Unemployment rate at 22%?

[JBeukema]

Williams recreates an SGS (Shadow Government Statistics) alternative unemployment rate reflecting methodology that includes "long-term discouraged workers" that the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1994 under the Clinton administration redefined away from those considered "unemployed." The BLS no longer considers as "unemployed" those workers without jobs who had not looked for work in the past year because they felt no jobs were available.
Williams demonstrated that it takes an expert to truly decipher BLS unemployment statistics.




For instance, in a Table A-15, titled "Alternative measures of labor underutilization," the BLS reports what is known as "U6 unemployment."
U6 unemployment includes those marginally attached to the labor force and the "underemployed," such as those who have accepted part-time jobs when they are really looking for full-time employment.
While the BLS was reporting unemployment in February 2011 was only 8.9 percent, the BLS also was reporting U6 unemployment in February 2011 at 16.7 percent.
The only measure BLS reports to the public as the official monthly unemployment rate is the seasonally adjusted U3 number.
Williams calculates his "Official SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate" by adding back in the BLS U6 numbers that include those long-term discouraged workers who have not looked for work in the past year.
Williams insists his Official SGS Alternative Unemployment measure is the most accurate estimate of true unemployment in that a reliable measure of long-term discouraged workers should be included in the statistical analysis.

more

 

[skeptic]

Williams definition of unemployment is his own. The BLS actually does measure what Williams wants to call unemployment.

I am not sure why this is truly important. Esp since Williams himself seems to say that what he wants to call unemployment is in fact underemployment.

 

[mnbasketball]

I am not sure why this is truly important. Esp since Williams himself seems to say that what he wants to call unemployment is in fact underemployment.

It means that there are no jobs left for them as the corp's of America have seen fit to turn us into a low cost third world population that when completely accomplished they will then bring back enough work to fill the underemployment figures.

 

[william the wie]

There is no good measure of unemployment just different definitions of it.

 

[Annie]

this seems more realistic in general, given slow growth, increasing inflation, and most importantly energy costs:

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment Hitting 10.3% in February

March 3, 2011
Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment Hitting 10.3% in February
Underemployment surged to 19.9% in February from 18.9% at the end of January
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10.3% in February -- up from 9.8% at the end of January. The U.S. unemployment rate is now essentially the same as the 10.4% at the end of February 2010.

The percentage of part-time workers who want full-time work worsened considerably in February, increasing to 9.6% of the workforce from 9.1% at the end of January. A larger percentage of the U.S. workforce is working part time and wanting full-time work now than was the case a year ago (9.3%).

Underemployment Surges in February

Underemployment, a measure that combines part-time workers wanting full-time work with those who are unemployed, surged in February to 19.9%. This resulted from the combination of a sharp 0.5-point increase since the end of January in the percentage unemployed and a 0.5-point increase in the percentage working part time but wanting full-time work. Underemployment is now higher than it was at this point a year ago (19.7%).

Jobs Situation Deteriorates in February

There is essentially no difference between the unemployment rate now and the one at this time a year ago; January's rate, in contrast, showed a 1.1-percentage-point year-over-year improvement. This suggests that the real U.S. jobs situation worsened in February. That is, jobs are relatively less available now than in January.
See global employment data >

In the broader underemployment picture, the situation is much the same. January's year-over-year improvement of 1.0 points became -0.2 points in February. In turn, this suggests job market conditions in terms of underemployment also worsened during February.

This deterioration in the jobs situation combined with surging gas prices, budget battles at the federal and state level, and declines on Wall Street tend to explain the recent plunge Gallup recorded in consumer confidence. They also align with the continued "new normal" spending patterns of early 2011. Although Gallup's Job Creation Index has improved over the past year and showed modest improvement in February, the improvement has not been significant enough to positively affect underemployment and unemployment.

Warren Buffet said Wednesday on CNBC that the U.S. unemployment rate should be in the low 7% range by late 2012. If that is going to be the case, the job creation environment must change dramatically from what it is today.

 

[Immanuel]

Williams definition of unemployment is his own. The BLS actually does measure what Williams wants to call unemployment.

I am not sure why this is truly important. Esp since Williams himself seems to say that what he wants to call unemployment is in fact underemployment.

It is important if you happen to be unemployed at the moment. The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not, or at least many of them are. Therefore, things are almost 3 times as bad as the U.S. Government really wants you to know.

Immie

 

[skeptic]

Williams definition of unemployment is his own. The BLS actually does measure what Williams wants to call unemployment.

I am not sure why this is truly important. Esp since Williams himself seems to say that what he wants to call unemployment is in fact underemployment.

It is important if you happen to be unemployed at the moment. The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not, or at least many of them are. Therefore, things are almost 3 times as bad as the U.S. Government really wants you to know.

Immie

sort of. Discouraged workers are doing something. Maybe they went back to school, became self employed, decided to retire, are working for cash or are staying home with the kids so they don't have to pay 2/3 of their salary into daycare.

Before this recession began I was telling people that unemployment would only recover when the baby boomers retired themselves out of the workforce. That is essentially what is happening.

Under employment is real, but I have never been hungry and stopped looking for work either. Quite the opposite.

 

[Immanuel]

Williams definition of unemployment is his own. The BLS actually does measure what Williams wants to call unemployment.

I am not sure why this is truly important. Esp since Williams himself seems to say that what he wants to call unemployment is in fact underemployment.

It is important if you happen to be unemployed at the moment. The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not, or at least many of them are. Therefore, things are almost 3 times as bad as the U.S. Government really wants you to know.

Immie

sort of. Discouraged workers are doing something. Maybe they went back to school, became self employed, decided to retire, are working for cash or are staying home with the kids so they don't have to pay 2/3 of their salary into daycare.

Before this recession began I was telling people that unemployment would only recover when the baby boomers retired themselves out of the workforce. That is essentially what is happening.

Under employment is real, but I have never been hungry and stopped looking for work either. Quite the opposite.

I will be 50 in two months, unfortunately I am pre-maturely grey and bald on top. I probably look more like mid 50's than 49. I have been unemployed for a year. It has been brutal out there over the last year. So, when we start talking about unemployment, I kind of get frustrated when the government tells me it is not as bad as it seems.

I'm working on a business plan and considering doing bookkeeping for small businesses where I live. It really may be the only hope I have to finding employment.

Immie

 

[edthecynic]

I love how CON$ only use the U3 rate for the GOP, but suddenly with a Dem as president, the U3 rate is worthless. Please show one time when St Ronnie's U3 rate was 10.8% that the CON$ insisted that that rate was inaccurate and they cited the U6 or Gallup or Shadow rates!!!

This time in Reagan's term the U3 was 10.4% so Obama is still doing better than Reagan.

 

[pinqy]

The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not,

Ummm no. Unemployed is defined as not working but actively looking for work (in the previous 4 weeks). So if they're seeking work, they're unemployed.

Discouraged and Marginally Attached are both defined as did not work in the previous week, did not look for work in the previous 4 weeks, wants to work, available to work, and did look sometime in the previous 12 months. Discouraged is not looking for the specific reason they the person didn't think s/he'd find work, Marginally Attached is for any reason at all.

So how can you say people not counted are seeking employment????

 

[pinqy]

I love how CON$ only use the U3 rate for the GOP, but suddenly with a Dem as president, the U3 rate is worthless. Please show one time when St Ronnie's U3 rate was 10.8% that the CON$ insisted that that rate was inaccurate and they cited the U6 or Gallup or Shadow rates!!!

This time in Reagan's term the U3 was 10.4% so Obama is still doing better than Reagan.

During Reagan's term it was called the U-5.

 

[edthecynic]

I love how CON$ only use the U3 rate for the GOP, but suddenly with a Dem as president, the U3 rate is worthless. Please show one time when St Ronnie's U3 rate was 10.8% that the CON$ insisted that that rate was inaccurate and they cited the U6 or Gallup or Shadow rates!!!

This time in Reagan's term the U3 was 10.4% so Obama is still doing better than Reagan.

During Reagan's term it was called the U-5.

The 10.8% Unemployment is the U3 rate.

Check Official Unemployment Rate (U3)

1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2 1980
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5 1981
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8 1982
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3 1983
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3 1984
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 1985
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 1986
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7 1987
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 1988
1989 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 1989

 

[konkon]

In Australia, if you are unemployed and are receiving unemployment benefits but are working just one hour a week (or is it fortnight?), you are no longer statistically unemployed; so you are no longer a part of the 5% unemployment rate.

 

[pinqy]

I love how CON$ only use the U3 rate for the GOP, but suddenly with a Dem as president, the U3 rate is worthless. Please show one time when St Ronnie's U3 rate was 10.8% that the CON$ insisted that that rate was inaccurate and they cited the U6 or Gallup or Shadow rates!!!

This time in Reagan's term the U3 was 10.4% so Obama is still doing better than Reagan.

During Reagan's term it was called the U-5.

The 10.8% Unemployment is the U3 rate.

Yes, it is. But before 1994 it was called the U-5. The old U-5 and the new U-3 have the same definition, just different labels. Read this

 

[Immanuel]

The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not,

Ummm no. Unemployed is defined as not working but actively looking for work (in the previous 4 weeks). So if they're seeking work, they're unemployed.

Discouraged and Marginally Attached are both defined as did not work in the previous week, did not look for work in the previous 4 weeks, wants to work, available to work, and did look sometime in the previous 12 months. Discouraged is not looking for the specific reason they the person didn't think s/he'd find work, Marginally Attached is for any reason at all.

So how can you say people not counted are seeking employment????

Since the quotes were messed up there (everyone does it) I'm not exactly sure where your comments start in that post, I know the quote attributed to skeptic in there came from me.

How can I say people not counted are seeking employment?

This is the definition of Unemployment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

BLS Glossary

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)
Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. (See Marginally attached workers.)

Marginally attached workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. (See Discouraged workers.)

Just because someone is not counted among the "unemployed" doesn't mean that they are not looking for work. Many are looking for work... many have thrown up their hands and said "F! it!" If you are receiving benefits and you finally give up and say screw it, you immediately lose your benefits and get dropped to the "Not in Labor Force" category. Now they no longer have to count you as part of the unemployed. The more they can shove into the Not in Labor Force numbers the lower the unemployment figures.

When you fall off the roles of receiving unemployment benefits, they don't track whether or not you are actually seeking employment. No one calls you and asks if you have been seeking work or not. You are simply not important any longer. You may very well be seeking employment but you don't matter to them any longer. You are simply "not in the labor force". They don't have to count you any more.

Immie

 

[edthecynic]

During Reagan's term it was called the U-5.

The 10.8% Unemployment is the U3 rate.

Yes, it is. But before 1994 it was called the U-5. The old U-5 and the new U-3 have the same definition, just different labels. Read this

I guess I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought you were implying that Reagan's 10.8% was calculated the same as the U5 today. Reagan's 10.8% UE was calculated the same as the U3 today.

 

[pinqy]

How can I say people not counted are seeking employment?

This is the definition of Unemployment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

BLS Glossary

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)
Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. (See Marginally attached workers.)

Marginally attached workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. (See Discouraged workers.)

Just because someone is not counted among the "unemployed" doesn't mean that they are not looking for work.

Yes it does...you just showed the definition. Not working, looked for work in past 4 weeks = unemployed. Not in labor force means didn't work and didn't look for work in the past 4 weeks.

Many are looking for work... many have thrown up their hands and said "F! it!" If you are receiving benefits and you finally give up and say screw it, you immediately lose your benefits and get dropped to the "Not in Labor Force" category.

Where in the definition does it say anything about benefits?

And what are you talking about "immediately...dropped to the Not in Labor Force?" You're talking like there's a big list of everyone and every individual is categorized by their status. That's ridiculous. The numbers come from a monthly sample survey.

When you fall off the roles of receiving unemployment benefits, they don't track whether or not you are actually seeking employment.

You found the definition, but you didn't read the FAQ Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

UI claims have NEVER been used as part of the definition of Unemployed.

 

[Immanuel]

How can I say people not counted are seeking employment?

This is the definition of Unemployment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

BLS Glossary

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)
Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. (See Marginally attached workers.)

Marginally attached workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. (See Discouraged workers.)

Just because someone is not counted among the "unemployed" doesn't mean that they are not looking for work.

Yes it does...you just showed the definition. Not working, looked for work in past 4 weeks = unemployed. Not in labor force means didn't work and didn't look for work in the past 4 weeks.

Many are looking for work... many have thrown up their hands and said "F! it!" If you are receiving benefits and you finally give up and say screw it, you immediately lose your benefits and get dropped to the "Not in Labor Force" category.

Where in the definition does it say anything about benefits?

And what are you talking about "immediately...dropped to the Not in Labor Force?" You're talking like there's a big list of everyone and every individual is categorized by their status. That's ridiculous. The numbers come from a monthly sample survey.

When you fall off the roles of receiving unemployment benefits, they don't track whether or not you are actually seeking employment.

You found the definition, but you didn't read the FAQ Current Population Survey Frequently Asked Questions

UI claims have NEVER been used as part of the definition of Unemployed.

Where do you think uncle sam gets its information as to who looked for work and who didn't? Let me clue you in, when you are on unemployment, every two weeks you have to make your claim for benefits. They ask you four questions.

1) Did you look for work during that week?
2) Were you willing and able to work that week?
3) Did you earn any money that week?
4) Did you turn down any employment that week?

If you do not answer Yes, Yes, No, No then after the second claim period, you are removed from the unemployment Roles and dropped to the Not in Work Force category and you are no longer counted among the "unemployed". That does not mean you are no longer seeking employment. It only means that you can no longer receive unemployment benefits.

That is where they get the information from! That IS how they place you among the list of "unemployed".

Immie

 

[pinqy]

Where do you think uncle sam gets its information as to who looked for work and who didn't?

From the survey. They ask the respondents if they looked for work or not.

If you do not answer Yes, Yes, No, No then after the second claim period, you are removed from the unemployment Roles and dropped to the Not in Work Force category and you are no longer counted among the "unemployed".

No, they don't.

That is where they get the information from! That IS how they place you among the list of "unemployed".

There is no list...it's a sample survey. I gave you the FAQ. Look at the BLS site, it confirms what I've said.

Where are you getting the ridiculous idea that there's a list? Or even better, look at this: Table A-11, Reason for Unemployment How do you think they get the info on "completed temporary jobs," "job leavers," "reentrants," and "new entrants," when none of those are eligible for unemployment insurance?

Oh, and PLEASE do not just repeat your claims without giving a source for your info.

 

[Polk]

Williams definition of unemployment is his own. The BLS actually does measure what Williams wants to call unemployment.

I am not sure why this is truly important. Esp since Williams himself seems to say that what he wants to call unemployment is in fact underemployment.

It is important if you happen to be unemployed at the moment. The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not, or at least many of them are. Therefore, things are almost 3 times as bad as the U.S. Government really wants you to know.

Immie

These workers have never been counted as part of the unemployed population. Funny how no one cared about them during the Bush year...