Unemployment By The Numbers

[bigrebnc1775]

Your link explains it pretty well. Note that it does not support your false claim that only people collecting UI benefits are classified as unemployed.

Unemployed is defined as did not work 1 or more hours for pay (or 15 or more hours unpaid in family business or farm) and weren't on sick leave, vacation or other temp abscence, and actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks (those on temporary layoff need not have looked for work).

The Labor Force is Unemployed + Employed (all those working or trying to work). Everyone else in the adult civilian non-institutional population is "Not in the Labor Force."

The UE rate is Unemployment/Labor Force.

It is useful to look at those who are marginally attached....those who say they are willing and available to work but who aren't trying to get a job. This is limited to those who have looked in the last year, so it's known that they have actually tried to find work just not at the current moment. These are people who are likely to start looking for work...they're not available labor, they're potentially available labor.

The U-6 adds in "Part time for Economic Reasons:" those who, during the reference week, worked 34 hours or less, want and are available to work 35+ hours/week, but did not because either their hours were cut or they can't find a full time job. This let's us see the extent of those who were forced to work less hours than they want and are being underutilized. They're NOT unemployed, they're underutilized. So the U-6 is (Unemployed + Marginally Attached + Part time for economic reasons)/(Labor Force + Marginally Attached)

These two measures tell us different things. Th official U-3 tells us how much available labor is not being used at all. And the U-6 tells us how much available and potentially available labor and how much current workers are underused.

The U6 chart shows the true unemployment numbers. which is not the same number as 9.1

Again, how does it make sense to you that including people who are working and people who aren't trying to work is more "true" a measure of unemployment than people who are trying to work?

Add on that the margin of error for the Unemployment level is about +-2.4% while the margin of error for Marginally Attached is about +-5.7% and for Discouraged it's +-9.4%

And I'll remind you that just repeating things is neither an argument nor support for your claim. Oh, the the October UE rate was 9.0%

Part time workers do not equate to full time work. not according to the U6 the unemployment was at 16% or higher.

 

[pinqy]

Part time workers do not equate to full time work. not according to the U6 the unemployment was at 16% or higher.

So what? You're trying to claim they're really unemployed then? Let's work through that logic:
The U-6 does not include all part time workers, only "part time for economic reasons."
So a waitress who normally works 20 hours/week would not be part time for economic reasons.
A waitress who normally works 35 hours/week who was sent home early one day because of slow business and so only worked 34 hours that week would be classified as part time for economic reasons.
Or, take the case of a college student who, by choice, works only 3 hours/week at a part time job and so wouldn't be considered part time for economic reasons.

By your argument, the waitress who normally works full time but worked 34 hours is Unemployed while the waitress who worked 20, and the college student who worked 3 are employed.

How does this make sense to you?

The 34 hour/week waitress is being underutilized, while the 20hr wk and 3 hour week were working the hours they wanted. THAT'S the distinction the U-6 tries to capture (along with the potential availability of the Marginally Attached).

I note that you're no longer trying to claim only UI recepients are classified as unmployed, but that you also won't admit you were wrong.

I also note you're no longer trying to claim the official numbers are "cooked." Perhaps you've realized that that doesn't make sense. It's not really physically possible to do, either.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Part time workers do not equate to full time work. not according to the U6 the unemployment was at 16% or higher.

So what? You're trying to claim they're really unemployed then? Let's work through that logic:
The U-6 does not include all part time workers, only "part time for economic reasons."
So a waitress who normally works 20 hours/week would not be part time for economic reasons.
A waitress who normally works 35 hours/week who was sent home early one day because of slow business and so only worked 34 hours that week would be classified as part time for economic reasons.
Or, take the case of a college student who, by choice, works only 3 hours/week at a part time job and so wouldn't be considered part time for economic reasons.

By your argument, the waitress who normally works full time but worked 34 hours is Unemployed while the waitress who worked 20, and the college student who worked 3 are employed.

How does this make sense to you?

The 34 hour/week waitress is being underutilized, while the 20hr wk and 3 hour week were working the hours they wanted. THAT'S the distinction the U-6 tries to capture (along with the potential availability of the Marginally Attached).

I note that you're no longer trying to claim only UI recepients are classified as unmployed, but that you also won't admit you were wrong.

I also note you're no longer trying to claim the official numbers are "cooked." Perhaps you've realized that that doesn't make sense. It's not really physically possible to do, either.

I have never stop saying the number weren't cooked. But if you think the report you used reflection the real unemployment numbers that's you. As for me anything for political expediences to make obama look good even in a shity economy.

 

[pinqy]

I have never stop saying the number weren't cooked.

You're saying the official numbers are cooked but the "true numbers" can be found in the very same report as the official numbers, calculated from the very same survey by the very same people. How on earth does that make sense? I'd love to hear your explanation of how exactly the numbers are "cooked" and by whom.

But if you think the report you used reflection the real unemployment numbers that's you.

It's the same report you're using. As for "real" unemployment numbers...there's no such thing. There's no handed-down-by-God definition of Unemployment. Does the official UE rate give the full picture of the full effect of the state of labor? Of course not, it's not supposed to. It's supposed to give the picture of what percent of available labor is not being used. It's pretty accurate at that. Seasonally adjusted at 9.0% +-0.2%, not seasonally adjusted at 8.5% +-0.2%
Gallup does there own poll and while there are definitional and methodological differences, the margins of error always overlap.

As for me anything for political expediences to make obama look good even in a shity economy.

Again, learn the difference between a claim and an argument. Simply saying the numbers are cooked to make Obama look good is not the same as actually supporting that argument. Since the President doesn't even see the report until it's official release (his advisors are given an advance copy the night before), I think you'll be hard pressed to prove cooking. And look at the time frames between the reference week, the collection week and the release day, as well as the sheer amount of information and details in the full report.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have never stop saying the number weren't cooked.

You're saying the official numbers are cooked but the "true numbers" can be found in the very same report as the official numbers, calculated from the very same survey by the very same people. How on earth does that make sense? I'd love to hear your explanation of how exactly the numbers are "cooked" and by whom.

But if you think the report you used reflection the real unemployment numbers that's you.

It's the same report you're using. As for "real" unemployment numbers...there's no such thing. There's no handed-down-by-God definition of Unemployment. Does the official UE rate give the full picture of the full effect of the state of labor? Of course not, it's not supposed to. It's supposed to give the picture of what percent of available labor is not being used. It's pretty accurate at that. Seasonally adjusted at 9.0% +-0.2%, not seasonally adjusted at 8.5% +-0.2%
Gallup does there own poll and while there are definitional and methodological differences, the margins of error always overlap.

As for me anything for political expediences to make obama look good even in a shity economy.

Again, learn the difference between a claim and an argument. Simply saying the numbers are cooked to make Obama look good is not the same as actually supporting that argument. Since the President doesn't even see the report until it's official release (his advisors are given an advance copy the night before), I think you'll be hard pressed to prove cooking. And look at the time frames between the reference week, the collection week and the release day, as well as the sheer amount of information and details in the full report.

Dude you believe what you want to believe. I believe what I actually see.

 

[pinqy]

I have never stop saying the number weren't cooked.

You're saying the official numbers are cooked but the "true numbers" can be found in the very same report as the official numbers, calculated from the very same survey by the very same people. How on earth does that make sense? I'd love to hear your explanation of how exactly the numbers are "cooked" and by whom.

It's the same report you're using. As for "real" unemployment numbers...there's no such thing. There's no handed-down-by-God definition of Unemployment. Does the official UE rate give the full picture of the full effect of the state of labor? Of course not, it's not supposed to. It's supposed to give the picture of what percent of available labor is not being used. It's pretty accurate at that. Seasonally adjusted at 9.0% +-0.2%, not seasonally adjusted at 8.5% +-0.2%
Gallup does there own poll and while there are definitional and methodological differences, the margins of error always overlap.

As for me anything for political expediences to make obama look good even in a shity economy.

Again, learn the difference between a claim and an argument. Simply saying the numbers are cooked to make Obama look good is not the same as actually supporting that argument. Since the President doesn't even see the report until it's official release (his advisors are given an advance copy the night before), I think you'll be hard pressed to prove cooking. And look at the time frames between the reference week, the collection week and the release day, as well as the sheer amount of information and details in the full report.

Dude you believe what you want to believe. I believe what I actually see.

And where did you see that people who aren't collecting UI aren't counted as unemployed? You believed that and it's not true and you didn't see it anywhere.

I think everyone reading can see you don't actually make arguments, just assertions, while I actually back up what I'm saying.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're saying the official numbers are cooked but the "true numbers" can be found in the very same report as the official numbers, calculated from the very same survey by the very same people. How on earth does that make sense? I'd love to hear your explanation of how exactly the numbers are "cooked" and by whom.

It's the same report you're using. As for "real" unemployment numbers...there's no such thing. There's no handed-down-by-God definition of Unemployment. Does the official UE rate give the full picture of the full effect of the state of labor? Of course not, it's not supposed to. It's supposed to give the picture of what percent of available labor is not being used. It's pretty accurate at that. Seasonally adjusted at 9.0% +-0.2%, not seasonally adjusted at 8.5% +-0.2%
Gallup does there own poll and while there are definitional and methodological differences, the margins of error always overlap.




Again, learn the difference between a claim and an argument. Simply saying the numbers are cooked to make Obama look good is not the same as actually supporting that argument. Since the President doesn't even see the report until it's official release (his advisors are given an advance copy the night before), I think you'll be hard pressed to prove cooking. And look at the time frames between the reference week, the collection week and the release day, as well as the sheer amount of information and details in the full report.

Dude you believe what you want to believe. I believe what I actually see.

And where did you see that people who aren't collecting UI aren't counted as unemployed? You believed that and it's not true and you didn't see it anywhere.

I think everyone reading can see you don't actually make arguments, just assertions, while I actually back up what I'm saying.

I work in the construction industry I will be the first to know how healthy the economy is by how much work is going on in my industry. We are getting people holding off on new contract orders everyday.

 

[pinqy]

Dude you believe what you want to believe. I believe what I actually see.

And where did you see that people who aren't collecting UI aren't counted as unemployed? You believed that and it's not true and you didn't see it anywhere.

I think everyone reading can see you don't actually make arguments, just assertions, while I actually back up what I'm saying.

I work in the construction industry I will be the first to know how healthy the economy is by how much work is going on in my industry. We are getting people holding off on new contract orders everyday.

Besides being an industry with strong seasonal trends, construction is hardly representative of any other industry. Currently the unadjusted UE rate for construction and extraction occupations is 14.2% as opposed to the unadjusted 8.5% for all occupations. (Management, professional, and related occupations are at 4.4% unemployment). Source: Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted

Of course the official numbers won't match what you see either in your industry or your location...they're national estimates for everyone in the US.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And where did you see that people who aren't collecting UI aren't counted as unemployed? You believed that and it's not true and you didn't see it anywhere.

I think everyone reading can see you don't actually make arguments, just assertions, while I actually back up what I'm saying.

I work in the construction industry I will be the first to know how healthy the economy is by how much work is going on in my industry. We are getting people holding off on new contract orders everyday.

Besides being an industry with strong seasonal trends, construction is hardly representative of any other industry. Currently the unadjusted UE rate for construction and extraction occupations is 14.2% as opposed to the unadjusted 8.5% for all occupations. (Management, professional, and related occupations are at 4.4% unemployment). Source: Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted

Of course the official numbers won't match what you see either in your industry or your location...they're national estimates for everyone in the US.

My field is not seasonal it's year round I do commercial plumbing. New and remodel construction year round. It's slowing down we are in that second bubble phase.

 

[Jackson]

Each and every Republican run all the way back to Hoover has resulted in an unemployment rate higher than what they assumed:

1932 23.6
1952 3.0
1960 5.5
1968 3.6
1976 7.7
1980 7.1
1992 7.5
2001 4.0
2008 5.8

Why did you stop there? It's closer to 16% now. Lets HOPE FOR CHANGE in 2012.

The real unemployment rate and Europe's underground economy

While the official unemployment figures continue to hover around 9% in the U.S., the real unemployment is rate is closer to 16% when you factor in all those who are unemployed or significantly underemployed

The real unemployment rate and Europe's underground economy - CSMonitor.com

 

[pinqy]

Each and every Republican run all the way back to Hoover has resulted in an unemployment rate higher than what they assumed:

1932 23.6
1952 3.0
1960 5.5
1968 3.6
1976 7.7
1980 7.1
1992 7.5
2001 4.0
2008 5.8

Why did you stop there? It's closer to 16% now. Lets HOPE FOR CHANGE in 2012.

The real unemployment rate and Europe's underground economy

While the official unemployment figures continue to hover around 9% in the U.S., the real unemployment is rate is closer to 16% when you factor in all those who are unemployed or significantly underemployed

The real unemployment rate and Europe's underground economy - CSMonitor.com

Try reading the whole thread, I've already covered everything in your post.

But perhaps you'd like to try explaining why including people who have jobs and people who aren't trying to get a job is a more "real" number than the number of people trying and failing to get work?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Each and every Republican run all the way back to Hoover has resulted in an unemployment rate higher than what they assumed:

1932 23.6
1952 3.0
1960 5.5
1968 3.6
1976 7.7
1980 7.1
1992 7.5
2001 4.0
2008 5.8

Why did you stop there? It's closer to 16% now. Lets HOPE FOR CHANGE in 2012.

The real unemployment rate and Europe's underground economy

While the official unemployment figures continue to hover around 9% in the U.S., the real unemployment is rate is closer to 16% when you factor in all those who are unemployed or significantly underemployed

The real unemployment rate and Europe's underground economy - CSMonitor.com

Try reading the whole thread, I've already covered everything in your post.

But perhaps you'd like to try explaining why including people who have jobs and people who aren't trying to get a job is a more "real" number than the number of people trying and failing to get work?

Just because you covered it doesn't make you right. After all My source showed the real unemployment number at 16% or above. or do you deny that?

 

[pinqy]

Why did you stop there? It's closer to 16% now. Lets HOPE FOR CHANGE in 2012.

The real unemployment rate and Europe's underground economy




The real unemployment rate and Europe's underground economy - CSMonitor.com

Try reading the whole thread, I've already covered everything in your post.

But perhaps you'd like to try explaining why including people who have jobs and people who aren't trying to get a job is a more "real" number than the number of people trying and failing to get work?

Just because you covered it doesn't make you right. After all My source showed the real unemployment number at 16% or above. or do you deny that?

Of course I deny it, I've been denying it, I explained why it's not the "real" number.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Try reading the whole thread, I've already covered everything in your post.

But perhaps you'd like to try explaining why including people who have jobs and people who aren't trying to get a job is a more "real" number than the number of people trying and failing to get work?

Just because you covered it doesn't make you right. After all My source showed the real unemployment number at 16% or above. or do you deny that?

Of course I deny it, I've been denying it, I explained why it's not the "real" number.

Of course I knew you would say that. Oh by the way we forgot about the other source I used earlier
That broader unemployment rate, or U-6, is up from 16.4% a year ago and from 9.7% in

May 2008. It was 7.1% in May 2000.
"It has gone up a lot because a lot of people have been put on short hours," said economist Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization. "And there are a lot of discouraged workers."

Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center

 

[pinqy]

Just because you covered it doesn't make you right. After all My source showed the real unemployment number at 16% or above. or do you deny that?

Of course I deny it, I've been denying it, I explained why it's not the "real" number.

Of course I knew you would say that. Oh by the way we forgot about the other source I used earlier
That broader unemployment rate, or U-6, is up from 16.4% a year ago and from 9.7% in

May 2008. It was 7.1% in May 2000.
"It has gone up a lot because a lot of people have been put on short hours," said economist Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization. "And there are a lot of discouraged workers."

Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center

You're still not grasping the difference between an assertion and an argument, are you? Someone calling it the "real" number doesn't make it the "real" number (and it's ridiculous to even claim there's a "real" number).
Now, for fun, try actually addressing my points as to why the U-6 is not the real number.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course I deny it, I've been denying it, I explained why it's not the "real" number.

Of course I knew you would say that. Oh by the way we forgot about the other source I used earlier
That broader unemployment rate, or U-6, is up from 16.4% a year ago and from 9.7% in

May 2008. It was 7.1% in May 2000.
"It has gone up a lot because a lot of people have been put on short hours," said economist Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization. "And there are a lot of discouraged workers."

Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center

You're still not grasping the difference between an assertion and an argument, are you? Someone calling it the "real" number doesn't make it the "real" number (and it's ridiculous to even claim there's a "real" number).
Now, for fun, try actually addressing my points as to why the U-6 is not the real number.

and your still not fucking grasp the facts so shut the fuck up.

 

[pinqy]

Of course I knew you would say that. Oh by the way we forgot about the other source I used earlier
That broader unemployment rate, or U-6, is up from 16.4% a year ago and from 9.7% in

Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center

You're still not grasping the difference between an assertion and an argument, are you? Someone calling it the "real" number doesn't make it the "real" number (and it's ridiculous to even claim there's a "real" number).
Now, for fun, try actually addressing my points as to why the U-6 is not the real number.

and your still not fucking grasp the facts so shut the fuck up.

You want facts?
Fact: The oficial number measures the number of people who are trying to work as a percent of those working and trying to work.
Fact: That's the ILO definition and the one used by most of the world.
Fact: The U-6 is a broader measure that is the number of people trying to work, people who are not trying to work but say they want and good take take a job and who might theoretically try to find a job (marginally attached) and people who want and can work 35+ hours/week but are working less as a percent of those working, trying to work, and who might look for work.
Fact: The U-6 is very subjective.
Fact: No one in the history of ever has used anything like the U-6 as an official measure nor has anyone proposed it as a "real" measure.
Fact: That some bloggers like to call it the real number doesn't make it true.

Your turn. In your own words, explain why you think the U-6 is more "real" as opposed to the U-4 or U-5.

Prediction: You won't, you'll just make more assertions and insults if you reply at all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're still not grasping the difference between an assertion and an argument, are you? Someone calling it the "real" number doesn't make it the "real" number (and it's ridiculous to even claim there's a "real" number).
Now, for fun, try actually addressing my points as to why the U-6 is not the real number.

and your still not fucking grasp the facts so shut the fuck up.

You want facts?
Fact: The oficial number measures the number of people who are trying to work as a percent of those working and trying to work.
Fact: That's the ILO definition and the one used by most of the world.
Fact: The U-6 is a broader measure that is the number of people trying to work, people who are not trying to work but say they want and good take take a job and who might theoretically try to find a job (marginally attached) and people who want and can work 35+ hours/week but are working less as a percent of those working, trying to work, and who might look for work.
Fact: The U-6 is very subjective.
Fact: No one in the history of ever has used anything like the U-6 as an official measure nor has anyone proposed it as a "real" measure.
Fact: That some bloggers like to call it the real number doesn't make it true.

Your turn. In your own words, explain why you think the U-6 is more "real" as opposed to the U-4 or U-5.

Prediction: You won't, you'll just make more assertions and insults if you reply at all.

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

 

[pinqy]

and your still not fucking grasp the facts so shut the fuck up.

You want facts?
Fact: The oficial number measures the number of people who are trying to work as a percent of those working and trying to work.
Fact: That's the ILO definition and the one used by most of the world.
Fact: The U-6 is a broader measure that is the number of people trying to work, people who are not trying to work but say they want and good take take a job and who might theoretically try to find a job (marginally attached) and people who want and can work 35+ hours/week but are working less as a percent of those working, trying to work, and who might look for work.
Fact: The U-6 is very subjective.
Fact: No one in the history of ever has used anything like the U-6 as an official measure nor has anyone proposed it as a "real" measure.
Fact: That some bloggers like to call it the real number doesn't make it true.

Your turn. In your own words, explain why you think the U-6 is more "real" as opposed to the U-4 or U-5.

Prediction: You won't, you'll just make more assertions and insults if you reply at all.

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You want facts?
Fact: The oficial number measures the number of people who are trying to work as a percent of those working and trying to work.
Fact: That's the ILO definition and the one used by most of the world.
Fact: The U-6 is a broader measure that is the number of people trying to work, people who are not trying to work but say they want and good take take a job and who might theoretically try to find a job (marginally attached) and people who want and can work 35+ hours/week but are working less as a percent of those working, trying to work, and who might look for work.
Fact: The U-6 is very subjective.
Fact: No one in the history of ever has used anything like the U-6 as an official measure nor has anyone proposed it as a "real" measure.
Fact: That some bloggers like to call it the real number doesn't make it true.

Your turn. In your own words, explain why you think the U-6 is more "real" as opposed to the U-4 or U-5.

Prediction: You won't, you'll just make more assertions and insults if you reply at all.

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.