UI is any kind of limiting factor. And that's a matter of data, not timeliness. I'm still not sure how you think those not eligible for UI are excluded in any manner.

Aside from which, I've never even heard of anyone being contacted by the BLS for such a survey: this suggests an extremely small sample size.

No it doesn't. It just means that no one you know, which is an extremely small percentage of the population, has told you they've participated. It's possible someone you know has and they haven't told you, but really, out of 60,000 households a month, which is not extremely small, it is small enough that you might not knowingly encounter someone who says they participated.

2. There are several major flaws in the survey methodology, as they admit to on the website. Two significant examples include the nonsampling error and the relatively low level of statistical confidence (90 percent is low when it comes to making major strategic or policy decisions).

Nothing's perfect. And I'm not sure what statistics class you took that said 90% was low. But what does that have to do with your claim that the UE rate excludes a significant number of people not eligible for UI?

3. It would be impossible for the federal government to grant unemployment insurance extensions without the cooperation of the states. For the BLS not to use this data would be grossly negligent.

Use which data? And in what manner?

 

[editec]

My guess is that the real rate of unemployment is about twice as high as we are typically told it is.

The BLS actualy does post numbers which they say include discouraged workers, and the tragically under-smployed, too.

And yes, typically those numbers end up show a rate of unemployment which is about twice as high as the more conservtive number that is typically reported.

So let's assume that the current rate of unemployment is about 18%, right now.

Seems about right to me.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

My guess is that the real rate of unemployment is about twice as high as we are typically told it is.

The BLS actualy does post numbers which they say include discouraged workers, and the tragically under-smployed, too.

And yes, typically those numbers end up show a rate of unemployment which is about twice as high as the more conservtive number that is typically reported.

So let's assume that the current rate of unemployment is about 18%, right now.

Seems about right to me.

Actually if you do the math the july numbers show around a 9% unemployment rate, lower than reported in the MSM.

Hold on let me verify that claim

Yup the numbers I posted show a 9.4% unemployment rate for July. I dont know where you got 18% from?

 

[pinqy]

My guess is that the real rate of unemployment is about twice as high as we are typically told it is.

Ok, define this "real rate" and what makes it more "real?" When you use words like "real" you're implying that there is an absolute, undisputed, one true rate and anything else is either a lie or misinformation.

The BLS actualy does post numbers which they say include discouraged workers, and the tragically under-smployed, too.

The official UE rate is the U3. The U1 is the percentage of the labor force that's been unemployed for 15 or more weeks. Currently 5.1%.
The U2 is the percentage of people who were fired, laid off, or finished temporary work (excluding those unemployed who quit or who are entering or re-entering the labor force) Currently 6.2%
The U4 includes discouraged workers, defined as those who aren't working, but who claim they want to work and that the reason they're not looking is because they don't believe they'll find anything and who have looked for work sometime in the last 12 months. This is typically a small number...currently 796,000 (not seasonally adjusted). It's long been debated about whether discouraged should be included in the official figure. It was partially, and inconsistantly used in the US prior to 1967. On the one hand, it does add to the labor market picture by showing how many people would and are able to participate but aren't because of the conditions of the market...on the other hand, calling someone discouraged is a very subjective thing and they aren't actually participating in the labor market: they're not an available source, only a potential source. Currently the U4 is 9.8%

U5 adds on all "Marginally Attached," everyone who isn't working, isn't looking, but who claims to want a job and to be available in the next 2 weeks and who has looked in the last 12 months. Unlike Discouraged, the reason doesn't matter. This category has only been around since 1994 and as far as I know nobody has ever used it as part of an official definition. Currently 10.7%

Last is the U6 which adds on to the U5 those who are working part-time jobs but who claim to want full time jobs but are working part time because they can't find full time work or because their hours have been cut. Currently at Again nobody has ever used this as an official measure.

The U6 certainly can't be the "real" rate of unemployment because it includes people who are employed.

And yes, typically those numbers end up show a rate of unemployment which is about twice as high as the more conservtive number that is typically reported.

No, they don't. But the more important points are that they all move together, and te official rate is a lot more objective while U4-6 are very subjective. Which is bad when you're trying to represent the whole country with a relatively small sample.

So let's assume that the current rate of unemployment is about 18%, right now.

Seems about right to me.

Why does it seem right to you? What definition are you using and why is that the "real" definition?

 

[wvpeach]

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)

Excuse me ................. those figure comes from the bureau of labor statistics ........................who puts them together by data they get from every states unemployment office.

In fact they do include mostly people who are receiving unemployment insurance.
They also include people who are coming into the unemployment office not eligible for unemployment either because they are new to the working world. IE Young people or have exhausted their unemployment.

So it's a bit incorrect to say those numbers have nothing to do with the people collecting unemployment insurance . In fact that is what most of those numbers represent.

 

[xsited1]

This thread reminds me of Sealybobo. I hope he finds a job with access to the internet soon!

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

This thread reminds me of Sealybobo. I hope he finds a job with access to the internet soon!

If sealy were actually out of work, you would definitely not have inside info. Don't spread rumors.

 

[pinqy]

Excuse me ................. those figure comes from the bureau of labor statistics ........................who puts them together by data they get from every states unemployment office.

No they do not! I've already given the links. The National rate comes from a household survey NOT the state offices. The state and local area figures do come from a Fed/State program but still is not "put together from the state unemployment office." The sample from the National survey is used in conjunction with state UI claims and the Current Employment Statistics survey to do regression analysis and derive the state and local numbers, but again, it's in no way restricted or limited to those receiving insurance.

You're free to cite your source for your bogus claim. If you actually did read something somewhere rather than just making it up you'll find that either it was someone else talking out of their ass or you misunderstood the differences between the National and local area numbers.

I've given my links and cites, why on Earth do you think you can just make an assertion without any evidence?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Pinqy some of the people in this thread are not fully grasping the simplicity of the numbers used.

 

[Neubarth]

Lots and loits of self-employed people, who don't qualify for unemployment handouts, are out of work, too.

The self-employed are included in the quoted labor force statistics. Again, to be unemployed you do NOT have to be qualified for or receive Unemployment Insurance. You do not even need to have ever worked at all. If you turn 16, have never worked before, and start looking for a job, you're unemployed.

Anal Ignoramus, that is a bold faced lie and you know it.

The labor Force is far larger than the government pretends. Every number after that is phony and can not be believed.

 

[pinqy]

Lots and loits of self-employed people, who don't qualify for unemployment handouts, are out of work, too.

The self-employed are included in the quoted labor force statistics. Again, to be unemployed you do NOT have to be qualified for or receive Unemployment Insurance. You do not even need to have ever worked at all. If you turn 16, have never worked before, and start looking for a job, you're unemployed.

Anal Ignoramus, that is a bold faced lie and you know it.

No, it is not a lie. For the CPS, Unemployed is defined as

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

That's the definition. That's what BLS uses. Table A-8 of the Employment Situation report gives the different categories of Unemployed: Temporary Lay-off, Permanent Job Losers, Finished Temporary Job, Job Leavers, Reentrants, New Entrants.

So if you're going to call me a liar when the definition and the specific figure for new entrants are given, you just look silly. I note that, as usual, you don't even bother to try to support your claims.

The labor Force is far larger than the government pretends. Every number after that is phony and can not be believed.

Feel free to present your data that the Labor Force, (as defined by BLS) is higher than reported. Oh, wait, you rely on anecdotal evidence from what you see in your small corner of the world as more reliable than a nationwide survey.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why is it that the pro-govt people in this thread are now bashing the govt numbers? The numbers I listed from the govt show a better percentage for unemployment than what the MSM is reporting, i would think that would make those who liked the stimulus package and who are obama fans happy. Instead they are angry with me....

 

[Neubarth]

The self-employed are included in the quoted labor force statistics. Again, to be unemployed you do NOT have to be qualified for or receive Unemployment Insurance. You do not even need to have ever worked at all. If you turn 16, have never worked before, and start looking for a job, you're unemployed......

Feel free to present your data that the Labor Force, (as defined by BLS) is higher than reported. Oh, wait, you rely on anecdotal evidence from what you see in your small corner of the world as more reliable than a nationwide survey.

I have talked to thousands and thousands of self employed people. Not one of them has ever been contacted by the BLS to fill out a form or give information to a survey person. I have spoken at rallies directed towards the removal of this horribly corrupt government, and not one person has ever been contacted on these so called surveys.

In fact of all the people I know, not one has ever answered a survey to that effect. This survey does not exist if it has never been witnessed. Just like the Government's numbers on unemployment, it is all imaginary.

Now go out into the streets and talk to people. If you did you would find that 30 Million or more do not have full time jobs and can not pay their bills. And to think, Obama pretends that spending will magically be restored as soon as all these people stop their irrational fear because they think they do not have enough money to buy food and pay the rent.

Obama now a member of the privileged class is totally out of touch with reality. He just wants to make the big banks rich so they will support him in future endeavors. The Big Banks are making Billions while the small banks are failing left and right and you are at your desk in love with your numbers and statistics that clearly show that the recession is almost gone.

 

[Old Rocks]

Things are not getting better. They have just started to get worse at a slower rate. When there is a postive number of people getting jobs as compared to those losing them, then we can say a recovery has started. Until tlhen, we are still in an economic downturn.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Things are not getting better. They have just started to get worse at a slower rate. When there is a postive number of people getting jobs as compared to those losing them, then we can say a recovery has started. Until tlhen, we are still in an economic downturn.

I agree

 

[edthecynic]

My guess is that the real rate of unemployment is about twice as high as we are typically told it is.

Ok, define this "real rate" and what makes it more "real?" When you use words like "real" you're implying that there is an absolute, undisputed, one true rate and anything else is either a lie or misinformation.

The BLS actualy does post numbers which they say include discouraged workers, and the tragically under-smployed, too.

The official UE rate is the U3. The U1 is the percentage of the labor force that's been unemployed for 15 or more weeks. Currently 5.1%.
The U2 is the percentage of people who were fired, laid off, or finished temporary work (excluding those unemployed who quit or who are entering or re-entering the labor force) Currently 6.2%
The U4 includes discouraged workers, defined as those who aren't working, but who claim they want to work and that the reason they're not looking is because they don't believe they'll find anything and who have looked for work sometime in the last 12 months. This is typically a small number...currently 796,000 (not seasonally adjusted). It's long been debated about whether discouraged should be included in the official figure. It was partially, and inconsistantly used in the US prior to 1967. On the one hand, it does add to the labor market picture by showing how many people would and are able to participate but aren't because of the conditions of the market...on the other hand, calling someone discouraged is a very subjective thing and they aren't actually participating in the labor market: they're not an available source, only a potential source. Currently the U4 is 9.8%

U5 adds on all "Marginally Attached," everyone who isn't working, isn't looking, but who claims to want a job and to be available in the next 2 weeks and who has looked in the last 12 months. Unlike Discouraged, the reason doesn't matter. This category has only been around since 1994 and as far as I know nobody has ever used it as part of an official definition. Currently 10.7%

Last is the U6 which adds on to the U5 those who are working part-time jobs but who claim to want full time jobs but are working part time because they can't find full time work or because their hours have been cut. Currently at Again nobody has ever used this as an official measure.

The U6 certainly can't be the "real" rate of unemployment because it includes people who are employed.

And yes, typically those numbers end up show a rate of unemployment which is about twice as high as the more conservtive number that is typically reported.

No, they don't. But the more important points are that they all move together, and te official rate is a lot more objective while U4-6 are very subjective. Which is bad when you're trying to represent the whole country with a relatively small sample.

So let's assume that the current rate of unemployment is about 18%, right now.

Seems about right to me.

Why does it seem right to you? What definition are you using and why is that the "real" definition?

So what UE numbers do CON$ choose to use, depending on who's president???
CON$ use U3 numbers for the GOP and U6 numbers for Dems.
CON$ are sooooooooo predictable.

Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page
August 7, 2009
Story #5: NYT to Claim Unemployment Problem "Decade Old"

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I have been advised that the New York Times planning heavy coverage for this weekend on the following story. It's being written by Floyd Norris. "In Last Decade, a Lack of Job Growth..." This the just amazing in its malpractice and irresponsibility. Listen to this now. "For the first time since the Depression, the American economy has added virtually no jobs in the private sector over a 10-year period. The total number of jobs has grown a bit, but that is only because of government hiring. The accompanying charts," which I don't have here; I just have the advanced text "show the job performance from July 1999, when the economy was booming and companies were complaining about how hard it was to find workers, through July of this year, when the economy was mired in the deepest and longest recession since World War II."

So from 1999 to now, we have produced no new jobs. We've been in a decade-long jobs recession. The Bush administration never happened! They're willing -- at their near bankrupt newsroom, at the New York Times -- they are willing to put out drivel like this in order to prop up this catastrophe of a president. You remember it was just two years ago we were at record employment at 4.7%, after coming out of a mild recession that Clinton left us with and then 9/11. We had a growing population. We had a booming economy that they tried to make everybody think was rotten, especially in the second Bush term.


Story #6: AP Admits Unemployment Rate Didn't Really Dip

RUSH: I must mention this. I finally read the full Associated Press story on the new unemployment numbers, and even the AP admits that unemployment didn't really dip. "Employers sharply scale back layoffs in July. The unemployment rate dips for the first time in 15 months, sending a strong signal, the worst recession..."

Then you go to the end of the article, buried at the bottom: "The dip in the unemployment rate was the first since April 2008. One of the reasons the rate declined, though, was that hundreds of thousands of people left the labor force. The labor force includes only those who are either employed or are looking for work." So even AP admits unemployment didn't really dip. We just had a hell of a lot of people give up looking, and they're not counted as members of the labor force. That's what we now know in the BLS figures they put out, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The U6, unemployment 6... Like 9.4% is U3 and that's people who are employed, looking for work, not employed, on unemployment benefits. U6 is everybody that's looking for work, on unemployment compensation and those who are no longer looking, they've given up, and that rate is 16%. Not 9.4. It is 16, maybe 16.9, but it's 16 something. And even AP admits unemployment didn't really dip. It just went off the charts, just went off the unemployment rolls. Well, we have been rescued. See, AP knows people aren't going to read the bottom of the story. We've been rescued from this catastrophe. The president said so today.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

August is almost done.

I'll post up the new numbers as soon as they are available. I'm hoping the number of unemployed drops.

I really hope we didn't shed more jobs last month

 

[Zoomie1980]

Things are not getting better. They have just started to get worse at a slower rate. When there is a postive number of people getting jobs as compared to those losing them, then we can say a recovery has started. Until tlhen, we are still in an economic downturn.

No, that is flat out wrong. Always has been. No one uses unemployment numbers to defined the start of a recession or its end. Not ever.