What is the "Real Unemployment Rate"

Discussion in 'Economy' started by pinqy, Sep 19, 2012.

  1. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,050
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    I'm not asking for numbers, I'm asking for a definition.
    Currently the number is out of the Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population:
    and the equation is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force where Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed.
    Employed is defined as
    Unemployed is defined as
    So for those claiming this is not the "real" unemployment rate, what is your definition and how is it more "real" than the existing definition which meets ILO standards and is basically the same for most of the world (most of the differences are with age...different minimum and/or the inclusion of a maximum).

    Forgot to add link for Employment and Earnings Household Data Concepts and Definitions
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
  2. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,597
    Thanks Received:
    3,080
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,699
    It of course depends on whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat. The U-3 rate is only for Republicans and the U-6 rate is for Democrats as you can see from the below photo. Bush's U-3 rate is called the "REAL" rate for him and the U-6 rate is the "REAL" rate for Obama.
    I hope that helps.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,050
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    And Democrats were citing the U6 as the real unemployment when Bush was President. So it's more a matter of whether or not the current President is of your party or not.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
  4. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,597
    Thanks Received:
    3,080
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,699
    I would like to see a link to the Dems comparing Bush's 14.2% U-6 rate to Clinton's 3.9% U-3 rate.
    Thank you in advance.
     
  5. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,050
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Why would I try to link to something I'm not claiming happened (no idea if it did or not and too difficult to search for)? My claim was that during Bush's presidency, many Democrats would cite the U6 (or other measures) as the "real unemployment rate" and claimed the Bush administration was cooking the books or hiding the real numbers. Are you denying that?
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
  6. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,597
    Thanks Received:
    3,080
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,699
    I cited the Right comparing Bush's U-3 rate to Obama's U-6 rate, that is quite different from your implying that was OK because some on the Left cited Bush's U-6 rate or said Bush cooked the numbers. The Left were simply using the argument the Right established during the Clinton years. But comparing U-6 rates to U-3 rates is unique to this present crop of Right Wingers. And don't say that the Left used the U-6 rate against Reagan. I don't think the BLS even had a U-6 rate during the Reagan Regime.
     
  7. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,050
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    I implied no such thing. Both sides are wrong for doing it. You seemed to be implying that only the Right cited U6 or others as "real" when the guilt is shared by Right and Left.
    You have any evidence of that? That ALL instances of claiming "real unemployment" under Bush were ONLY directly in response to claims of the Right under Clinton? I found several links to claims of Bush rigging/cooking/misleading, and not one so far has mentioned that they're only doing it in response to what the Right did under Clinton. I'd be fascinated to see your evidence.

    Truth is, there are idiots on all ranges of the political spectrum. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

    I found a couple of links that compare Clinton U6 to Bush U6, but most just claim Bush was rigging things and those posts/articles are pretty much identical to the ones made today by Conservatives.

    You have one instance of Fox doing that. Most Republican claims of "real unemployment" do not do a comparison of Bush U3 vs Obama U6....they just claim Obama is wrong without citing any numbers for Bush. There may be more U3 vs U6 comparisons, but I don't recall any others.

    I have no idea how to do a search for something that specific without using actual numbers.

    They did have a U6, but it was different*. BLS instituted alternative measures in 1976: the U-1 to U-7, with the U-5 being the official measure (that U5 is the same as the current U3). New measures were introduced in 1994.
    I have no good way of searching claims made pre-internet about competing rates.

    *the U-6 from 1976 to 1993 was
    I don't know if anyone ever used it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
  8. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,597
    Thanks Received:
    3,080
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,699
    I can't believe you don't remember the Right making the same BS claims about Clinton's UE rate they make about Obama now, like once they are off unemployment insurance they are no longer counted, or if you add in the part timers you double the rate. They even accused him of changing how unemployment was measured!

    Here's a favorite site of the Right.

    Employment and Unemployment

    Suggesting that the household survey is more accurate than the payroll survey, however, does not mean household survey accurately depicts unemployment. While its measures have definable statistical accuracy, the accuracy is related only to the underlying questions surveyed and to the universe of people surveyed.

    The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.

    Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

    The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

    Somehow, the Clinton administration successfully set into motion reestablishing the full 60,000 survey for the benefit of the current Bush administration's monthly household survey.
     
  9. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,050
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    But your claim was that it was ok for the Left to be misleading under Bush because the Right did it under Clinton, while it's not ok for the Right to do it under Obama because the Left did it under Bush. A bit of a double standard. I say it's wrong for anybody to do it.

    While I despise John Williams as a liar of the first degree, he started shadowstats in 2004. He's a conspiracy nutjob who at least blames everyone. And the Left cited shadowstats during Bush.

    Again, it's wrong for anyone to be misleading, but it is also unfair of you to imply that the Left is innocent in this.
     
  10. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,597
    Thanks Received:
    3,080
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,699
    That's not what I said, I said that comparing Bush's U-3 rate to Obama's U-6 rate is unique to today's crop of dishonest right wing critics.
     

Share This Page