Jobless Rate Rises to 9.9 Percent.

[boedicca]

It's not 9.9% - it's 17.1% (using BLS U6 - the real # is closer to 22%).

We have a massive unemployment problem which is being papered over with government hiring permanent and temp workers, and the bail out of state and local government which need to significantly reduce their bloated workforces.

Yeah, let's use a different measure because it will make Obama look bad! And no one is smart enough to catch us!

jeezus

It's the more accurate measure - and one calculated by the BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. If it's not meaningful, why do they bother with it?

U6 includes people who are unemployed but have put looking for a job on hold because there are not jobs in their area or career. 17.1% is not good.

At April's job creation rate, it will take nearly 3 years to recover the jobs lost in the recession. Even more are needed to account for population growth. The monthly job creation rate would have to increase to 400K.

Unemployment drops to 9.7% despite more job losses


231K just means we are continuing to dig a deeper unemployment hole.

 

[boedicca]

It's not 9.9% - it's 17.1% (using BLS U6 - the real # is closer to 22%).

We have a massive unemployment problem which is being papered over with government hiring permanent and temp workers, and the bail out of state and local government which need to significantly reduce their bloated workforces.

You keep saying things like this...it would be interesting to here you defend them.

Why do you consider the U6 to be a more accurate measure of unemployment (than the tU3, U4, or U5) when it includes a large number of people who have jobs?

What makes an unemployment calculation the "real" number? What's more "real" about i(when I guarantee nobody has ever used whatever you'll claim as an official or reliable measure)?

What definition of Unemployment are you using, and why?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts six levels of unemployment (you can find a great deal of info at bls.gov if you are interested):


- U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
- U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
- U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
- U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
- U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
- U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment


I believe that U6 is more useful because it provides a fuller perspective of the true human cost of under and unemployment. Someone who has given up looking due to lack of jobs in his area is suffering as much as someone who is still looking; someone who has taken a low paying part time job to make ends meet is not fully employed. The cost to our society and the affected individuals of this much fallow productivity is enormous.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Seriously,these same Hopey Changey dopes used to actually whine incessantly when Bush had 4% Unemployment. They will of course deny it now but they know it's true. I've been going on political message boards for a long time and these dopes used to screech 24/7 about how "The sky is falling" over 4% Unemployment. Now look at them spin their Hopey Changey's disastrous 9.9% Unemployment. Leftists really are pretty disingenuous people for the most part.

 

[pinqy]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts six levels of unemployment (you can find a great deal of info at bls.gov if you are interested):

Since I've worked professionally with these numbers for over ten years, I can assure you I am quite familiar with them. And your definitions are a little off.

- U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.

Mostly. The ILO definition has a maximum age of 65 and includes the military, while the U3 has no maximum age and excludes the military (the U5 did, from 1984-1994, though the seperate civilian rate was generally preferred)

- U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.

There's some subtlety here...it's not so much that economic conditions make them believe, but rather they believe they will not find work, either due to their perception of economic conditions or simply personal circumstances. Your phrasing makes it sound more objective. And since 1994 the criteria is that they must have looked for work sometime in the previous 12 months.

- U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.

You've got that one right, though again there's a 12 month limit. The important thing with the Marginally attached is that it can be for any reason at all that they haven't been looking. Which is fine for looking at potential workers, bad for an objective look at actual labor market conditions.

- U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

Correct, though it's a little more subtle...there are 2 categories of part time for economic reasons...<35 hrs/week due to slack work/slow business conditions, and <35 hrs/week to to inability to find a part time job. About 2/3s of part time for economic reasons is slack work/slow business.

[qutoe]I believe that U6 is more useful because it provides a fuller perspective of the true human cost of under and unemployment. [/quote]It is more useful for that...which is why it's calculated. But it is NOT true unemployment (because it includes some employed) and does not give an objective view of the labor market...what the actual market conditions are.

Someone who has given up looking due to lack of jobs in his area is suffering as much as someone who is still looking;

Are we trying to measure suffering? Or are we trying to measure the labor market? There are many more people suffering through jobs they dislike, lower pay than they'd like, etc. We can't measure that in any objective manner.

someone who has taken a low paying part time job to make ends meet is not fully employed.

True, but how would you actually quantify that? Most of the part time for economic reasons are people who have had a temporary drop in hours, which is certainly an important thing to track, but it is not the same thing as taking a low paying part time job to make ends meet.

The cost to our society and the affected individuals of this much fallow productivity is enormous.

Of course...but that doesn't make it more "real" and it is certainly less accurate because it's a lot more subjective. Of the components of the U3, the Unemployment level margin of error is currently +-2.2% and Employment is +-0.4%. Discouraged workers is +-8.3%, part time for economic reasons is +-3%. So to get the broader picture, you're sacrificing accuracy.

Now it's fine if you consider the U6 more useful for the purposes of overall "suffering," but that doesn't make it more "real" or more useful for measuring the labor market, which is the purpose of the U3. A screwdriver makes a poor hammer, but it's not meant to be used as a hammer...same thing with these stats...the U3 isn't supposed to measure "suffering" so it's unfair to judge it by that.

 

[boedicca]

That's a matter of perspective. 17.1% of the workforce is not "gainfully" employed.

If you think that's a good thing, you have issues.

 

[pinqy]

That's a matter of perspective. 17.1% of the workforce is not "gainfully" employed.

If you think that's a good thing, you have issues.

Well, you're redefining the "workforce" since the Marginally Attached (including Discouraged workers) aren't in the workforce (because they're not trying to work). But that's nitpicking. The question was what makes that better measure of UNEMPLOYMENT, which no sensible definition would include people with jobs, no matter how unsatisfactory those jobs. Note that BLS does not call the U6 a measure of Unemployment, but rather "Labor Underutilization" which is the more accurate descriptor.

 

[Flopper]

It's not 9.9% - it's 17.1% (using BLS U6 - the real # is closer to 22%).

We have a massive unemployment problem which is being papered over with government hiring permanent and temp workers, and the bail out of state and local government which need to significantly reduce their bloated workforces.

You keep saying things like this...it would be interesting to here you defend them.

Why do you consider the U6 to be a more accurate measure of unemployment (than the tU3, U4, or U5) when it includes a large number of people who have jobs?

What makes an unemployment calculation the "real" number? What's more "real" about i(when I guarantee nobody has ever used whatever you'll claim as an official or reliable measure)?

What definition of Unemployment are you using, and why?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts six levels of unemployment (you can find a great deal of info at bls.gov if you are interested):


- U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
- U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
- U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
- U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
- U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
- U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe that U6 is more useful because it provides a fuller perspective of the true human cost of under and unemployment. Someone who has given up looking due to lack of jobs in his area is suffering as much as someone who is still looking; someone who has taken a low paying part time job to make ends meet is not fully employed. The cost to our society and the affected individuals of this much fallow productivity is enormous.

An unemployment rate statistic, like most economic statistics only have value when compared to the same statistic in a previous time period. So as long as we compared this years U6 against previous years U6, we would have a valid comparison. The problem is that U3 is used universally throughout the world. To report U6 as the unemployment rate would cause a great deal of confusion and would accomplish little.

 

[boedicca]

That's a matter of perspective. 17.1% of the workforce is not "gainfully" employed.

If you think that's a good thing, you have issues.

Well, you're redefining the "workforce" since the Marginally Attached (including Discouraged workers) aren't in the workforce (because they're not trying to work). But that's nitpicking. The question was what makes that better measure of UNEMPLOYMENT, which no sensible definition would include people with jobs, no matter how unsatisfactory those jobs. Note that BLS does not call the U6 a measure of Unemployment, but rather "Labor Underutilization" which is the more accurate descriptor.

No, I'm not redefining the workforce. The Bureau For Labor Statistics measures U6 unemployment - I didn't invent it.

Labor Under Utilization is just Orwellian Government speak for people who do not have real job (excluding those who are paid by the government to do nothing all day, of course).

 

[boedicca]

An unemployment rate statistic, like most economic statistics only have value when compared to the same statistic in a previous time period. So as long as we compared this years U6 against previous years U6, we would have a valid comparison. The problem is that U3 is used universally throughout the world. To report U6 as the unemployment rate would cause a great deal of confusion and would accomplish little.

The U.S. government itself changes how they count unemployed people. In 1994, they dropped long term discouraged workers, which artificially lowered the U6 rate.

 

[The T]

That's a matter of perspective. 17.1% of the workforce is not "gainfully" employed.

If you think that's a good thing, you have issues.

Well, you're redefining the "workforce" since the Marginally Attached (including Discouraged workers) aren't in the workforce (because they're not trying to work). But that's nitpicking. The question was what makes that better measure of UNEMPLOYMENT, which no sensible definition would include people with jobs, no matter how unsatisfactory those jobs. Note that BLS does not call the U6 a measure of Unemployment, but rather "Labor Underutilization" which is the more accurate descriptor.

No, I'm not redefining the workforce. The Bureau For Labor Statistics measures U6 unemployment - I didn't invent it.

Labor Under Utilization is just Orwellian Government speak for people who do not have real job (excluding those who are paid by the government to do nothing all day, of course).

They surf PORN all day and keep their jobs.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I have work available for those willing to work nights and weekends. Contract labor with no benefits.
And no takers.
"How many off days, paid holidays and benefits do I get?" is all they are interested in.

So what's wrong with asking for benefits you cheap ass slave labor business owner....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts six levels of unemployment (you can find a great deal of info at bls.gov if you are interested):

Since I've worked professionally with these numbers for over ten years, I can assure you I am quite familiar with them. And your definitions are a little off.

- U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.

Mostly. The ILO definition has a maximum age of 65 and includes the military, while the U3 has no maximum age and excludes the military (the U5 did, from 1984-1994, though the seperate civilian rate was generally preferred)

There's some subtlety here...it's not so much that economic conditions make them believe, but rather they believe they will not find work, either due to their perception of economic conditions or simply personal circumstances. Your phrasing makes it sound more objective. And since 1994 the criteria is that they must have looked for work sometime in the previous 12 months.

You've got that one right, though again there's a 12 month limit. The important thing with the Marginally attached is that it can be for any reason at all that they haven't been looking. Which is fine for looking at potential workers, bad for an objective look at actual labor market conditions.

Correct, though it's a little more subtle...there are 2 categories of part time for economic reasons...<35 hrs/week due to slack work/slow business conditions, and <35 hrs/week to to inability to find a part time job. About 2/3s of part time for economic reasons is slack work/slow business.

[qutoe]I believe that U6 is more useful because it provides a fuller perspective of the true human cost of under and unemployment.

It is more useful for that...which is why it's calculated. But it is NOT true unemployment (because it includes some employed) and does not give an objective view of the labor market...what the actual market conditions are.

Someone who has given up looking due to lack of jobs in his area is suffering as much as someone who is still looking;

Are we trying to measure suffering? Or are we trying to measure the labor market? There are many more people suffering through jobs they dislike, lower pay than they'd like, etc. We can't measure that in any objective manner.

someone who has taken a low paying part time job to make ends meet is not fully employed.

True, but how would you actually quantify that? Most of the part time for economic reasons are people who have had a temporary drop in hours, which is certainly an important thing to track, but it is not the same thing as taking a low paying part time job to make ends meet.

The cost to our society and the affected individuals of this much fallow productivity is enormous.

Of course...but that doesn't make it more "real" and it is certainly less accurate because it's a lot more subjective. Of the components of the U3, the Unemployment level margin of error is currently +-2.2% and Employment is +-0.4%. Discouraged workers is +-8.3%, part time for economic reasons is +-3%. So to get the broader picture, you're sacrificing accuracy.

Now it's fine if you consider the U6 more useful for the purposes of overall "suffering," but that doesn't make it more "real" or more useful for measuring the labor market, which is the purpose of the U3. A screwdriver makes a poor hammer, but it's not meant to be used as a hammer...same thing with these stats...the U3 isn't supposed to measure "suffering" so it's unfair to judge it by that.

[/QUOTE]
All this spinning your doing to define your argument is what people like you do best...that's fine...it's what you get paid to do. The fact that the private sector added jobs is a good thing. The fact that the BLS refuses to include people that are no longer looking for work in the unemployment number of 9.9% is a deliberate deception. Obama doesn't have a lock on deception .... he is a master of it...otherwise he wouldn't have got elected president but both political parties do engage in deception to support their side of the argument...I just wish it all would stop. The American people are tired of being bullshitted by politicians.

 

[boedicca]

The problem is that the economy needs to generate 400K jobs per month for 3 years to recover the lost jobs and handle population growth (119K per month just for the latter).

With the current anti-growth policies of the Obama Administration, GDP growth strong enough to create 400K jobs per month is highly unlikely, excepting the scenario where they use Stimulus funds to create a bunch of temp government jobs (such as the census) to cook the stats for a few months.

 

[pinqy]

That's a matter of perspective. 17.1% of the workforce is not "gainfully" employed.

If you think that's a good thing, you have issues.

Well, you're redefining the "workforce" since the Marginally Attached (including Discouraged workers) aren't in the workforce (because they're not trying to work). But that's nitpicking. The question was what makes that better measure of UNEMPLOYMENT, which no sensible definition would include people with jobs, no matter how unsatisfactory those jobs. Note that BLS does not call the U6 a measure of Unemployment, but rather "Labor Underutilization" which is the more accurate descriptor.

No, I'm not redefining the workforce. The Bureau For Labor Statistics measures U6 unemployment - I didn't invent it.

No, it's you. BLS defines the Labor Force as Employed plus Unemployed. The U6 includes the Marginally Attached, who BLS defines as "Not in the Labor Force."

Labor Under Utilization is just Orwellian Government speak for people who do not have real job (excluding those who are paid by the government to do nothing all day, of course).

No, it means people who aren't unemployed (because they're not trying to work) but who would theoretically work, and people who aren't working as much as they want to (due to the economy): they're potential workers who aren't working, and people who are willing and able to work more. Underutilized, but not unemployed. You seriously don't think it's silly to call people who have jobs "Unemployed?"

 

[pinqy]

The fact that the BLS refuses to include people that are no longer looking for work in the unemployment number of 9.9% is a deliberate deception.

See, here's where you're going to fail. Explain how it is a deception. Explain why people not trying to find work should be counted as employed. Why retirees, full time students, stay at home spouses, or people who just don't want to work should be considered unemployed. And if you're going say you only mean people who have "given up," then give a solid definition of how you would quantify that in a scientifically meaningful, objective, way (assuming you don't want to include people who don't really want to work but will claim that they do), and then explain what effect that group has on the labor market as opposed to all other not trying to work.

Except you won't do any of that, because you don't know how.

 

[boedicca]

Well, you're redefining the "workforce" since the Marginally Attached (including Discouraged workers) aren't in the workforce (because they're not trying to work). But that's nitpicking. The question was what makes that better measure of UNEMPLOYMENT, which no sensible definition would include people with jobs, no matter how unsatisfactory those jobs. Note that BLS does not call the U6 a measure of Unemployment, but rather "Labor Underutilization" which is the more accurate descriptor.

No, I'm not redefining the workforce. The Bureau For Labor Statistics measures U6 unemployment - I didn't invent it.

No, it's you. BLS defines the Labor Force as Employed plus Unemployed. The U6 includes the Marginally Attached, who BLS defines as "Not in the Labor Force."

Labor Under Utilization is just Orwellian Government speak for people who do not have real job (excluding those who are paid by the government to do nothing all day, of course).

No, it means people who aren't unemployed (because they're not trying to work) but who would theoretically work, and people who aren't working as much as they want to (due to the economy): they're potential workers who aren't working, and people who are willing and able to work more. Underutilized, but not unemployed. You seriously don't think it's silly to call people who have jobs "Unemployed?"

So you think somebody who lost a good paying job as, say, a system administrator and then takes a minimum wage job at a fast food place to make ends meet is gainfully employed in a real career?

You can dissemble all you'd like, but the fact is that the economy is not generating decent private sector jobs. That's what U6 reflects.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

B B BU Bu But But.....fast food jobs under Bush BAD
fast food jubs under Obama GOOD!!!!

 

[boedicca]

Just like 4% unemployment under Bush was bad, but 9.9% under Obama is good.

Obamanomics is a Epic Fail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not 9.9% - it's 17.1% (using BLS U6 - the real # is closer to 22%).

We have a massive unemployment problem which is being papered over with government hiring permanent and temp workers, and the bail out of state and local government which need to significantly reduce their bloated workforces.

Yeah, let's use a different measure because it will make Obama look bad! And no one is smart enough to catch us!

jeezus

It's the more accurate measure - and one calculated by the BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. If it's not meaningful, why do they bother with it?

U6 includes people who are unemployed but have put looking for a job on hold because there are not jobs in their area or career. 17.1% is not good.

At April's job creation rate, it will take nearly 3 years to recover the jobs lost in the recession. Even more are needed to account for population growth. The monthly job creation rate would have to increase to 400K.

Unemployment drops to 9.7% despite more job losses


231K just means we are continuing to dig a deeper unemployment hole.

When was U-6 ever used as the 'official' headline number?

Answer - never.

Why should we start using it now?

Answer - because it might fool some people into thinking it makes Obama look worse.

Fair enough answers?

 

[boedicca]

Wrong. The reason for bringing it up is that it provides a fuller picture of what is going on. The Obama Administration is spinning the 9.9% as Good News because more people are looking for a job - that invites inquiry into what the change is in U6. The increase in U6 is the same .2 points seen in U3 - overall unemployment is increasing. It's not just a shift from inactive to active job search activity.