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

[Misty]

"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

 

[Dick Tuck]

What percentage of those are students or retired or decided to be stay at home moms?

 

[Nova78]

The Obama losers grasp for any glimmer of hope, bye-bye loser obama ,pack your shit and go back to the getto...............:

 

[longknife]

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.

 

[longknife]

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.

 

[Nova78]

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 ...

 

[oldfart]

"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.

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.

 

[Misty]

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."

 

[Misty]

What percentage of those are students or retired or decided to be stay at home moms?

Not that many since practically everyone has to work now. The stay at home mom is an archaic notion.

 

[BluePhantom]

What percentage of those are students or retired or decided to be stay at home moms?

None, DICK. Those are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

What percentage of those are students or retired or decided to be stay at home moms?

What percentage of people are not getting unemployment benefits and therby not counted? What percentage of people are working 15 hours a week for peanuts? You really are a dick. Chronic unemployment and underemployment is a huge problem. In my opinion it's becoming an epidemic.

Real unemployment was about 20 percent when Obama took office. It is so much worse now.

 

[oldfart]

If the stats were done the way they used to be done the real unemployment 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."

With all deference to Shadowstats, the long-term discouraged worker problem is a difficult one. There is a reason these individuals were dropped from the definition of U-6 in 1994. Obviously these individuals would not show up on the Establishment Survey of employers as they have not been on anyone's payroll in several years. So the only source is the Census Household Survey. Follow-up sampling of this group indicated a high variability of whether they identified themselves as being available for work or not. Some had taken retirement benefits or disability, which raised a question of when they should be counted as leaving the labor force. The consensus was that the definition was just too subjective to be a valid and reliable (statistically) component of a measure of unemployment.

Since the Census is no longer keeping track of long-term discouraged workers, the only way to continue that series is to estimate that population either from unpublished BLS data or projection of ratios from the 90's. I don't subscribe to Shadowstats, so I don't have acess to their methodological notes. Personally I don't see much harm in publishing alternative measures of unemployment, but I don't give this one much weighting. It should track pretty well with U-6, so it doesn't add much to predictive value (in multiple-regression speak it exhibits a high degree of colinearity). If I use more than one employment variable in a model, I use U-6 and the employment-population ratios.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "real unemployment rate". We have different measures, and some are better than others. The U-3 "headline rate" is a wretchedly poor indicator, so reasonable people should be looking at alternate statistics, but I don't see any single estimation as being unequivocally superior. If it was, BLS would change to it. The line between being in and not being in the labor force is necessarily fuzzy to begin with. For example, I am not in the labor force for a minimum-wage job, but I am if anyone wants to pay me $250,000 a year to come of retirement. Hell, I might take a part-time teaching job again just out of boredom! (My most popular course offerings in college were Labor Economics and Money & Banking).

 

[edthecynic]

The real UE rate is 7.5%

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

 

[BluePhantom]

The real UE rate is 7.5%

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

Oh now we're basing our unemployment rate on a Gallup poll? Jesus H Christ. What's next? Setting the tax rate based on a dart board throw?

 

[edthecynic]

The real UE rate is 7.5%

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

Oh now we're basing our unemployment rate on a Gallup poll? Jesus H Christ. What's next? Setting the tax rate based on a dart board throw?

It is not a poll, it is a survey just like the BLS survey, only conducted by registered Republican Gallup.

Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.

 

[Politico]

I wonder why people are suddenly getting a brain. I have been telling people to stop using the unemployment numbers for 20 years.

 

[BluePhantom]

The real UE rate is 7.5%

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

Oh now we're basing our unemployment rate on a Gallup poll? Jesus H Christ. What's next? Setting the tax rate based on a dart board throw?

It is not a poll, it is a survey just like the BLS survey, only conducted by registered Republican Gallup.

Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.

Oh now Gallup is a Republican organization?!?!? Ed...stop...just stop. Stretch Armstrong couldn't reach this far.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh now we're basing our unemployment rate on a Gallup poll? Jesus H Christ. What's next? Setting the tax rate based on a dart board throw?

It is not a poll, it is a survey just like the BLS survey, only conducted by registered Republican Gallup.

Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.

Oh now Gallup is a Republican organization?!?!? Ed...stop...just stop. Stretch Armstrong couldn't reach this far.

The Gallup family have always been Republican CON$ervative Christians. That is simply a fact, so there is no way that it is a Left leaning organization. Gallup's survey says the UE rate is 7.5% and falling.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is not a poll, it is a survey just like the BLS survey, only conducted by registered Republican Gallup.

Oh now Gallup is a Republican organization?!?!? Ed...stop...just stop. Stretch Armstrong couldn't reach this far.

The Gallup family have always been Republican CON$ervative Christians. That is simply a fact, so there is no way that it is a Left leaning organization. Gallup's survey says the UE rate is 7.5% and falling.

It seems to be falling because fewer are looking for work and because those who must work are now willing to settle for Barryjobs, i.e., part time jobs. 2/3's of those who got jobs reflected in the last BLS report got part time Barryjobs.


This is what happens when you have an anti-business liberal president.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It is not a poll, it is a survey just like the BLS survey, only conducted by registered Republican Gallup.

Oh now Gallup is a Republican organization?!?!? Ed...stop...just stop. Stretch Armstrong couldn't reach this far.

The Gallup family have always been Republican CON$ervative Christians. That is simply a fact, so there is no way that it is a Left leaning organization. Gallup's survey says the UE rate is 7.5% and falling.

Idiot lib.

George Gallup founded the American Institute of Public Opinion, the precursor of The Gallup Organization, in Princeton, New Jersey, in 1935. He wished to objectively determine the opinions held by the people. To ensure his independence and objectivity, Dr. Gallup resolved that he would undertake no polling that was paid for or sponsored in any way by special interest groups such as the Republican and Democratic parties, a commitment that Gallup upholds to this day.

In 1936 Gallup successfully predicted that Franklin Roosevelt would defeat Alfred Landon for the U.S. presidency; this event quickly popularized the company. In 1938 Dr. Gallup and Gallup Vice President David Ogilvy began conducting market research for advertising companies and the film industry