Let's focus on the real unemployment rate ; the u6

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Misty, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. Misty
    Offline

    Misty Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    7,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,897
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,308
    "Take a hard look instead at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.

    That rate stands at about 14.5%, or nearly double the official unemployment rate.

    As economists digest the disappointing job numbers released Friday -- just 120,000 jobs added in March, well below expectations -- some say the U6 figure is the data point people should be focused on.

    The official figure used by the Labor Department “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar and economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

    The U6 number is derived from a household survey that includes people who are actually unemployed as well as those who haven’t looked for work in over four weeks, Mathur explained."

    Time to Focus on the Real Unemployment Rate | Fox Business
     
  2. Dick Tuck
    Offline

    Dick Tuck Board Troll

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,511
    Thanks Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +502
    What percentage of those are students or retired or decided to be stay at home moms?
     
  3. Nova78
    Online

    Nova78 Silver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,917
    Thanks Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +267
    The Obama losers grasp for any glimmer of hope, bye-bye loser obama ,pack your shit and go back to the getto...............:eusa_clap::eusa_clap::
     
  4. longknife
    Offline

    longknife Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    25,205
    Thanks Received:
    8,349
    Trophy Points:
    900
    Location:
    Sin City
    Ratings:
    +13,585
    Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions

    Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls.

    The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.

    One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.

    In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers.

    Solis was adamant today in defending both the revisions and the BLS's methodology for counting part-time workers--relying largely on the upwards revisions for July and August jobs (emphasis added):

    CNBC: We're getting bombarded by people who do not believe the number. They believe this number was fixed and typed to coincide with Election Day. What do you say to them?...I'll rephrase the question. A lot of people do not believe the 7.8 number. They believe that somehow BLS fixed this to coincide with the election cycle. What is labor's response?

    Solis: You know, I'm insulted when I hear that because we have a very professional, civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the BLS. They've been doing these calculations. These are -- these are our best trained and best-skilled individuals working in the BLS, and it's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement, and I say that because just look at the -- we have to look at what happens across the board, not just in one month, but look what happened in the last two months. We also saw revisions there upwards of 86,000 additional jobs added and this brings us now to 5.2 million private sector jobs across the board, we saw 104 private sector jobs created....

    CNBC: Before I let you go, you say skepticism over the numbers are ludicrous. You say you're insulted. Is there a danger, you believe, when large sections was country don't believe the data. Not that it's ever been considered gospel, but when you have disbelief how much danger is embedded in that?

    Solis: I will tell you that we look at each report differently. We just saw revisions for the last two months and this happens. I mean, these are estimates that obviously, the BLS puts out. They do the best calculation, using the best measurements and tools and we've been using them for the past 70 years. We haven't changed anything and the information that I received is given to me by our professional, civil service staff in the BLS.

    Note that Solis describes the 86,000 upward revision as if it were an increase in private sector jobs, though in fact the increase came entirely from revisions to public sector payrolls by cash-strapped federal and state governments. Instead of shedding jobs, as previously claimed, governments have been adding jobs.
     
  5. longknife
    Offline

    longknife Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    25,205
    Thanks Received:
    8,349
    Trophy Points:
    900
    Location:
    Sin City
    Ratings:
    +13,585
    Was that a good jobs report or a bad one?

    by Texan99

    It may have been naive to expected an un-jimmied jobs report this close to the election, but even by the loose standards we've learned to apply, this one is a doozy. Somehow, we added fewer jobs than are needed to keep pace with a growing population, but the unemployment rate took a dive to 7.8%, the first time in 43 months it's been below 8%. OK, you can get there by driving a phenomenal number of people out of the workforce, I guess, but the numbers still don't add up. We added 114,000 non-farm jobs but lost 456,000 unemployed people, while the household survey showed that the number of people with jobs rose by 873,000 (seasonally adjusted) -- the highest one-month increase in 29 years. It seems that the latter number includes 582,000 part-time jobs accepted by workers who were seeking part-time work but taking what they could get. Total "multiple jobs holders" rose by 183,000.

    Zero Hedge is having some trouble with the numbers. Here's an interesting coincidence, for instance: the household survey figure is 873,000 jobs, of which 582,000 are part-time, which is precisely 2/3. Sound a bit like a plugged number?

    I'm totally confused, but I take it that the unemployment number uses the household-survey jobs (873,000) instead of what Zero Hedge calls the "establishment" jobs number, which was the 114,000 figure. Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has unexpectedly revised upward the disappointing jobs figures for the last three months.

    Well, I just hope the jobs picture is turning around, and these aren't simply numbers that will be quietly revised downwards later, per the usual practice.
     
  6. Nova78
    Online

    Nova78 Silver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,917
    Thanks Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +267
    $obamacarelines.jpg

    $Barack-Obama-With-Members-Of-His-Administration-440x293.jpg Part time $8.00 an hour jobs are not jobs ! Most have gave up looking for a real job, Obama the loser has pretty much destroyed the job market. look for massive lay offs and low paying part time jobs as obamacare kicks in ...
     
  7. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    Actually it is at 14.7% (Table A-15 in the monthly labor report) Also check out the employment to population ratio in Table A-1 and go to the bottom of the main page and look for "historic series for Tables A". Select the statistic you want (U-6 and the employment ratio), and it will generate a table going back as far as there is data.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  8. Misty
    Offline

    Misty Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    7,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,897
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,308
    If the stats were done the way they used to be done the real unemoyment rate is 25%.

    From shadowstats.com

    "The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

    The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment."

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Misty
    Offline

    Misty Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    7,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,897
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,308
    Not that many since practically everyone has to work now. The stay at home mom is an archaic notion.
     
  10. BluePhantom
    Offline

    BluePhantom Educator (of liberals)

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Portland, OR / Salem, OR
    Ratings:
    +3,137
    None, DICK. Those are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate
     

Share This Page