625K People Give Up Looking For A Job

[william the wie]

there are several problems here:

Labor immobility. The housing crash means that people can't move to where jobs actually are.

Deleveraging. Many people are so far in debt that they cannot afford to file for bankruptcy plus bankruptcy is much less forgiving now.

One reason the clean up is going so slow in the gulf is that insufficient people live where the work needs doing. Also the gulf states and BP are fearful of setting off a labor rush so this story is being covered solely by local news. The de facto homeless rate is more than 3% but there is a huge undercount such as Neubarth's four kids.

This is going to get worse.

 

[pinqy]

yup thats the real deal also in 94 I believe the bls changed the way( with a little prompting form you know who) they advertise post the figures....the real unemployment rate is much higher absent this fanciful people gave up dodge.

The uniformed sheep are like wow the unemployment rate went down and we lost jobs...what? duh...no, they just make it appear that way by creating their own benchmark purely for their own ( the party at the time) aggrandizement.

You believe wrongly. The only changes to the definition of Unemployment in 1994 was that people waiting to start a job are no longer counted as unemployed unless they looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, and military were removed from the Population (that had the effect of raising the UE rate). Discouraged workers have NEVER been systematically included. Before 1967 it was included in the definition, but only for areas of particular economic hardship and it was up to the interviewer's discretion.

Now, if you want to claim political hijinxs in the rate, go ahead and present your evidence. You won't find any because it doesn't happen. I doubt you even realize what would be involved to try to manipulate the figures.

That is incorrect. In 1994, the BLS stopped including Long Term Discouraged Workers to the definition of U6 unemployment. Short Term Discouraged workers are still counted, but not long term.

Shadow Stats adjusts for this methodological change, which results in real unemployment of close to 22%.

You're wrong on several counts. First, I was talking about the definition of Unemployment...and thus the official rate...the U-5 and then the U-3. Before 1994, discouraged workers were included in the U-7 "Total persons seeking full time jobs, plus one half of persons seeking part time jobs, plus one half of persons working part time for economic reasons, plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers less one half of the part time labor force" That is in no way the same as the current U-6.
Second, it's clear that discouraged workers were not considered Unemployed, but rather not in the labor force. The change of adding a time requirement (and do you really think someone who hasn't looked for work in 5 years really gives any useful information about the labor market) did not affect the Unemployment calculations at all
John Williams claims he's "adjusting" for the changes in 1994, but let's look. The U-6 is Unemployed plus all marginally attatched plus all part time for economic reasons as a percent of the Labor force plus all marginally attached. The Marginally Attached was not a category before 1994 and was not included in even the alternative measures. Only one half of part time for economic reasons were included. There's simply no comparison between current U6 and old U7. So what exactly is he adjusting and what are his sources of information and his methodology? He doesn't say. My guess is he just takes the U-6 and tacks on 5 million people (his estimate of those not looking for work in over a year but say they want to work). That's all pretty ridiculous from a methodological viewpoint. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been able to re-create Shadow stats numbers, either for Unemployment or the CPI.

 

[Paulie]

Pay attention Paulie.

Judyd is telling it like it is.

A construction worker I know lost his job last year. He borrowed money to go to an HVAC-air conditioning trade school shortly thereafter.
Completed it in Feb.. His unemployment ran out June 2nd.
Can't find a job since Feb..
Temp. here in Vegas hit 108 first week in June.
Still not employed.
Is getting evicted and owes the AC trade school loan to boot.
Good, upstanding, fellow Americans are beginning to drop, like leaves from a tree, in the Autumn.
Happy 4th of July SUBJECTS, cause we are no longer CITIZENS!

You'll notice I said earlier that not EVERY location has that kind of work available.

You can't exactly compare VEGAS with the rest of the country these days.

 

[topspin]

Yes if you have a college degree or more, the unemployment rate is under 5 percent. Those without educations will be competing with chines and undocumented workers.

 

[boedicca]

there are several problems here:

Labor immobility. The housing crash means that people can't move to where jobs actually are.

Deleveraging. Many people are so far in debt that they cannot afford to file for bankruptcy plus bankruptcy is much less forgiving now.

One reason the clean up is going so slow in the gulf is that insufficient people live where the work needs doing. Also the gulf states and BP are fearful of setting off a labor rush so this story is being covered solely by local news. The de facto homeless rate is more than 3% but there is a huge undercount such as Neubarth's four kids.

This is going to get worse.

Correction: The reason the gulf clean up is going so slow is because we have government approval immobilization. Clean up measures require approval for the Coast Guard, DHS, EPA and several other agencies. It's insane.

There are over 2,000 oil skimmer in the U.S. - only 400 have been relocated to the gulf. Why? Government red tape.

Foreign governments have offered assets to help with the clean up and berm building. Very little has been accepted. Why? Government red tape and union favoritism (Jones Act).

Don't blame this mess on the lack of concerned residents in the area. It is clearly a Fed-Made Disaster.

 

[boedicca]

You believe wrongly. The only changes to the definition of Unemployment in 1994 was that people waiting to start a job are no longer counted as unemployed unless they looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, and military were removed from the Population (that had the effect of raising the UE rate). Discouraged workers have NEVER been systematically included. Before 1967 it was included in the definition, but only for areas of particular economic hardship and it was up to the interviewer's discretion.

Now, if you want to claim political hijinxs in the rate, go ahead and present your evidence. You won't find any because it doesn't happen. I doubt you even realize what would be involved to try to manipulate the figures.

That is incorrect. In 1994, the BLS stopped including Long Term Discouraged Workers to the definition of U6 unemployment. Short Term Discouraged workers are still counted, but not long term.

Shadow Stats adjusts for this methodological change, which results in real unemployment of close to 22%.

You're wrong on several counts. First, I was talking about the definition of Unemployment...and thus the official rate...the U-5 and then the U-3. Before 1994, discouraged workers were included in the U-7 "Total persons seeking full time jobs, plus one half of persons seeking part time jobs, plus one half of persons working part time for economic reasons, plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers less one half of the part time labor force" That is in no way the same as the current U-6.
Second, it's clear that discouraged workers were not considered Unemployed, but rather not in the labor force. The change of adding a time requirement (and do you really think someone who hasn't looked for work in 5 years really gives any useful information about the labor market) did not affect the Unemployment calculations at all
John Williams claims he's "adjusting" for the changes in 1994, but let's look. The U-6 is Unemployed plus all marginally attatched plus all part time for economic reasons as a percent of the Labor force plus all marginally attached. The Marginally Attached was not a category before 1994 and was not included in even the alternative measures. Only one half of part time for economic reasons were included. There's simply no comparison between current U6 and old U7. So what exactly is he adjusting and what are his sources of information and his methodology? He doesn't say. My guess is he just takes the U-6 and tacks on 5 million people (his estimate of those not looking for work in over a year but say they want to work). That's all pretty ridiculous from a methodological viewpoint. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been able to re-create Shadow stats numbers, either for Unemployment or the CPI.

You're wrong. I already explained why, so I am not going to rehash it.

 

[judyd]

Yes if you have a college degree or more, the unemployment rate is under 5 percent. Those without educations will be competing with chines and undocumented workers.

A college degree doesn't help the older worker who has been laid off. There are too many people who have degrees these days--it's like "so what?" Years of experience don't seem to be worth much now either. Put those two together, and you probably made a lot more than another employer is willing to pay these days, so they're not interested. Also, someone over 40 or 45 will cost the employer more in health insurance costs.

 

[topspin]

It's never been good to get laid off and I'd agree now is prob the worst anyone has seen for unemployed degreed people.

 

[B. Kidd]

Yes if you have a college degree or more, the unemployment rate is under 5 percent. Those without educations will be competing with chines and undocumented workers.

UUuummmmmmmmmmmmm, ,

You never have posted where you got yer stats from.
Mine were as current as the end of May, 2010.
I asked first.......

 

[boedicca]

Table D-3 from the BLS.gov site:

CPS Tables


Unemployment by level of education:

Less than a high school diploma - 14.6%
High school diploma, no college - 10.8%
Some college or AA degree - 8.3%
Bachelor degree or higher - 4.7%

These are logical results. The cratering of the economy has been felt most deeply in the construction, housing, and related manufacturing industries. I'd add autos, but the government has softened the impact via unwarranted bail outs to unions.

 

[B. Kidd]

Mine from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) report, in U.S. ECONOMY, May 28, 2010.

Report Title: 'The Class of 2010: Economic Prospects For Young Adults in the Recession'.

 

[B. Kidd]

Table D-3 from the BLS.gov site:

CPS Tables


Unemployment by level of education:

Less than a high school diploma - 14.6%
High school diploma, no college - 10.8%
Some college or AA degree - 8.3%
Bachelor degree or higher - 4.7%

These are logical results. The cratering of the economy has been felt most deeply in the construction, housing, and related manufacturing industries. I'd add autos, but the government has softened the impact via unwarranted bail outs to unions.

OOOhhhoooooo.....a gov't site .

 

[boedicca]

Whatever. The BLS is the source of the unemployment stats that are frequently discussed and cited. The BLS provides breakdowns of the data. If you don't find it useful, please feel free to move along.

 

[Defiant1]

I'm feeling guilty. I wonder if I should give up one of my 3 jobs.

 

[B. Kidd]

Now that the gov't is taking over student loans, does anyone think they really want you to know what is going on???

gov't=student loan source=students incurring loans=students (or gov't stooges who owe gov't loans). Just gives added meaning to 'another brick in the wall' of future totalitarianism?

 

[B. Kidd]

Now that the gov't is taking over student loans, does anyone think they really want you to know what is going on???

gov't=student loan source=students incurring loans=students (or future gov't stooges who owe gov't loans). Just gives added meaning to 'another brick in the wall' of future totalitarianism?

Already have....moved along....that is!!!!
Thanx anyways.

 

[pinqy]

You're wrong. I already explained why, so I am not going to rehash it.

Well, I'm glad you're not going to repeat your false statements. It just makes you look ignorant. But perhaps you should do some actual research instead of shadowstats' BS. I can provide proof of what I'm saying...you can't.

 

[boedicca]

I did provide proof. You wish to disregard it. That is your prerogative. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[pinqy]

I did provide proof. You wish to disregard it. That is your prerogative. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Where and when did you provide proof? I've just seen assertions, and false ones, such as your false claim that adding a time limit to be considered discouraged changed the unemployment rate when it did not.

Here's a link to the definition in 1990: Employment and Earnings August 1990 page 120 of the pdf

Unemployed persons are all civilians who had no employment during the survey week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the prior 4 weeks. Person who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off or were waiting to report to a new job within 30 days need not be looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Note that that does NOT include discouraged. So changing the definition of discouraged by adding a time limiter could not possibly affect the rate.

So show your evidence again, but I have seen nothing from you except assertions.

 

[B. Kidd]

Whatever. The BLS is the source of the unemployment stats that are frequently discussed and cited. The BLS provides breakdowns of the data. If you don't find it useful, please feel free to move along.

I just don't find some gov't stats useful, especially when it comes to unemployment stats as concerns college grads, since the gov't. is taking over student loans (and they need the student 'mill' to keep churning), as future students take out college loans; which is just another way of increasingly making sure future grads are beholdin' to them, cause they own the loans, whereby, they'll own the students, who will tell the gov't what they want to hear.
And professors will merrily go along because they need a job to feed their families, and the late great United States will plod towards continued lameness in pursuit of a consensual authoritorianism. This gov't, and subsequent ones, subtlety and incrementally, will continually insure that we will all be subjects one day in the not to distant futere.