The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[pinqy]

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits.

Yes, there is. The Current Population Survey. Margin of error for unemployed is approximately +/- 3%

There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

What are you imagining as "cracks in the bureaucracy?" The homeless are not a big percent of the population.

 

[Liminal]

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits.

Yes, there is. The Current Population Survey. Margin of error for unemployed is approximately +/- 3%

There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

What are you imagining as "cracks in the bureaucracy?" The homeless are not a big percent of the population.

You don't get out much do you? A population survey? Are you kidding or what? Shows how much you care about people in trouble. You sound just like an extremely conservative Republican in full denial mode.

 

[pinqy]

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits.

Yes, there is. The Current Population Survey. Margin of error for unemployed is approximately +/- 3%

There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

What are you imagining as "cracks in the bureaucracy?" The homeless are not a big percent of the population.

You don't get out much do you? A population survey? Are you kidding or what? Shows how much you care about people in trouble. You sound just like an extremely conservative Republican in full denial mode.

And your method is?????????????

 

[Faun]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

Those 2 events, as bad as they were, paled in comparison in terms of the damage done to the economy. The only reason Duhbya averaged 5.7% was a) he started at 4.2%; and b) the housing boom, which pumped up GDP and created millions of jobs.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

Those 2 events, as bad as they were, paled in comparison in terms of the damage done to the economy. The only reason Duhbya averaged 5.7% was a) he started at 4.2%; and b) the housing boom, which pumped up GDP and created millions of jobs.

So then you agree that the only reason Clinton showed such great success on paper was because of the dot com boom which created millions of jobs and great wealth for many......correct?

Oh...and by the way.......Bush inherited a 4.2% unemployment because the dot com bubble did not burst until he took office....

Just saying.

 

[Liminal]

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits.

Yes, there is. The Current Population Survey. Margin of error for unemployed is approximately +/- 3%

There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

What are you imagining as "cracks in the bureaucracy?" The homeless are not a big percent of the population.

You don't get out much do you? A population survey? Are you kidding or what? Shows how much you care about people in trouble. You sound just like an extremely conservative Republican in full denial mode.

And your method is?????????????

When did I mention that I had a formula for measuring how many people there are who can't get work or benefits? I'm saying the statistics the government uses are based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy. Which part of that is hard to understand? Don't you think Republicans will be just as happy to exploit inaccurate figures when they are in the White House?

 

[pinqy]

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits.

Yes, there is. The Current Population Survey. Margin of error for unemployed is approximately +/- 3%

There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

What are you imagining as "cracks in the bureaucracy?" The homeless are not a big percent of the population.

You don't get out much do you? A population survey? Are you kidding or what? Shows how much you care about people in trouble. You sound just like an extremely conservative Republican in full denial mode.

And your method is?????????????

When did I mention that I had a formula for measuring how many people there are who can't get work or benefits?

Ok, so if a scientific sample survey is useless, then you're basically claiming there is no method at all for measuring unemployment.

I'm saying the statistics the government uses are based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy.

Since you only found out this afternoon how the data were collected and who was considered unemployed, it seems a bit odd that you can so quickly say they're based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy. By the way, how can you know they don't reflect the true state of the economy without an altternate measure?

Which part of that is hard to understand?

How you can come to such conslusions without knowing anything at all about the methodology.

 

[Liminal]

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits.

Yes, there is. The Current Population Survey. Margin of error for unemployed is approximately +/- 3%

There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

What are you imagining as "cracks in the bureaucracy?" The homeless are not a big percent of the population.

You don't get out much do you? A population survey? Are you kidding or what? Shows how much you care about people in trouble. You sound just like an extremely conservative Republican in full denial mode.

And your method is?????????????

When did I mention that I had a formula for measuring how many people there are who can't get work or benefits?

Ok, so if a scientific sample survey is useless, then you're basically claiming there is no method at all for measuring unemployment.

I'm saying the statistics the government uses are based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy.

Since you only found out this afternoon how the data were collected and who was considered unemployed, it seems a bit odd that you can so quickly say they're based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy. By the way, how can you know they don't reflect the true state of the economy without an altternate measure?

Which part of that is hard to understand?

How you can come to such conslusions without knowing anything at all about the methodology.

Uh huh, guess what: when you become homeless and apply for welfare benefits you're no longer unemployed, you're counted in a different statistic now.

 

[Faun]

There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits. There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

Again, not true. If they want to work after their unemployment benefits expire, then they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force but want a job. There is always a small segment of our society who fall into that category. But if they don't want to work or they get themselves on disability instead, then yes, they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force and don't want a job.

 

[Faun]

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!

Those 2 events, as bad as they were, paled in comparison in terms of the damage done to the economy. The only reason Duhbya averaged 5.7% was a) he started at 4.2%; and b) the housing boom, which pumped up GDP and created millions of jobs.

So then you agree that the only reason Clinton showed such great success on paper was because of the dot com boom which created millions of jobs and great wealth for many......correct?

Oh...and by the way.......Bush inherited a 4.2% unemployment because the dot com bubble did not burst until he took office....

Just saying.

The only reason? Of course not; though it certainly did contribute to it.

 

[pinqy]

You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits. There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

Again, not true. If they want to work after their unemployment benefits expire, then they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force but want a job. .

ummmmm no. If someone is looking for work and available for work, then s/he is unemployed regardless of whether they ever collected benefits, or ever held a job. A 16 year old looking for his first part time job is unemployed as far as the statistics go.

 

[Faun]

Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits. There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

Again, not true. If they want to work after their unemployment benefits expire, then they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force but want a job. .

ummmmm no. If someone is looking for work and available for work, then s/he is unemployed regardless of whether they ever collected benefits, or ever held a job. A 16 year old looking for his first part time job is unemployed as far as the statistics go.

I'm talking about folks whose unemployment benefits have expired. They are no longer in the workforce after that, even though they may still want a job. If they start looking for a job, that is a different matter.

 

[pinqy]

Yes, there is. The Current Population Survey. Margin of error for unemployed is approximately +/- 3%

What are you imagining as "cracks in the bureaucracy?" The homeless are not a big percent of the population.

You don't get out much do you? A population survey? Are you kidding or what? Shows how much you care about people in trouble. You sound just like an extremely conservative Republican in full denial mode.

And your method is?????????????

When did I mention that I had a formula for measuring how many people there are who can't get work or benefits?

Ok, so if a scientific sample survey is useless, then you're basically claiming there is no method at all for measuring unemployment.

I'm saying the statistics the government uses are based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy.

Since you only found out this afternoon how the data were collected and who was considered unemployed, it seems a bit odd that you can so quickly say they're based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy. By the way, how can you know they don't reflect the true state of the economy without an altternate measure?

Which part of that is hard to understand?

How you can come to such conslusions without knowing anything at all about the methodology.

Uh huh, guess what: when you become homeless and apply for welfare benefits you're no longer unemployed, you're counted in a different statistic now.

Untrue. Classification as unemployed is based solely on availability and job search. Which statistic are you claiming they're included in, and how on Earth is that data collected?

 

[pinqy]

Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps? Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

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 eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits. There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

Again, not true. If they want to work after their unemployment benefits expire, then they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force but want a job. .

ummmmm no. If someone is looking for work and available for work, then s/he is unemployed regardless of whether they ever collected benefits, or ever held a job. A 16 year old looking for his first part time job is unemployed as far as the statistics go.

I'm talking about folks whose unemployment benefits have expired. They are no longer in the workforce after that, even though they may still want a job.

The CPS doesn't ask about benefits so they play no role. Whether or not someone's benefits have expired or if they never received benefits is completely irrelevant to their classification. If someone's benefits expire and they stop looking for work, then they will be Not in the Labor Force. It someone's benefits expire and they're still looking for work, then they'll be Unemployed. Neither Census nor BLS have any idea whether a respondent has ever received any benefits.


If they start looking for a job, that is a different matter.[/QUOTE]

 

[Faun]

No, it's not, and never has been. Where did you get the idea they were?

I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.

The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits. There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

Again, not true. If they want to work after their unemployment benefits expire, then they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force but want a job. .

ummmmm no. If someone is looking for work and available for work, then s/he is unemployed regardless of whether they ever collected benefits, or ever held a job. A 16 year old looking for his first part time job is unemployed as far as the statistics go.

I'm talking about folks whose unemployment benefits have expired. They are no longer in the workforce after that, even though they may still want a job.

The CPS doesn't ask about benefits so they play no role. Whether or not someone's benefits have expired or if they never received benefits is completely irrelevant to their classification. If someone's benefits expire and they stop looking for work, then they will be Not in the Labor Force. It someone's benefits expire and they're still looking for work, then they'll be Unemployed. Neither Census nor BLS have any idea whether a respondent has ever received any benefits.


If they start looking for a job, that is a different matter.

Your disconnect seems to be that you think I said anything about people "looking" for work.

 

[pinqy]

In other words: You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits. There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.

Again, not true. If they want to work after their unemployment benefits expire, then they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force but want a job. .

ummmmm no. If someone is looking for work and available for work, then s/he is unemployed regardless of whether they ever collected benefits, or ever held a job. A 16 year old looking for his first part time job is unemployed as far as the statistics go.

I'm talking about folks whose unemployment benefits have expired. They are no longer in the workforce after that, even though they may still want a job.

The CPS doesn't ask about benefits so they play no role. Whether or not someone's benefits have expired or if they never received benefits is completely irrelevant to their classification. If someone's benefits expire and they stop looking for work, then they will be Not in the Labor Force. It someone's benefits expire and they're still looking for work, then they'll be Unemployed. Neither Census nor BLS have any idea whether a respondent has ever received any benefits.


If they start looking for a job, that is a different matter.

Your disconnect seems to be that you think I said anything about people "looking" for work.

Well, if they're not looking for work, then they're not unemployed, even if they are receiving benefits (which they shouldn't be, since that's a requirement).

 

[Liminal]

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

 

[Liminal]

Isn't it amazing how many categories of people there are who don't work but are not unemployed. Boggles the mind doesn't it.

 

[Faun]

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

 

[Liminal]

In other words: All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.

Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the data regardless of which president they worked under.

I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.