Real Unemloyment Rate: 22.5%?

[JBeukema]

Ever get the feeling that things are a lot worse than everyone is letting on?
Officially the unemployment rate is 9.6%, but there's a lot more people out of work than that. If you add on top of that people who have dropped out of the labor-force, as well as people who work part-time but would prefer full-time if they could get it, AND people who have been out of work for over a year, as economist John Williams has done, you get a whopping 22.5% underemployment rate for September.

U.S. : The Real Underemployment Figure Is 22.5% | World News |Axisoflogic.com


Perhaps it should clarify 'un-and under-employed?

 

[loosecannon]

they do

The BLS also calculates 5 alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6,[68] which have been charted over time[69][70]

* U1: Percentage of labour force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
* U2: Percentage of labour force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
* U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
* U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
* U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
* U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

Note: "Marginally attached workers" are added to the total labour force for unemployment rate calculation for U4, U5, and U6. The BLS revised the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.[71]

Statistics for the U.S. economy as a whole hide variations among groups. For example, in January 2008 U.S. unemployment rates were 4.4% for adult men, 4.2% for adult women, 4.4% for Caucasians, 6.3% for Hispanics or Latinos (all races), 9.2% for African Americans, 3.2% for Asian Americans, and 18.0% for teenagers.[64] Also, the U.S. unemployment rate would be at least 2% higher if prisoners and jail inmates were counted.

 

[LiberalNut]

The unemployment number commonly advertised is U3.

Unemployment is defined as follows in the Resolution concerning statistics of the economically active population, employment, unemployment and underemployment, adopted by the Thirteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians (Geneva, 1982):

(1) The "unemployed" comprise all persons above a specified age who during the reference period were:

(a)
"without work", i.e. were not in paid employment or self-employment, as defined in paragraph 9;
(b)
"currently available for work", i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment during the reference period; and
(c)
"seeking work", i.e. had taken specific steps in a specified reference period to seek paid employment or self-employment. The specific steps may include registration at a public or private employment exchange; application to employers; checking at worksites, farms, factory gates, market or other assembly places; placing or answering newspaper advertisements; seeking assistance of friends or relatives; looking for land, building, machinery or equipment to establish own enterprise; arranging for financial resources; applying for permits and licences, etc.
(2) In situations where the conventional means of seeking work are of limited relevance, where the labour market is largely unorganized or of limited scope, where labour absorption is, at the time, inadequate, or where the labour force is largely self-employed, the standard definition of unemployment given in subparagraph (1) above may be applied by relaxing the criterion of seeking work.

(3) In the application of the criterion of current availability for work, especially in situations covered by subparagraph (2) above, appropriate tests should be developed to suit national circumstances. Such tests may be based on notions such as present desire for work and previous work experience, willingness to take up work for wage or salary on locally prevailing terms, or readiness to undertake self-employment activity given the necessary resources and facilities.

(4) Notwithstanding the criterion of seeking work embodied in the standard definition of unemployment, persons without work and currently available for work who had made arrangements to take up paid employment or undertake self-employment activity at a date subsequent to the reference period should be considered as unemployed.

(5) Persons temporarily absent from their jobs with no formal job attachment who were currently available for work and seeking work should also be regarded as unemployed in accordance with the standard definition of unemployment. Countries may, however, depending on national circumstances and policies, prefer to relax the seeking work criterion in the case of persons temporarily laid off. In such cases, persons temporarily laid off who were not seeking work but classified as unemployed should be identified as a separate subcategory.

(6) Students, homemakers and others mainly engaged in non-economic activities during the reference period who satisfy the criteria laid down in subparagraphs (1) and (2) above should be regarded as unemployed on the same basis as other categories of unemployed identified separately, where possible.

The economist referenced is engaged in mal practice. In all likelyhood, he is being paid by Cato or some other right wing "think tank" to produce bogus numbers.

 

[pinqy]

Here's what Williams does as far as I can tell (he doesn't publish his exact methodology and certainly conducts no surveys): He takes the U-6 and adds approx 5 million. That's his claim as to the number of additional people who would be Marginally attached under the definition from 1974-1994. The bigest problem with that is that there was no definition for Marginally Attached before 1994.

The Marginally Attached are those who didn't work and hadn't looked for work in the previous 4 weeks but who state they want to work, and could accept a job if offered. Discouraged workers are a subset whose specific reason for not looking is the belief that they would be unsuccessful. Now, these people aren't unemployed because they're not actually trying to work..they're "Not in the Labor Force" along with all others not working or trying to work. The reason they're tracked is because they represent potential labor. Before 1994, only Discouraged Workers were tracked and there were no time limits..the definition was as I've stated. But in 94 an additional qualification was added: that they must have looked for work sometime in the previous 12 months, and this applies to Discouraged Workers and all other Marginally Attached.. This shows the people are probably serious and have made recent efforts. Honestly, does anyone think that someone who hasn't tried to work in 5 years is reliable as to their claims of wanting to work? Some are, but many many aren't. That adds a big statistical bias, so to get as accurate as possible, to show that someone really does want to work and isn't just claiming it, they must have looked in the last year.

The biggest problem with Williams' work (besides that he's full of shit) is that there are no comparisons. Marginally attached didn't exist before 1994, so you

 

[B. Kidd]

Official Las Vegas Valley unemployment rate came out for Sept.......15%. A new record for us.

 

[Mini 14]

Official Las Vegas Valley unemployment rate came out for Sept.......15%. A new record for us.

But I thought Harry was all about saving and creating jobs?

And he can't even get it done in his backyard?

Is he ever even in Nevada anymore?

 

[boedicca]

Ever get the feeling that things are a lot worse than everyone is letting on?
Officially the unemployment rate is 9.6%, but there's a lot more people out of work than that. If you add on top of that people who have dropped out of the labor-force, as well as people who work part-time but would prefer full-time if they could get it, AND people who have been out of work for over a year, as economist John Williams has done, you get a whopping 22.5% underemployment rate for September.

U.S. : The Real Underemployment Figure Is 22.5% | World News |Axisoflogic.com


Perhaps it should clarify 'un-and under-employed?

Shadowstats is his website:

Alternate Unemployment Charts


He adjusts for the long term unemployed that the government no longer counts. And yes, real Unemployment is 22.5%.

 

[B. Kidd]

Official Las Vegas Valley unemployment rate came out for Sept.......15%. A new record for us.

But I thought Harry was all about saving and creating jobs?

And he can't even get it done in his backyard?

Is he ever even in Nevada anymore?

He's rarely in Nevada since the Ritz-Carlton went out of business at Lake Las Vegas earlier this year .

 

[Sallow]

S'funny that you guys are so concerned with this now..but not during the Bush administration. Lots of people lost their jobs..but never went on unemployment.

 

[Douger]

When it reaches 35%, think Mad Max.

 

[boedicca]

S'funny that you guys are so concerned with this now..but not during the Bush administration. Lots of people lost their jobs..but never went on unemployment.

Please provide some proof that none of us were concerned about unemployment during the Bush years.

 

[B. Kidd]

When it reaches 35%, think Mad Max.

The furniture consignment stores have run out of room because they're so full. Due to over-supply, even 'Bartertown' ideas fail!

 

[LiberalNut]

And what praytell is the conservative plan for returning the economy to full employment?

I can't wait for the non-responses.

 

[boedicca]

There's a plethora of answers throughout the forum, bub.

In a nutshell: reverse Obamanomics.

Not that you'll grok what means.

 

[PoliticalChic]

S'funny that you guys are so concerned with this now..but not during the Bush administration. Lots of people lost their jobs..but never went on unemployment.

"The recession President Bush inherited as he entered office ran through the attacks of September 11, 2001, but during the recovery that followed, and due in no small part to the tax relief President Bush worked with Congress to provide, this country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth - 52 straight months, with 8.3 million jobs created.

This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. In the same period, real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent, and there was a 4.7 percent increase in the number of new businesses formed. The current economic challenges, which the President and his Administration have responded to aggressively, threaten to reverse some of these gains - but the gains cannot be denied.

As for the current crisis, the President and his economic team have taken unprecedented actions to stabilize the financial sector and avert a collapse. While there are a number of causes of the housing and credit crises that are at the root of our current economic troubles, deregulation by the Bush Administration is simply not one of them. In fact, one of the circumstances that contributed to the crisis was the failure of the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which President Bush long tried to subject to greater regulation. In April 2001, three months after taking office, the President warned in his first budget that the size of the two GSEs were a "potential problem" that "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." In 2003, the Administration began calling for a new GSE regulator, and over the next five years, the Administration continued to call for GSE reform only to be accused by Democrats in Congress of creating artificial fears and advocating for ill-advised proposals. By the time Congress finally acted in 2008 to provide the oversight the President requested, it was too late to prevent systemic consequences. Had the Administration's initial reform proposals been adopted, some of today's turmoil in our financial markets may have been averted."
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Myths & Facts About the Real Bush Record

I earnestly look forward to the day when you evince some real knowledge, rather than partisan propaganda...

but then, I am the eternal optimist.

 

[loosecannon]

S'funny that you guys are so concerned with this now..but not during the Bush administration. Lots of people lost their jobs..but never went on unemployment.

"The recession President Bush inherited as he entered office ran through the attacks of September 11, 2001, but during the recovery that followed, and due in no small part to the tax relief President Bush worked with Congress to provide, this country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth - 52 straight months, with 8.3 million jobs created.

This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. In the same period, real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent, and there was a 4.7 percent increase in the number of new businesses formed. The current economic challenges, which the President and his Administration have responded to aggressively, threaten to reverse some of these gains - but the gains cannot be denied.

As for the current crisis, the President and his economic team have taken unprecedented actions to stabilize the financial sector and avert a collapse. While there are a number of causes of the housing and credit crises that are at the root of our current economic troubles, deregulation by the Bush Administration is simply not one of them. In fact, one of the circumstances that contributed to the crisis was the failure of the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which President Bush long tried to subject to greater regulation. In April 2001, three months after taking office, the President warned in his first budget that the size of the two GSEs were a "potential problem" that "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." In 2003, the Administration began calling for a new GSE regulator, and over the next five years, the Administration continued to call for GSE reform only to be accused by Democrats in Congress of creating artificial fears and advocating for ill-advised proposals. By the time Congress finally acted in 2008 to provide the oversight the President requested, it was too late to prevent systemic consequences. Had the Administration's initial reform proposals been adopted, some of today's turmoil in our financial markets may have been averted."
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Myths & Facts About the Real Bush Record

I earnestly look forward to the day when you evince some real knowledge, rather than partisan propaganda...

but then, I am the eternal optimist.

Malarky. Bush didn't inherit a recession at all. And the "recovery" that did follow the recession that emerged shortly after he took office was a phony recovery fueled by uber low interest rates, massive bubbles and massive new debt.

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in late 2000. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began

or two months after Bush took office.

The most recent recession began 9 months before Obama was even elected. See the difference? (9+2+3=14 months)

In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) declared that the United States had been in recession since December 2007.

Get real.

 

[boedicca]

loosecannon suffers from the Heartbreak Of Economic Illiteracy On Parade.

 

[PoliticalChic]

S'funny that you guys are so concerned with this now..but not during the Bush administration. Lots of people lost their jobs..but never went on unemployment.

"The recession President Bush inherited as he entered office ran through the attacks of September 11, 2001, but during the recovery that followed, and due in no small part to the tax relief President Bush worked with Congress to provide, this country experienced its longest run of uninterrupted job growth - 52 straight months, with 8.3 million jobs created.

This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. In the same period, real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent, and there was a 4.7 percent increase in the number of new businesses formed. The current economic challenges, which the President and his Administration have responded to aggressively, threaten to reverse some of these gains - but the gains cannot be denied.

As for the current crisis, the President and his economic team have taken unprecedented actions to stabilize the financial sector and avert a collapse. While there are a number of causes of the housing and credit crises that are at the root of our current economic troubles, deregulation by the Bush Administration is simply not one of them. In fact, one of the circumstances that contributed to the crisis was the failure of the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which President Bush long tried to subject to greater regulation. In April 2001, three months after taking office, the President warned in his first budget that the size of the two GSEs were a "potential problem" that "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." In 2003, the Administration began calling for a new GSE regulator, and over the next five years, the Administration continued to call for GSE reform only to be accused by Democrats in Congress of creating artificial fears and advocating for ill-advised proposals. By the time Congress finally acted in 2008 to provide the oversight the President requested, it was too late to prevent systemic consequences. Had the Administration's initial reform proposals been adopted, some of today's turmoil in our financial markets may have been averted."
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Myths & Facts About the Real Bush Record

I earnestly look forward to the day when you evince some real knowledge, rather than partisan propaganda...

but then, I am the eternal optimist.

Malarky. Bush didn't inherit a recession at all. And the "recovery" that did follow the recession that emerged shortly after he took office was a phony recovery fueled by uber low interest rates, massive bubbles and massive new debt.

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in late 2000. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began

or two months after Bush took office.

The most recent recession began 9 months before Obama was even elected. See the difference? (9+2+3=14 months)

In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) declared that the United States had been in recession since December 2007.

Get real.

"The claim that the last recession started under Clinton is absolutely true. To deny this is not only to blame Bush for a problem he didn't cause, but to deprive him of the credit for fixing it with effective policies -- which is exactly why the Left is so eager in this case. Here, however, are the facts:

•The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).
•The fed funds rate -- the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve -- peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, "in light of further weakening of sales and production" (during the Clinton administration).
•As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration)."
Capitalism Magazine - Last Economic Recession Began Under Clinton, Despite Rewrites By The Left

 

[loosecannon]

loosecannon suffers from the Heartbreak Of Economic Illiteracy On Parade.

iow you can't refute

 

[loosecannon]

"The claim that the last recession started under Clinton is absolutely true

Tell it to the NBER. Meanwhile in reality that recession began a few months after Bush took office while the current recession began 9 months before Obama did.

Those are facts, Ma'am. Deal.