Legitimate Unemployment Thread

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm sick of all the crap about unemployment. I'm sick of the rhetoric, the talking points, the lies. I'm making this thread as a service to the forum to just track the raw numbers. The numbers show us the whole truth and not just the parts of the truth that one side or the other is interested in showing you.

Take from it what you want. The information can be verified at www.bls.com

Enjoy

Quarter 2009:
Labor Force 153,993,000
Employed 141,578,000
Unemployed 12,415,000

Quarter 2009
Labor Force 154,912,000
Employed 140,591,000
Unemployed 14,321,000

May 2009
Labor Force 155,081,000
Employed 140,570,000
Unemployed 14,511,000

June 2009
Labor Force 154,926,000
Employed 140,196,000
Unemployed 14,729,000

July 2009
Labor Force 154,504,000
Employed 140,041,000
Unemployed 14,462,000

August 2009
Labor Force 154,577,000
Employed 139,649,000
Unemployed 14,928,000

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I'm sick of all the crap about unemployment. I'm sick of the rhetoric, the talking points, the lies. I'm making this thread as a service to the forum to just track the raw numbers. The numbers show us the whole truth and not just the parts of the truth that one side or the other is interested in showing you.

The numbers do not show you the whole truth, PP. They cover only people who have filed claims and whose benefits have not expired.

 

[pinqy]

The numbers do not show you the whole truth, PP. They cover only people who have filed claims and whose benefits have not expired.

For the billionth time, the Unemployment rate has NEVER been based on Unemployment insurance. It's not asked in the survey and never has been. I don't get how you could make that post when you've clearly never actually researched it yourself. Where on earth did you get the idea that the Unemployment rate had anything to do with Unemployment benefits?

The official definitions from The Bureau of Labor Statistics

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibilityfor or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

(bolding is mine)

 

[Oddball]

I'm sick of all the crap about unemployment. I'm sick of the rhetoric, the talking points, the lies. I'm making this thread as a service to the forum to just track the raw numbers. The numbers show us the whole truth and not just the parts of the truth that one side or the other is interested in showing you.

Take from it what you want. The information can be verified at www.bls.com

Enjoy

Quarter 2009:
Labor Force 153,993,000
Employed 141,578,000
Unemployed 12,415,000

Quarter 2009
Labor Force 154,912,000
Employed 140,591,000
Unemployed 14,321,000

May 2009
Labor Force 155,081,000
Employed 140,570,000
Unemployed 14,511,000

June 2009
Labor Force 154,926,000
Employed 140,196,000
Unemployed 14,729,000

July 2009
Labor Force 154,504,000
Employed 140,041,000
Unemployed 14,462,000

Lots and loits of self-employed people, who don't qualify for unemployment handouts, are out of work, too.

 

[pinqy]

Lots and loits of self-employed people, who don't qualify for unemployment handouts, are out of work, too.

The self-employed are included in the quoted labor force statistics. Again, to be unemployed you do NOT have to be qualified for or receive Unemployment Insurance. You do not even need to have ever worked at all. If you turn 16, have never worked before, and start looking for a job, you're unemployed.

 

[Terry]

The numbers do not show you the whole truth, PP. They cover only people who have filed claims and whose benefits have not expired.

For the billionth time, the Unemployment rate has NEVER been based on Unemployment insurance. It's not asked in the survey and never has been. I don't get how you could make that post when you've clearly never actually researched it yourself. Where on earth did you get the idea that the Unemployment rate had anything to do with Unemployment benefits?

The official definitions from The Bureau of Labor Statistics

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibilityfor or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

(bolding is mine)

This information is collected from
payroll records by BLS in cooperation with state agencies.

 

[pinqy]

This information is collected from
payroll records by BLS in cooperation with state agencies.

No, that's the Employment data, not the Unemployment data. There are two seperate surveys that comprise the Employment Situation Report. The official Employment level is from the Current Employment Statistics Survey (an establishment survey), and is a survey of approx 160,000 businesses that pay into UI. As you say, it's a Fed/State survey. Excluded are agriculture, the self-employed, and domestic workers (those who work in other people's houses).

The Unemployment Rate, and the Labor Force statistics cited in this thread (including the quoted measure of employment, which is not the official number) are from the Current Population Survey, which is conducted by the Bureau of the Census for BLS. It's a household survey of approx 60,000 households and includes everyone (over 16, not in the military, prison, or an institute or long term health-care facility) including unpaid family members working 15+ hours in a family business/farm.

For July, we have:
Total non-farm Payroll employment (establishment survey): 131,488,000 (preliminary data, subject to revision for the next 3 months)

From the CPS-
Employed: 140,041,000 (note that it's larger than non-farm payroll)
Unemployed: 14,462,000
These two combined make up the Labor Force: 154,504,000
The Unemployment rate is Unemployed/Labor Force
The third category is Not in the Labor Force (those not working and not currently looking for work): 81,366,000
So the total adult civilian non-institutional population is 235,870,000

Note, that thes numbers are all seasonally adjusted (except for the population figure), meaning that predictable, normal, seasonal trends (such as increases in employment in June and Dec and decreases in Aug and January) are mathematically removed so that the underlying trend can be seen.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm sick of all the crap about unemployment. I'm sick of the rhetoric, the talking points, the lies. I'm making this thread as a service to the forum to just track the raw numbers. The numbers show us the whole truth and not just the parts of the truth that one side or the other is interested in showing you.

The numbers do not show you the whole truth, PP. They cover only people who have filed claims and whose benefits have not expired.

These actually show the whole truth.

The numbers show exactly how many people are in the labor force, how many are employed, and how many are unemployed. It does not take unemployment claims into account at all.

You should really check something thoroughly before assuming.


These numbers come from the B.L.S. and are very simple. It shows you how many Employable people we have, how many of those paid payroll taxes and how many didn't.

some of you are referring back to other data that has come out, the same data that motivated this "raw numbers" approach here.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I'm sick of all the crap about unemployment. I'm sick of the rhetoric, the talking points, the lies. I'm making this thread as a service to the forum to just track the raw numbers. The numbers show us the whole truth and not just the parts of the truth that one side or the other is interested in showing you.

The numbers do not show you the whole truth, PP. They cover only people who have filed claims and whose benefits have not expired.

These actually show the whole truth.

The numbers show exactly how many people are in the labor force, how many are employed, and how many are unemployed. It does not take unemployment claims into account at all.

You should really check something thoroughly before assuming.

The BLS numbers do not show the exact number of unemployed, as several others in this thread have already demonstrated.

You should really read something thoroughly before assuming.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Go to the link, check the website, and see.

Others may have failed to do so also, i can't control what other people do/don't read before posting.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Go to the link, check the website, and see.

I did, and the factors they fail to account for (many of which are spelled out in this very thread), are not on the website.

Don't be one of those rabid imbeciles who keeps repeating the same point. This board has far too many of them already.

 

[pinqy]

Go to the link, check the website, and see.

I did, and the factors they fail to account for (many of which are spelled out in this very thread), are not on the website.

If you had read, you would have known that Unemployment Insurance has nothing to do with the Unemployment rate, yet you stated it did. The only "factors they fail to account for" that have been claimed in this thread are the false claims made by you and Dude that people who don't collect benefits are not counted. The definitions are complete...there are no factors not accounted for.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Go to the link, check the website, and see.

I did, and the factors they fail to account for (many of which are spelled out in this very thread), are not on the website.

If you had read, you would have known that Unemployment Insurance has nothing to do with the Unemployment rate, yet you stated it did. The only "factors they fail to account for" that have been claimed in this thread are the false claims made by you and Dude that people who don't collect benefits are not counted. The definitions are complete...there are no factors not accounted for.

You sound like a spokesperson for the Department of Labor. The BLS numbers are an epic fail, and your screaming "liar, liar" doesn't change that.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

SO when the true numbers without spin or statistics to convolute them dont show what you believe the truth then they aren't accurate?


The number of employable americans, working americans, and non-working americans are kinda hard to spin or miss. That is all i posted, nothing less nothing more.

Its just the numbers, i haven't given any interpretation or opinon on what they say yet you're in attack mode over it? What gives?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

SO when the true numbers without spin or statistics to convolute them dont show what you believe the truth then they aren't accurate?


The number of employable americans, working americans, and non-working americans are kinda hard to spin or miss. That is all i posted, nothing less nothing more.

Its just the numbers, i haven't given any interpretation or opinon on what they say yet you're in attack mode over it? What gives?

I don't trust anyone who says "this is the final word," regardless of the topic. Orthodoxy is a dangerous thing.

 

[pinqy]

You sound like a spokesperson for the Department of Labor. The BLS numbers are an epic fail, and your screaming "liar, liar" doesn't change that.

How can you say they're an epic fail when you clearly don't know a domn thing about them? I'm calling you a liar because you said something that wasn't true. If you have an actual argument, please make it...I've pointed out the facts, given links, you've made assertions that are untrue.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

You sound like a spokesperson for the Department of Labor. The BLS numbers are an epic fail, and your screaming "liar, liar" doesn't change that.

How can you say they're an epic fail when you clearly don't know a domn thing about them? I'm calling you a liar because you said something that wasn't true. If you have an actual argument, please make it...I've pointed out the facts, given links, you've made assertions that are untrue.

I have many "actual" arguments. You, OTOH, are pronouncing from on high that the other side knows nothing based on only one statement (let's set aside the question of its accuracy for now).

Doesn't give me any confidence at all that you'd be open to discussing any other issue or - perish the thought - admit to any of your mistakes.

 

[pinqy]

I have many "actual" arguments. You, OTOH, are pronouncing from on high that the other side knows nothing based on only one statement (let's set aside the question of its accuracy for now).

But accuracy is exactly the point. When you make a blatantly false statement showing a basic misunderstanding, how could you have any valid arguments? If you don't understand how the statistics are derived, then what valid arguments about those statistics could you make? If you actually read and understand more of the theory, then of course you could have some valid arguments, but you have to know the basics first.

Doesn't give me any confidence at all that you'd be open to discussing any other issue or - perish the thought - admit to any of your mistakes.

Show me my mistakes. I'm perfectly open to them, but for this particular subject, which I have studied and taught for many years, I'm quite certain of my knowledge. And if you've read any of my other posts on Unemployment you would know that I am perfectly willing to point out difficulties...for example, the fact that the decline in the Unemployment rate from 9.5 to 9.4 was not a hopeful sign. That the UE rate declined might appear on the surface to be good, but an understanding of the numbers reveals that it's actually a bad sign based on what actually happened.

But you still have not yet acknowledged your error. And you're trying to lecture to me about willingness to make mistakes?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I have many "actual" arguments. You, OTOH, are pronouncing from on high that the other side knows nothing based on only one statement (let's set aside the question of its accuracy for now).

But accuracy is exactly the point. When you make a blatantly false statement showing a basic misunderstanding, how could you have any valid arguments? If you don't understand how the statistics are derived, then what valid arguments about those statistics could you make? If you actually read and understand more of the theory, then of course you could have some valid arguments, but you have to know the basics first.

Doesn't give me any confidence at all that you'd be open to discussing any other issue or - perish the thought - admit to any of your mistakes.

Show me my mistakes. I'm perfectly open to them, but for this particular subject, which I have studied and taught for many years, I'm quite certain of my knowledge. And if you've read any of my other posts on Unemployment you would know that I am perfectly willing to point out difficulties...for example, the fact that the decline in the Unemployment rate from 9.5 to 9.4 was not a hopeful sign. That the UE rate declined might appear on the surface to be good, but an understanding of the numbers reveals that it's actually a bad sign based on what actually happened.

But you still have not yet acknowledged your error. And you're trying to lecture to me about willingness to make mistakes?

But you just implied that if I do acknowledge an error, it wouldn't matter, because according to you I would still have no valid arguments. So please clarify: do you want to have a serious discussion of this topic, or do you just want to win?

 

[pinqy]

But you just implied that if I do acknowledge an error, it wouldn't matter, because according to you I would still have no valid arguments.

The two are unconnected. There are two distinct points here:
1. You made a false statment about the nature of the Unemployment statistics. If you don't know the very basic facts, how could you argue the complexities? I'm certainly not going to argue about the relative merits of a subject I'm not that familiar with. Would you really think a person who didn't know that Puerto Rico was part of the United States could give good advice or arguments about the island's politics and economy?

2. You refuse to acknowledge your error, which makes me doubt your willingness to have a serious discussion. You made a mistake, most likely based on bad information from someone you believed trustworthy. Happens all the time. But when shown plainly to be mistaken, someone looking for serious discussion admits the error and tries to learn the truth. You don't seem willing to do that.

1 and 2 are independent. Even if you did acknowledge the error, that wouldn't mean that you had gained the necessary knowledge to intelligently debate the issues. And if you did gain the necessary knowledge but still refused to admit your error, there would still be doubt about your willingness to debate reasonably.

1 is about your knowledge, 2 is your intent.

So please clarify: do you want to have a serious discussion of this topic, or do you just want to win?

I simply pointed out your error. I put out the facts, that's it. I have no clue why you refuse to even acknowledge that. I'm willing to have a serious discussion, but you seem more interested in tap-dancing around a basic error.