Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The total number of employed citizens, as a percentage of the entire population of the USA, is actually a smaller percentage this month than last month.
This is the number I look at, the TOTAL number of employed over the TOTAL number of citizens of working age. Check it out U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The total number of employed citizens, as a percentage of the entire population of the USA, is actually a smaller percentage this month than last month.
This is the number I look at, the TOTAL number of employed over the TOTAL number of citizens of working age. Check it out U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
While that is useful, it's really only useful in specific comparsions alongside the UE rate. For example, in 1953, the average employment-population ratio was 57.1% and in 2011 it was 58.4% But the UE rates were 2.9% in 1953 and 8.9% in 2011.
the difference of course is the social dynamic: Fewer women in the Labor Force back then, fewer dual income families, etc. So for comparing big differences in years, the UE rate is more revealing.
Short term, yes, it's more revealing that while the UE rate dropped in March, it was due to people leaving the labor force and the drop can be misleading without looking at the bigger picture.
Not necessarily. If a large number of people turn 16 and stay in school, that will raise the population, making the emp-pop ratio smaller. Similarly a large number of people retiring will drop the employment without changing the population. And then misleading things can happen such as dual income families going to single income when the economy improves.The total number of employed citizens, as a percentage of the entire population of the USA, is actually a smaller percentage this month than last month.
This is the number I look at, the TOTAL number of employed over the TOTAL number of citizens of working age. Check it out U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
While that is useful, it's really only useful in specific comparsions alongside the UE rate. For example, in 1953, the average employment-population ratio was 57.1% and in 2011 it was 58.4% But the UE rates were 2.9% in 1953 and 8.9% in 2011.
the difference of course is the social dynamic: Fewer women in the Labor Force back then, fewer dual income families, etc. So for comparing big differences in years, the UE rate is more revealing.
Short term, yes, it's more revealing that while the UE rate dropped in March, it was due to people leaving the labor force and the drop can be misleading without looking at the bigger picture.
That last sentance is why I use these numbers. They are a much better indicator of the short term (months/4 year terms) unemployment numbers and changes.
Well, "jobs" is a different survey...it's only non-farm payroll employment. Total unemployment, from the household survey and used in the UE rate, went down slightly.In real terms we don't have more people working now than last month we have just slightly less. We created ~300,000 jobs but if you add up the jobs lost with the numbers of people who have stopped collecting unemployment without getting employed it is larger than the number of jobs created, hence the actual employed going down slightly.
The democrats can spin this all they want. Business knows what really is happening.
US stocks dive in delayed jobs report reaction - Channel NewsAsia
NEW YORK - US stocks sank in opening trade Monday, reacting for the first time to disappointing job market data released Friday when the markets were closed.
TRUE Umemployment + Under-employment rate= 15.3%-16.3%+ 17.8% = 33.1%-34.1%
Oh gawd...the denial and stupidity gets worse every month.
Your head is going to explode at 8:30 EST tomorrow.
If Bush was running for President and had these unemployment numbers would you think he deserves to be reelected? Do you think obama deserves to be reelected?
Thing is the actual unemployment is still going up. The numbers given by obama's labor department have been cooked. if unemployment is really going down why are there so many people on food stamps? And a record number at that.Oh gawd...the denial and stupidity gets worse every month.
Your head is going to explode at 8:30 EST tomorrow.
If Bush was running for President and had these unemployment numbers would you think he deserves to be reelected? Do you think obama deserves to be reelected?
The recession began before Obama took office. And we know that unemployment always peaks after the end of the recession. The peak rate was something like 10.x%. And it is now less than that. So it is better then it was. So yeah, either way, if it was Bush or Obama, or whomever. Compared to what it was when he took over, yeah.
What do you use for a reference point?
I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?Thing is the actual unemployment is still going up. The numbers given by obama's labor department have been cooked.If Bush was running for President and had these unemployment numbers would you think he deserves to be reelected? Do you think obama deserves to be reelected?
The recession began before Obama took office. And we know that unemployment always peaks after the end of the recession. The peak rate was something like 10.x%. And it is now less than that. So it is better then it was. So yeah, either way, if it was Bush or Obama, or whomever. Compared to what it was when he took over, yeah.
What do you use for a reference point?
I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?Thing is the actual unemployment is still going up. The numbers given by obama's labor department have been cooked.The recession began before Obama took office. And we know that unemployment always peaks after the end of the recession. The peak rate was something like 10.x%. And it is now less than that. So it is better then it was. So yeah, either way, if it was Bush or Obama, or whomever. Compared to what it was when he took over, yeah.
What do you use for a reference point?
I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?Thing is the actual unemployment is still going up. The numbers given by obama's labor department have been cooked.
Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.
Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.
Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.
It's not even asked in the survey. And yes, I'm amused you give a link that says the opposite of what you said it says.Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed
I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?
Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.
Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.
Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.
From that link:It's not even asked in the survey. And yes, I'm amused you give a link that says the opposite of what you said it says.Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed
Only 4 weeks? Wow, that will hit many longtime unemployed breadwinners. So if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks you in effect fall out of unemployed (the effect basically makes them listed as 'employed' under the UE rate) and makes them not looking? I wonder if these longtime unemployed breadwinners would view themselves as unemployed or employed (that is the effect, so that is what they are considered)?Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed.
Interesting! So you can be considered outside of the workforce if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks, hence not umemployed, yet you they receive UE checks!Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.
No. Active search doesn't just mean interviews.From the site posted
Only 4 weeks? Wow, that will hit many longtime unemployed breadwinners. So if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks you in effect fall out of unemployed (the effect basically makes them listed as 'employed' under the UE rate) and makes them not looking?Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed.
Examples of active job search methods include going to an employer directly or to a public or private employment agency, seeking assistance from friends or relatives, placing or answering ads, or using some other active method. Examples of the ‘‘other active’’ category include being on a union or professional register, obtaining assistance from a community organization or waiting at a designated labor pickup point.
No, again they are in no way, "effectively" or otherwise equivalent to employed if they are classified as Not in the Labor Force. Show me an actual equation...a formula, where you think someone Not in the Labor Force is "in effect" considered employed.I wonder if these longtime unemployed breadwinners would view themselves as unemployed or employed (that is the effect, so that is what they are considered)?
Well, since eligibility for UI benefits requires job search, I'd say not many. Those working who receive partial benefits would be considered employed. And Not in the Labor Force is not a positive or a negative on the unemployment rate They would be removed from the numerator and the denominator.Interesting! So you can be considered outside of the workforce if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks, hence not umemployed, yet you they receive UE checks!Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.
I wonder how many people receiving UE checks are considered NOT LOOKING and a positive on the unemployment rate!!!
I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?
Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.
Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.
Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.
From that link:It's not even asked in the survey. And yes, I'm amused you give a link that says the opposite of what you said it says.Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed. Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.
No. Active search doesn't just mean interviews.From the site posted
Only 4 weeks? Wow, that will hit many longtime unemployed breadwinners. So if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks you in effect fall out of unemployed (the effect basically makes them listed as 'employed' under the UE rate) and makes them not looking?Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed.
Source: Technical Paper 66 (page 5-4)
Those on temporary lay off who expect to return to their job don't have to look.
No, again they are in no way, "effectively" or otherwise equivalent to employed if they are classified as Not in the Labor Force. Show me an actual equation...a formula, where you think someone Not in the Labor Force is "in effect" considered employed.
Well, since eligibility for UI benefits requires job search, I'd say not many. Those working who receive partial benefits would be considered employed. And Not in the Labor Force is not a positive or a negative on the unemployment rate They would be removed from the numerator and the denominator.Interesting! So you can be considered outside of the workforce if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks, hence not umemployed, yet you they receive UE checks!Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.
I wonder how many people receiving UE checks are considered NOT LOOKING and a positive on the unemployment rate!!!
Yes, and you are wrong, as the BLS site shows.Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.
Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.
Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.
From that link:
It's not even asked in the survey. And yes, I'm amused you give a link that says the opposite of what you said it says.
Re read where you got that quote from slowly
I
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed. Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.
Now re-read what I said. What I said is when you are no longer working but also not collecting you will not be considered unemployed.........
True, but irrelevant. As the BLS site says, that's not the source used. The UE rate comes from a household survey, not UI.by collecting unemployment you MUST tell the government you are out of work but still actively looking as each week you have to report what jobs you went to look for.
again, they don't use those numbers.Once you stop collecting you stop telling the govt this and they no longer figure you into the numbers.
There is a reason the republicans planned this economic crash like they did.
The boomers were about to retire and they had some decent savings and pensions coming.
the republican party crashed the economy so these things could be raided by the wealthy.
It worked just as planned by the republcan party.
Your examples seem to be of people who are employed. So job search has nothing to do with it. If someone worked during the reference week, they'd be employed.So a breadwinner or a spouse whose income is needed (for example: my wife make nearly enough for my family to live on and my salary could hold us over, but her income is sorely needed to maintain our standard of living) isn't considered unemployed because they are considered "NOT ACTIVELY SEARCHING" for only 1 month?
By the standard economics definition? No. If someone is not trying to work, they're not unemployed.Are you really going to say that they are not unemployed?
What on earth does that have to do with employment status? ThUE rate isn't a measure of poverty.Do these families not need money to survive? These are probably the MOST desperate unemployed people,
hmmm now if someone retires, and is not looking for a job, they are also out of the labor force. Are you claiming that in effect they are still classified as employed?yet you seem to have no problem taking them out of the unemployment rate (which has the effect of listing them as employed)!
why? It certainly makes no difference to the person.Sorry, but whether it's a Republican or Democratic administration, not calculating these people in the unemployment rate is not only wrong it's immoral!
He's not "listed" as anything. There's no list.A friend of mine never went to college and is a carpenter by trait. A rather successful one working for his Dad's business. He got married and had a kid. His Dad's business whethered the storm for a little while, but the business finally closed shop in 2010. He hasn't had a steady job since. He has done odd jobs under the table, but he can't find a job in his field. He needs one desperately, since his wife straight off the boat from Ireland, never worked and has little skills, but finding even jobs to apply for in the carpentry/construction field is hard. Unemployment benefits ran out a while ago, he is on food stamps, hasn't paid the mortgage in over a year and burned through all his savings. He is in dire straits. Yet, I guarantee he is listed as 'Not Looking'
Again, THREE EXCLUSIVE categories: Employed, UneMploed, Not in the Labor Force.And outside the unemployment rate calculations, which in effect has him a a positive 'employed' worker for the unemployment calculations! He actually lowers the unemployment rate!
Funny how the lame-stream media is not reporting that the faux unemployment numbers remain stagnant in March....
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsFunny how the lame-stream media is not reporting that the faux unemployment numbers remain stagnant in March....
The BLS publishes six separate summary statics for unemployment.
The are found at Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
These are;
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
They are ever increasing groups divided by the labor force.
The March 2012, seasonally adjusted numbers are 4.6%, 4.5%, 8.2%, 8.7%, and 15.4%. These are down from the same month last year which came in at 5.3%, 5.4%, 8.9%, 9.4%, 10.3%, and 15.7%.
The BLS has two survey sites, the CES (Current employment survey) and the CPS (Current population survey). Don't ask me what the difference is but they both cover unemployment. It is the CPS that seems to have the info we want. Maybe the thing is that the CPS is just the overview numbers while the CES is details on industries.
I generally go here, Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age for the time series data.
There is so much data, presented in so many ways, that it is ridiculous to say the the government has some nefarious intent. There are dozens on pages of table and data. There are thousands of data sets.
When the BLS presents a single number, they present U-3. It's not the smallest or the largest number, it's just the standard number, the total number of people that are unemployed and looking.
But everyone is welcome to look at any of the measures any time they want to. And, you don't have to make up bogus numbers either.
