What is the "Real Unemployment Rate"

[pinqy]

I'm not asking for numbers, I'm asking for a definition.
Currently the number is out of the Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population:

Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

and the equation is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force where Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed.
Employed is defined as

All persons who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees, worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family, and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs.
Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. For purposes of occupation and industry classification, multiple jobholders are counted in the job at which they worked the greatest number of hours during the reference week.
Included in the total are employed citizens of foreign countries who are temporarily in the United States but not living on the premises of an embassy. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed is defined as

All persons 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.

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

 

[edthecynic]

I'm not asking for numbers, I'm asking for a definition.
Currently the number is out of the Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population:

Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

and the equation is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force where Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed.
Employed is defined as

All persons who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees, worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family, and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs.
Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. For purposes of occupation and industry classification, multiple jobholders are counted in the job at which they worked the greatest number of hours during the reference week.
Included in the total are employed citizens of foreign countries who are temporarily in the United States but not living on the premises of an embassy. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed is defined as

All persons 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.

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).

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.

 

[pinqy]

I'm not asking for numbers, I'm asking for a definition.
Currently the number is out of the Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population:

Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

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

All persons 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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[edthecynic]

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[pinqy]

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[pinqy]

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.

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?

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.

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.

The Left were simply using the argument the Right established during the Clinton years.

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.

But comparing U-6 rates to U-3 rates is unique to this present crop of Right Wingers.

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.

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.

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

Total persons seeking full-time jobs, plus one-half of persons seeking part-time jobs, plus one-half of persons employed part time for economic reasons as a percent of the civilian labor force less one-half of the part-time labor force.

I don't know if anyone ever used it.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Total persons seeking full-time jobs, plus one-half of persons seeking part-time jobs, plus one-half of persons employed part time for economic reasons as a percent of the civilian labor force less one-half of the part-time labor force.

I don't know if anyone ever used it.

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.

 

[pinqy]

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!

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.

Here's a favorite site of the Right.

Employment and Unemployment

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.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

Here's a favorite site of the Right.

Employment and Unemployment

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.

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.

 

[pinqy]

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?

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.

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.

Here's a favorite site of the Right.

Employment and Unemployment

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.

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.

I corrected the bold to emphasize where you excused the Left twisting the numbers. That's what I was referring to.

I have no idea if you are right or wrong about the "Right" being unique in comparing U3 from previous to U6 of next. You have presented ONE example, not a pattern. You can't honestly make a generalization out of one example. And I know of no way to check to see if it was done in the past.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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.

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.

I corrected the bold to emphasize where you excused the Left twisting the numbers. That's what I was referring to.

I have no idea if you are right or wrong about the "Right" being unique in comparing U3 from previous to U6 of next. You have presented ONE example, not a pattern. You can't honestly make a generalization out of one example. And I know of no way to check to see if it was done in the past.

What you highlighted was just me using your own rationalization against you.

And as far as FOX being the only example, you habitually have the Right on this board use the U-3 rate for Bush and either the U-6 rate for Obama or a rate they made up that assumes the workforce participation rate remains a constant percent. And don't tell me a constant workforce participation rate was used by the Left against Bush.

 

[pinqy]

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.

I corrected the bold to emphasize where you excused the Left twisting the numbers. That's what I was referring to.

I have no idea if you are right or wrong about the "Right" being unique in comparing U3 from previous to U6 of next. You have presented ONE example, not a pattern. You can't honestly make a generalization out of one example. And I know of no way to check to see if it was done in the past.

What you highlighted was just me using your own rationalization against you.

My rationalization? I never made any rationalization. I said both sides did it, I NEVER said that made it ok, nor did I say that the reason the Right did it was because the Left did it.

And as far as FOX being the only example, you habitually have the Right on this board use the U-3 rate for Bush and either the U-6 rate for Obama

Great! Lay some links on me...I haven't noticed them.

or a rate they made up that assumes the workforce participation rate remains a constant percent. And don't tell me a constant workforce participation rate was used by the Left against Bush.

Yeah, that's a new one on me. Kind of a surprising since the high point of labor force participation was in 2000 and dropped off since then.

 

[pinqy]

Why am I not surprised no one has attempted to respond to the OP?

 

[Sallow]

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.

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.

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?

Which elected Democrat did that? I am sure you can provide "many" links as it was "many" Democrats.

 

[itfitzme]

Pingy, you know I respect your objectivity with the employment stats. I couldn't respond to the OP because it is correct. All I could do is read and review.

I'd like to through in an opinion regarding what cynic is saying about who did it first. It took me along time to learn and get some understanding from game theory. It is important who did it first. And it is absolutely required that the responce be at least in kind. It is called Tit for Tat in game theory. I find that the modified version of Chicago Style is better. It works like this...

You meet a stranger in the street. You say "Hi" If he says "Hi" back, you offer up your hand to shake. If he shakes back, you offer to share a six pack. Now you have a friend.

Otherwise, it may go like this... You say "Hi". If he pulls out a knife and demands money, you pull out a gun and shoot him in the kneecap.

I've found that my like has been much better since I understood this. They never pull a gun first. They even act nice first. As soon as they do something shitty, you respond the same. It is based on fundamentals of behavior and learning.

 

[Politico]

Why am I not surprised no one has attempted to respond to the OP?

Double the number and you'll be about right on.

 

[editec]

What is the "Real Unemployment Rate"

Including those unemployed, unemployable, under employed or who have just flat out given up looking for jobs because they know they won't find anything that supports them?

About 25% would be my guess.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is the "Real Unemployment Rate"

Including those unemployed, unemployable, under employed or who have just flat out given up looking for jobs because they know they won't find anything that supports them?

About 25% would be my guess.

far more important dear is to realize that libtards are responsible for 100% of it because they interfere with the the capitalist law of supply and demand which states that the supply of jobs must equal the demand for jobs.

Over you liberal head as per usual??

 

[oldfart]

I used to teach labor economics and try to keep up with the literature. There is no single measure of employment that is best for all purposes. For most purposes (especially if you are using an employment variable in a regression equation), you get most of the explanatory power using a combination of U-6 and the employment-to-working age population ratio, both reported monthly by BLS. If you want to do better than this, you need to measure the "quality" of employment. The most common variables used are the length of the work week and median weekly earnings. More recently, adding a measure of part-time employment helps. This is all econometrics, what is statistically related to what.

If you are interested in other specific questions, other measures can be important. The dispersion index of employment changes is a good measure of how widespread throughout the economy changes are. Unemployment rates for youth may be better measures if your examining crime statistics. Ethnic breakdowns can help in explaining poverty and regional variations.

So it really boils down to why you want to measure employment. I suspect that some politically motivated "analysts" misuse statistics and are inconsistent, but the BLS and Census are pretty professional and all of the data is pretty transparent. Researchers can and do have access to the raw data and can develop statistics outside the reported series and create new measures for specific research projects. So I don't have much sympathy for critics who trash the agencies but have no alternative measures that can be subject to peer review.