MSNBC: Real unemployment rate 17.3%

[CaféAuLait]

MSNBC: Real unemployment rate 17.3%

msnbc.com Video Player

Staggering.

 

[Article 15]

Seems about right.

I consider myself fortunate to have a job these days.

 

[Modbert]

Seems about right.

I consider myself fortunate to have a job these days.

Yep. At this point we can only hope the worst is over.

I can only imagine what my state's unemployment rate is with it "officially" being at 12.9%. Probably in the upper teens to lower twenties.

 

[gautama]

Seems about right.

I consider myself fortunate to have a job these days.

If it's public info, how much does a Super Moderator get at USMB.

Perhaps the Biker Sailor may want to apply.

 

[Article 15]

Seems about right.

I consider myself fortunate to have a job these days.

If it's public info, how much does a Super Moderator get at USMB.

Perhaps the Biker Sailor may want to apply.

I don't get paid to mod.

 

[ihopehefails]

It is going to get much worse for many reasons. Most businesses are just hanging on in hopes of a recovery but if that does not happen then they will bail which will lead to further unemployment which created less spenders. It will keep going until we reach about 29 percent unemployment.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Seems about right.

I consider myself fortunate to have a job these days.

I consider myself fortunate to NOT have one.

 

[code1211]

Seems about right.

I consider myself fortunate to have a job these days.

At this point, if you have a job, grab it with both hands and hang on tight.

If the Big 0 had done nothing to "stimulate" the economy, we'd be coming out of the recession right about now. As it is, all of the money has all been burrowed and the debt is unbe freakin leivable.

Nobody can burrow to buy cars. No car sales, no recovery. This well spoken idiot needs a dot com economic resurgence to save him. I wonder how many of those things there are coming down the pike.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Verizon just announced that they're laying off 13,000 workers. Just continues to get worse. I wouldn't be surprised if we were around 20 to 23 percent by the end of the year.

 

[pinqy]

So explain again how including people with jobs is "real unemployment?" Especially since no one ever in the history of the world has used anything remotely like the U-6 as a "real" measure of unemployment.

The U-6 is a useful measure, especially during recessions, but calling it "real unemployment" is ridiculous. And including people who theoretically would work, but aren't actually trying, isn't a particularly useful measure of how difficult it is to get a job. The U-6 doesn't just include people who aren't looking because the economy is too bad (that's the U-4), but includes people who aren't looking for work because they're pregnant or just had a baby or decided to go back to school or don't have a car, or are looking after a disabled relative or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with actual labor market conditions.

 

[code1211]

It is going to get much worse for many reasons. Most businesses are just hanging on in hopes of a recovery but if that does not happen then they will bail which will lead to further unemployment which created less spenders. It will keep going until we reach about 29 percent unemployment.

I hope you're wrong. I deal with many companies. I am hearing more and more saying that employment has increased or will increase. On the other hand, when I drive to work, the traffic is not so heavy as it was 2 years ago.

There are allot of people wishing things were better now. The up turn will come. I think if the Big 0 had done nothing at all after TARP, things would be better than they are now.

 

[code1211]

So explain again how including people with jobs is "real unemployment?" Especially since no one ever in the history of the world has used anything remotely like the U-6 as a "real" measure of unemployment.

The U-6 is a useful measure, especially during recessions, but calling it "real unemployment" is ridiculous. And including people who theoretically would work, but aren't actually trying, isn't a particularly useful measure of how difficult it is to get a job. The U-6 doesn't just include people who aren't looking because the economy is too bad (that's the U-4), but includes people who aren't looking for work because they're pregnant or just had a baby or decided to go back to school or don't have a car, or are looking after a disabled relative or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with actual labor market conditions.

Without out taking a position on the actual numbers, including the discouraged in the jobless number is more accurate in my opinion.

If a guy is an accountant or a laborer, if he has applied for work with all possible employers, as he sees it, and nobody has hired him, he will be discouraged. In the 70's, I was in that position and eventually left my home to find work elsewhere.

If curcumstances are such that he cannot leave home to search for work and there is no work to be found locally, he won't find any.

Since the clinical definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, it would be literally crazy for him to continue to search the same fruitless area for jobs.

He is out of work. He is no longer trying. Is he unemployed or not?

 

[pinqy]

So explain again how including people with jobs is "real unemployment?" Especially since no one ever in the history of the world has used anything remotely like the U-6 as a "real" measure of unemployment.

The U-6 is a useful measure, especially during recessions, but calling it "real unemployment" is ridiculous. And including people who theoretically would work, but aren't actually trying, isn't a particularly useful measure of how difficult it is to get a job. The U-6 doesn't just include people who aren't looking because the economy is too bad (that's the U-4), but includes people who aren't looking for work because they're pregnant or just had a baby or decided to go back to school or don't have a car, or are looking after a disabled relative or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with actual labor market conditions.

Without out taking a position on the actual numbers, including the discouraged in the jobless number is more accurate in my opinion.

If a guy is an accountant or a laborer, if he has applied for work with all possible employers, as he sees it, and nobody has hired him, he will be discouraged. In the 70's, I was in that position and eventually left my home to find work elsewhere.

If curcumstances are such that he cannot leave home to search for work and there is no work to be found locally, he won't find any.

Since the clinical definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, it would be literally crazy for him to continue to search the same fruitless area for jobs.

He is out of work. He is no longer trying. Is he unemployed or not?

That is an arguable position. And that is why the U-4 is published, to cover that. The problem with including the discouraged is that it is subjective. The person's belief that s/he won't be able to find a job may or may not be accurate. While in you examples the person exhausted all opportunities, that's not always the case. There are certainly people who don't look for work, don't really want to work, and excuse it by saying they wouldn't be able to find work. How do you know which person you're interviewing? Since we're dealing with a survey where each person is representing thousands of other people, the subjectivity of whether or not someone really wants work or not makes for a large margin of error. The most accurate way of telling if someone wants a job is is whether or not they're looking for one. There's just no way around that.

But that wasn't actually my point...The U-6, which is what is talked about in the OP, doesn't just include the discouraged, but ALL people who aren't looking for work (not just discouragement) but claim they want a job. That's even more subjective and prone to error than discouragement. The U-6 also adds in people working part time who would rather work full time. None of that is close to what has ever been thought of as unemployment, either formally or informally.

 

[Big Black Dog]

That may be a more accurate unemployment number. There's lots of folks out of work here in northwestern Illinois.

 

[Neotrotsky]

So explain again how including people with jobs is "real unemployment?" Especially since no one ever in the history of the world has used anything remotely like the U-6 as a "real" measure of unemployment.

The U-6 is a useful measure, especially during recessions, but calling it "real unemployment" is ridiculous. And including people who theoretically would work, but aren't actually trying, isn't a particularly useful measure of how difficult it is to get a job. The U-6 doesn't just include people who aren't looking because the economy is too bad (that's the U-4), but includes people who aren't looking for work because they're pregnant or just had a baby or decided to go back to school or don't have a car, or are looking after a disabled relative or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with actual labor market conditions.

Without out taking a position on the actual numbers, including the discouraged in the jobless number is more accurate in my opinion.

If a guy is an accountant or a laborer, if he has applied for work with all possible employers, as he sees it, and nobody has hired him, he will be discouraged. In the 70's, I was in that position and eventually left my home to find work elsewhere.

If curcumstances are such that he cannot leave home to search for work and there is no work to be found locally, he won't find any.

Since the clinical definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, it would be literally crazy for him to continue to search the same fruitless area for jobs.

He is out of work. He is no longer trying. Is he unemployed or not?

That is an arguable position. And that is why the U-4 is published, to cover that. The problem with including the discouraged is that it is subjective. The person's belief that s/he won't be able to find a job may or may not be accurate. While in you examples the person exhausted all opportunities, that's not always the case. There are certainly people who don't look for work, don't really want to work, and excuse it by saying they wouldn't be able to find work. How do you know which person you're interviewing? Since we're dealing with a survey where each person is representing thousands of other people, the subjectivity of whether or not someone really wants work or not makes for a large margin of error. The most accurate way of telling if someone wants a job is is whether or not they're looking for one. There's just no way around that.

But that wasn't actually my point...The U-6, which is what is talked about in the OP, doesn't just include the discouraged, but ALL people who aren't looking for work (not just discouragement) but claim they want a job. That's even more subjective and prone to error than discouragement. The U-6 also adds in people working part time who would rather work full time. None of that is close to what has ever been thought of as unemployment, either formally or informally.

You do admit that at some point the number would be indicative of major problems
For example, if it was at say 50 percent

So while I agree the number could be subjective, it still has relevance.
As such, the number being so high historically does not speak well of the economy nor should it be ignored.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So explain again how including people with jobs is "real unemployment?" Especially since no one ever in the history of the world has used anything remotely like the U-6 as a "real" measure of unemployment.

The U-6 is a useful measure, especially during recessions, but calling it "real unemployment" is ridiculous. And including people who theoretically would work, but aren't actually trying, isn't a particularly useful measure of how difficult it is to get a job. The U-6 doesn't just include people who aren't looking because the economy is too bad (that's the U-4), but includes people who aren't looking for work because they're pregnant or just had a baby or decided to go back to school or don't have a car, or are looking after a disabled relative or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with actual labor market conditions.

The picking of nits wouldn't be necessary if nearly half a million jobs weren't disappearing each month.

That's the problem needing addressed, not jumping through hoops trying to somehow paint a rose on dried dogshit then calling it art.

 

[pinqy]

You do admit that at some point the number would be indicative of major problems
For example, if it was at say 50 percent

Well, if it were at 50% the official rate would be extraordinarilly high as well. The different measures all generally move in the same direction.

So while I agree the number could be subjective, it still has relevance.
As such, the number being so high historically does not speak well of the economy nor should it be ignored.

I never said it should be ignored, I'm just saying it shouldn't be considered the "real" rate. Its importance lies in the fact that it gives us a better idea of the nuance of what's happening. If the official rate goes down, but part time for economic reasons goes up, then we know that things are improving, but not in the manner we'd like.

 

[Wry Catcher]

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

A little knowledge goes a long way, read the current reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and research historical records.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Seems about right.

I consider myself fortunate to have a job these days.

If it's public info, how much does a Super Moderator get at USMB.

Perhaps the Biker Sailor may want to apply.

I don't get paid to mod.

That's good!.....because you're not very good at it!

Talk about a total waste of money that salary would be.

!

 

[saveliberty]

Seems about right.

I consider myself fortunate to have a job these days.

At this point, if you have a job, grab it with both hands and hang on tight.

If the Big 0 had done nothing to "stimulate" the economy, we'd be coming out of the recession right about now. As it is, all of the money has all been burrowed and the debt is unbe freakin leivable.

Nobody can burrow to buy cars. No car sales, no recovery. This well spoken idiot needs a dot com economic resurgence to save him. I wonder how many of those things there are coming down the pike.

Sold a new one and two used last week and will do at least that this week. We have 17.8% unemployment (not factoring those who are not looking any more) in a rural area. I don't understand either. I am seeing many more cars bought for cash.