Unemployment By The Numbers

[pinqy]

Argue with the experts unless you are saying you are one of the experts

I am a semi-expert, work with the experts and discuss these things with other experts from around the world. There is very little I don't know about this stuff, I just don't do all the math.

Well the real expert disagree with you.

Real experts? Let's look at your link: The real unemployment rate? 16.6%

Mary Engel is a freelance writer from Portland, Ore., who has written for the Los Angeles Times, Anchorage Daily News and Albuquerque Journal.

And you're claiming she's an expert in economics and labor statistics? How does that work?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am a semi-expert, work with the experts and discuss these things with other experts from around the world. There is very little I don't know about this stuff, I just don't do all the math.

Well the real expert disagree with you.

Real experts? Let's look at your link: The real unemployment rate? 16.6%

Mary Engel is a freelance writer from Portland, Ore., who has written for the Los Angeles Times, Anchorage Daily News and Albuquerque Journal.

And you're claiming she's an expert in economics and labor statistics? How does that work?

yes the real experts not some discussion board jockey

She used the data from the government and put it to gather

 

[pinqy]

Well the real expert disagree with you.

Real experts? Let's look at your link: The real unemployment rate? 16.6%

Mary Engel is a freelance writer from Portland, Ore., who has written for the Los Angeles Times, Anchorage Daily News and Albuquerque Journal.

And you're claiming she's an expert in economics and labor statistics? How does that work?

yes the real experts not some discussion board jockey

She used the data from the government and put it to gather

No, she didn't. She took the already published data and claimed it was the "real unemployment number." She didn't put anything together. She has some factual claims wrong

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the Labor Department, began tracking this alternative measure -- known as the U-6 for its department classification -- in 1995 after economists lobbied for a method comparable to the way Japan, Canada and Western Europe count their unemployed.

which is absolutely untrue. Japan, Canada the EU use the ILO definitions which correspond to the U-3, not the U-6. Nobody in the history of ever has included people who have jobs as unemployed (except for the government work programs during the Depression).

 

[pinqy]

Here's the European Union Definitions

Employed persons are persons:

•aged 15 year and over (16 and over in ES, UK and SE (1995-2001); 15-74 years in DK, EE, HU, LV, FI and SE (from 2001 onwards); 16-74 in IS and NO),
•who during the reference week performed work, even for just one hour a week, for pay, profit or family gain,
•who were not at work but had a job or business from which they were temporarily absent because of, e.g., illness, holidays, industrial dispute or education and training.
Unemployed persons are persons:

•aged 15-74 (in ES, SE (1995-2000), UK, IS and NO: 16-74),
•who were without work during the reference week, but currently available for work,
•who were either actively seeking work in the past four weeks or who had already found a job to start within the next three months.

Canadian Definitions

Unemployed persons are those who, during reference
week:
(a) were on temporary layoff during the reference
week with an expectation of recall and were
available for work, or
(b) were without work, had looked for work in the past
four weeks, and were available for work, or
(c) had a new job to start within four weeks from
reference week, and were available for work.

Japanese Definitions

Unemployed person:
Persons who satisfy the following conditions:
i with no job and did no work at all during
the reference week (other than employed
person);
ii ready to work if work is available; and
iii did any job seeking activity or preparing to
start business during the reference week
(including waiting the outcome of the job
seeking activity done in the past)

Note that they don't exactly match the U-3 (differences in lower and/or upper age, job search requirements) but they certainly do not include marginally attached or part time for economic reasons.

So tell me again how she's an expert? There is nothing from BLS that calls the U-6 "real unemployment," in fact one of the BLS experts told me he hates that people call it unemployment at all and prefers "alternative measure of labor underutilization" which is the official term.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Real experts? Let's look at your link: The real unemployment rate? 16.6%

And you're claiming she's an expert in economics and labor statistics? How does that work?

yes the real experts not some discussion board jockey

She used the data from the government and put it to gather

No, she didn't. She took the already published data and claimed it was the "real unemployment number." She didn't put anything together. She has some factual claims wrong

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the Labor Department, began tracking this alternative measure -- known as the U-6 for its department classification -- in 1995 after economists lobbied for a method comparable to the way Japan, Canada and Western Europe count their unemployed.

which is absolutely untrue. Japan, Canada the EU use the ILO definitions which correspond to the U-3, not the U-6. Nobody in the history of ever has included people who have jobs as unemployed (except for the government work programs during the Depression).

Well here's one person who works for the white house


One of the chief data abuses that Hindery has focused an enormous, hot, raging spotlight on is the giant gap between official unemployment (now pegged at 8.8% of the population) and "real unemployment" which Hindery documents at 17.7% of the population.
Steve Clemons: Real Unemployment Shows US Economy Short 20 Million Jobs

It's not a cconservative site and says the real unemployment numbers are higher than my last source and this was posted in April 2011

 

[pinqy]

Well here's one person who works for the white house


One of the chief data abuses that Hindery has focused an enormous, hot, raging spotlight on is the giant gap between official unemployment (now pegged at 8.8% of the population) and "real unemployment" which Hindery documents at 17.7% of the population.
Steve Clemons: Real Unemployment Shows US Economy Short 20 Million Jobs

It's not a cconservative site and says the real unemployment numbers are higher than my last source and this was posted in April 2011

Let's look at his expertise:

media business executive and former Obama for President finance committee member Leo Hindery

hmmmm so he doesn't actually work at the White House, and he's neither an economist nor a statistician.

Let's look at his claims:

The monthly BLS announcement regarding unemployment, however, as we note each month:

1. Uses only a "survey of households" rather than much more accurate payroll data;

How on earth can you use payroll data to measure UNEMPLOYED? And the payroll data is survey of businesses.

2. Excludes changes in employment among the nation's 11.0 million farm and self-employed workers;

No, that's the non-farm payroll survey ("jobs created/lost"). The household survey does include agriculture and the self-employed.

Most important, does not take into account the 14.7 million workers who are:

i. "part-time-of-necessity" (i.e., underemployed) because their hours have been cut back or they are unable to find a full-time job (8.4 million);
ii. "marginally attached" to the labor force because while wanting a job, they have not searched for one in the past four weeks because of availability, skill or personal reasons (2.4 million); or

iii. "discouraged" and who have removed themselves from the labor force although they "currently want a job" (3.8 million).

No, because they're not unemployed. Note he doesn't actually argue why they should be included (and there is real debate about including discouraged...that's a legitimate argument).

The number of real unemployed workers in all four categories - official BLS, part-time-of-necessity, marginally attached, and discouraged

Discouraged workers are a sub-set of the marginally attached so he's counting them twice (or more...his numbers aren't matching the published data).

Why don't you actually go to the BLS site and do the research yourself? All the methodology is explained.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well here's one person who works for the white house


One of the chief data abuses that Hindery has focused an enormous, hot, raging spotlight on is the giant gap between official unemployment (now pegged at 8.8% of the population) and "real unemployment" which Hindery documents at 17.7% of the population.
Steve Clemons: Real Unemployment Shows US Economy Short 20 Million Jobs

It's not a cconservative site and says the real unemployment numbers are higher than my last source and this was posted in April 2011

Let's look at his expertise:

media business executive and former Obama for President finance committee member Leo Hindery

hmmmm so he doesn't actually work at the White House, and he's neither an economist nor a statistician.

Let's look at his claims:
How on earth can you use payroll data to measure UNEMPLOYED? And the payroll data is survey of businesses.

2. Excludes changes in employment among the nation's 11.0 million farm and self-employed workers;

No, that's the non-farm payroll survey ("jobs created/lost"). The household survey does include agriculture and the self-employed.

Most important, does not take into account the 14.7 million workers who are:

i. "part-time-of-necessity" (i.e., underemployed) because their hours have been cut back or they are unable to find a full-time job (8.4 million);
ii. "marginally attached" to the labor force because while wanting a job, they have not searched for one in the past four weeks because of availability, skill or personal reasons (2.4 million); or

iii. "discouraged" and who have removed themselves from the labor force although they "currently want a job" (3.8 million).

No, because they're not unemployed. Note he doesn't actually argue why they should be included (and there is real debate about including discouraged...that's a legitimate argument).The number of real unemployed workers in all four categories - official BLS, part-time-of-necessity, marginally attached, and discouraged

Discouraged workers are a sub-set of the marginally attached so he's counting them twice (or more...his numbers aren't matching the published data).

Why don't you actually go to the BLS site and do the research yourself? All the methodology is explained.

[/QUOTE]



Maybe you should read a little bit more

Every month, media business executive and former Obama for President finance committee member Leo Hindery puts out a very detailed memo breaking out the national unemployment data -- showing what is real and what is not regarding the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly release of jobs data.

 

[pinqy]

Maybe you should read a little bit more

Every month, media business executive and former Obama for President finance committee member Leo Hindery puts out a very detailed memo breaking out the national unemployment data -- showing what is real and what is not regarding the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly release of jobs data.

Oh, I have....I'm trying to figure out why you would lie and say he currently works for the white house when your own link says he doesn't. And also there's nothing to point to any particular expertise in either economics, statistics or labor force statistics in particular.

But the main point is this: AN ASSERTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Just because you can find people (who notably lack expertise in labor force statistics) SAYING the U-6 is the "real rate" doesn't make it true. You'll note that nobody you can find claiming it or some other higher measure such as shadowstats.com will say WHY it is "real" only that it is a broader measure. Including more people doesn't make it more real.

 

[Douger]

If you look at this and fail to see what happened I feel for you. The exact same thing happened in the early 30's and it took eight years to begin to see daylight. Remember that Obama didn't assume the white house until January 2009.

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

I miss the good old days when unempoldyment was at 5.8% what is it now? 21%?

LMAO! Typical Right Winger...don't give a goddam how many people are unemployed. The rates have hovered around 9% for over two years. It was on it's way up when Obama took office and it never slowed. Just curious...did you even click on the chart in my post?

Those are murkins that qualify for unemployment. The zillions of "unemployed" self-employed don't make the list.

 

[pinqy]

I miss the good old days when unempoldyment was at 5.8% what is it now? 21%?

LMAO! Typical Right Winger...don't give a goddam how many people are unemployed. The rates have hovered around 9% for over two years. It was on it's way up when Obama took office and it never slowed. Just curious...did you even click on the chart in my post?

Those are murkins that qualify for unemployment. The zillions of "unemployed" self-employed don't make the list.

And where is your cite that only people recieving unemployment benefits are counted as unemployed? Oh, you don't have one.

Here you go: Employment Situation Technical Note

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

And from the Employment Situation Report we see that there were approx 612,000 unincorporated self-employed and unpaid family workers (15+hours in family business/farm) who were unemployed in October. So clearly they are counted.