Unemployment in the U.S. in April 2010. Increased to 9,9%

[georgephillip]

Can you contrast U-3 unemployment levels with U-6?

Which do you consider the most accurate?

What's your best guess on whether or not this "recovery" is a speed bump on the way to the Great Depression 2.0?

 

[pinqy]

Can you contrast U-3 unemployment levels with U-6?

Which do you consider the most accurate?

I'm puzzled why people tend to ignore the U-1, U-2, U-4, and U-5. And many people describe the U-4 but say it's the U-6.

Anyway, standard economist answer for everything: It depends.

The basic concept of Unemployment is to measure the Labor Market, and the Labor Force. And back in the late 1930's, when trying to define Unemployed, it was realized that the most objective way to tell if someone wanted a job was to look at what they were doing about it. If someone's looking for a job, we can assume they want a job (though certainly there will be cases of people just going through the motions to retain UI benefits, that doesn't ruin the basic assumption). But if someone just says they want a job, but isn't looking, we're in very subjective territory and will have a lot of variance in any survey.

So, we get what is now the U-3 (formely the U-5) which is the number of Unemployed (defined as didn't work but looked for work) as a percentage of the Labor Force (Employed plus Unemployed).

This tells us the state of the Labor Market...how many people trying to work are unsuccessful. It's the most objective measure because it measures what people are doing, and the groups are large enough to have a smallish sample (60,000 households) and get low margins of error (Unemployed is +-2.3% and Employed +-0.4%)

But it does not give the full picture of what's happening in the economy, so alternative measures were introduced in the 1970's. These were revised in 1994 to give the current U-1 - U-6

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force. This tells us about the long term unemployed. A very important figure in a Recession. In April it was 5.8%, unchanged for months. It's good that it's not increasing, bad that it's still so high.

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
This tells us about people losing their jobs, as opposed to quitting or just starting to look for work. In April it was 6.0%, dropping from 6.1% in March and 6.2% in Feb. This is a positive sign...it tells us that more of the unemployed are either quitting (thinking they'll find a job) or starting to look for work (optimism about the economy).

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)Already covered. 9.9% in April, increased from 9.7% in March, but the U-2 tells us this is mostly from people starting to look for work.

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers.
Discouraged Workers are those who are not working, haven't looked for work in the last 4 weeks, but say they do want a job, are available to work, did look sometime in the last 12 months, but aren't looking now because they don't think they'll be successful. Obviously this is very subjective: hard to tell if they're telling the truth, hard to tell how accurate their opinion of their success is, hard to tell if the opinion is based on personal conditions (believe themselves to be too young, too old, too black, too white, too many convictions etc) or their perception of the labor market (which may or may not be accurate. It IS still useful in telling us what people think about the economy and these people are potential workers if their beliefs change. In April, this was 10.6%, up from 10.3%...obviously a lot of this change is the increase in the U-3.

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.
Marginally Attached have the same definition as Discouraged, except it can be for any reason at all (injury or illness, child care issues, pregnancy, transportation, jail, alien abduction, whatever). Again, this is very subjective, many of the reasons are non-economic, but it does show potential workers.

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.
Because the U-6 includes people with jobs, it can't properly be referred to as a measure of Unemployment. Part Time for Economic reasons means the person is working less than 35 hours a week, but wants to and can work 35 hours or more but isn't because his/her hours have been cut (temporarily or not) or s/he just can't find full time work. This gives the broadest view of all people who would theoretically would work and those who aren't working as much as they like. It's problem is its extreme subjectivity and its inclusion of people with jobs. Current it's at 17.1%, up from 16.9%.

What's your best guess on whether or not this "recovery" is a speed bump on the way to the Great Depression 2.0?

It depends
Seriously, there are positive signs and negative signs. I'm no finance guy, so my guesses about the financial markets and government spending probably wouldn't even be good guesses. One thing the article didn't comment on was that while GDP has been increasing, government spending has actually been a negative factor on the growth (due to decreases in state and local govt spending) and the growth has been fueled by Consumer Spending and Private Investment. This is hopeful. And I believe (I haven't checked recently) that even Net Exports has been improving (still negative, but not as negative.

 

[georgephillip]

Pinqy:

Perhaps you're not a "finance guy" but your understanding of Economic fundamentals is hard to ignore.

With regards to deficits and their affect on unemployment, do you find Keyne's Koan at all credible: "Increasing the deficits, lowers the deficits?"

There doesn't seem to be any political will in this country for larger stimulus at this time.

 

[Neubarth]

The 9.9 number is outrageous government propaganda. It is what they want the sheeple to believe.

Go to Oakland, Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia or a major city of your choosing and ask the people about jobs. Millions and millions of people in these cities are out of work and have no hope of finding any. There are no ads in the newspapers that describe jobs that they are qualified for, so if they were asked, have you applied for a job in the past week, they would have to answer, NO.

If you answer no, Hilda Solis drops you from the ranks of the Labor Force because you are not actively "looking" for work. The sad thing is that they ARE looking for work. They just can not apply because they are not qualified for the few jobs that are listed.

I still have not run across one American who has been called by Hilda and asked if they were working or looking for work. You'd think that after thirty years of searching for one American who has been polled in the DOL survey I would have found one. Hummmmmm????

Those are the people that have been unemployed so long they are no longer eligible for unemployment so are not counted in the numbers any longer.

They aren't working but also aren't collecting so they aren't counted.

They are not counted because they have NEVER BEEN COUNTED. I am absolutely convinced that there is no Federal household survey for employment. Everywhere I have gone in this vast country I have asked one consistent question. "Has anybody ever been contacted for the household employment survey by the Federal Government?"

For thirty years now, NOBODY has spoken up.

I have run across about a dozen people who remembered surveys by different colleges, but never the US Government. I know from my studies that Cal, Stanford, the University of Chicago and occasionally the U of North Carolina do surveys for their own university accessible files. People remember the Universities, but nobody remembers ever being contacted by the Fed Gov.

How can this be? The only logical conclusion is that the Federal Government is lying to us.
It wouldn't be the first time, now, would it?

 

[pinqy]

[They are not counted because they have NEVER BEEN COUNTED. I am absolutely convinced that there is no Federal household survey for employment.

That's a grand conspiracy theory....69 years of a faked survey that no on besides you has ever questioned.

Everywhere I have gone in this vast country I have asked one consistent question. "Has anybody ever been contacted for the household employment survey by the Federal Government?"

That's because there is no "household employment survey." There is the Current Population Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau.

For thirty years now, NOBODY has spoken up.

I have run across about a dozen people who remembered surveys by different colleges, but never the US Government.

Not that unusual...the survey is only 60,000/month, and 75% stays the same month to month and from each month of the year has half the same households as the same month the previous year. Each household represents anywhere from 100 to 3,000 other households (in San Diego it's 1 for every 3.000). California as a whole has less than 5,000 households interviewed each month. So it's not surprising you haven't met anyone, and my guess is that many of the people you know would refuse the interview without finding out what it was first. And you also said no one has SPOKEN UP...that doesn't mean nobody participated.

I know from my studies that Cal, Stanford, the University of Chicago and occasionally the U of North Carolina do surveys for their own university accessible files.

But none of them does a national survey. And in your studies, have any of the people at those universities made the claim that the CPS is a 69 year old hoax as you believe?

How can this be? The only logical conclusion is that the Federal Government is lying to us.
It wouldn't be the first time, now, would it?

Let's get this straight...you think a 69 year old hoax involving 13 Presidents, all their Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, and the heads of the Census and BLS, and the thousands of employees at both agencies who think they work on CPS data that has fooled all Academics and professional economists and statisticians makes more sense than the idea that you just haven't run across someone who has told you they were in the survey. Note that you might well have met someone who participated but they didn't realize it was the one you were talking about or you didn't ask (I assume you haven't asked every single person you've ever met) or they just didn't speak up. But given the relatively small number of people sampled, even if you have asked every single person you've met, and even if every single one knew what you meant and every single one answered truthfully, it still wouldn't be out of realistic probability that you just haven't met anyone.

 

[Neubarth]

Let's get this straight...you think a 69 year old hoax involving 13 Presidents, all their Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, and the heads of the Census and BLS, and the thousands of employees at both agencies who think they work on CPS data that has fooled all Academics and professional economists and statisticians makes more sense than the idea that you just haven't run across someone who has told you they were in the survey. Note that you might well have met someone who participated but they didn't realize it was the one you were talking about or you didn't ask (I assume you haven't asked every single person you've ever met) or they just didn't speak up. But given the relatively small number of people sampled, even if you have asked every single person you've met, and even if every single one knew what you meant and every single one answered truthfully, it still wouldn't be out of realistic probability that you just haven't met anyone.

Pink, your supposition is wrong as usual. I have addressed thousands at rallies and always ask if they have been surveyed. I have asked people on these forums and nobody has been surveyed. I asked my fellow officers in the Navy and coworkers at AT&T. None of them have been surveyed. This has gone of for over thirty years.

My disbelief goes back to the corrupt Carter years. In 76 he was elected president. In late 77 when I graduated from college at the age of 29, the end of a recession was still being felt. Even with a degree and an A average, I could not get an interview for a job. There were very few jobs available in spite of the fact that Carter said everything was wonderful and getting better. For a statistics class in college I was involved in many public surveys. The unemployment rate as advertised by the Carter administration was way out of whack with what we were finding back then. Knowing from those surveys that the Carter administration was lying through its teeth with a 6.8 percent unemployment rate, I asked the Navy to take me into their Officer program and they did immediately, but scheduled me for Officer Candidate School in October. I had several months to go before then so spent the rest of my life savings and decided to conduct a public opinion survey of my own. I looked at the questions supposedly asked by the government and modified mine to not throw such an obvious bias into the numbers. I called a thousand numbers at random. Just calling households with telephones (Knowing that the chronically unemployed probably did not have telephones), I found the number of people who were out of work who were previously working was 19 percent. When I asked them if they would work if there was an employment opportunity that they were qualified for within commuting distance, I found that all of them would take the job. That 19 percent of the population in the San Diego area wanted to work, were capable of working, but there was no real work for them.

October came and I was back in Newport RI going through Officer Candidate School, but from that time onward, my pet peeve project was to see if anybody else doubted the Federal Numbers. I contacted the Universities with active polling programs in place and found out that they too found a major difference between their surveys and the Government's numbers. They do not openly challenge the Federal Government because they want research money, so there is no official contestation of the make believe gov numbers, but they know how totally corrupt the Federal numbers are.

I challenge everybody to call numbers at random and identify yourself as an independent unemployment survey and then ask the recently unemployed if they would work under the same conditions I laid down, and you will find that Unemployment is between 23 and 24 percent now.

Ever since Carter, I have known that the home survey is totally bogus. The government lies like hell and hides about 10 to 15 million unemployed American all of the time.

 

[pinqy]

Pink, your supposition is wrong as usual. I have addressed thousands at rallies and always ask if they have been surveyed.

How is my supposition wrong? Are you saying it is NOT possible that:
The people at your rallies are not likely to answer any government surveys.
No one would simply remain silent instead of answering.
Some people simply wouldn't relate the survey they did answer to your words (it's not called an employment survey and it's not run by DOL).
You simply haven't met anyone.

I have asked people on these forums and nobody has been surveyed.

Not necessarily true. No one has told you they were surveyed. Not everyone has read your posts.

I asked my fellow officers in the Navy and coworkers at AT&T. None of them have been surveyed. This has gone of for over thirty years.

Military personel are excluded from the survey, so none of your fellow officers could have participated. And again, talking to your coworkers is a very small sample.


As for the rest, what you're saying is that by using a local survey, with different defintions, and no statistical analysis, you came up with different results. Well of course you did, you weren't measuring the same thing. How on Earth would you expect to compare two surveys of completely different areas, using completely different definitions?

You keep talking about University surveys, but never produce them. Why is that?

And one thing you completely ignore is that Gallup does do an independent UE survey. The primary purpose is to look at Underemployment, but they do measure Unemployment as part of it. Their figures match the BLS figures within 0.2 percentage points. How does that occur? Improvement in Underemployment Stalls in Mid-May The not seasonally adjusted number of 9.4% matches up with BLS's 9.5% unadjusted figure.

Why do you think Gallup is lying???????

 

[Neubarth]

Pink, your supposition is wrong as usual. I have addressed thousands at rallies and always ask if they have been surveyed.

How is my supposition wrong? Are you saying it is NOT possible that:
The people at your rallies are not likely to answer any government surveys.
No one would simply remain silent instead of answering.
Some people simply wouldn't relate the survey they did answer to your words (it's not called an employment survey and it's not run by DOL).
You simply haven't met anyone.

I have asked people on these forums and nobody has been surveyed.

Not necessarily true. No one has told you they were surveyed. Not everyone has read your posts.

I asked my fellow officers in the Navy and coworkers at AT&T. None of them have been surveyed. This has gone of for over thirty years.

Military personel are excluded from the survey, so none of your fellow officers could have participated. And again, talking to your coworkers is a very small sample.


As for the rest, what you're saying is that by using a local survey, with different defintions, and no statistical analysis, you came up with different results. Well of course you did, you weren't measuring the same thing. How on Earth would you expect to compare two surveys of completely different areas, using completely different definitions?

You keep talking about University surveys, but never produce them. Why is that?

And one thing you completely ignore is that Gallup does do an independent UE survey. The primary purpose is to look at Underemployment, but they do measure Unemployment as part of it. Their figures match the BLS figures within 0.2 percentage points. How does that occur? Improvement in Underemployment Stalls in Mid-May The not seasonally adjusted number of 9.4% matches up with BLS's 9.5% unadjusted figure.

Why do you think Gallup is lying???????

Pink, as previously stated, IT IS YOUR INSANE RELIGION. My statistical survey was based upon random dialing. It was a small survey. In the Statistics Class immediately prior to my individual survey, the sample size was far higher as the students conducted the survey for the professor. On all of the points that your regurgitate ad infinitum, you are wrong. The only thing that the Surveys in 1977 had negative about them was that they were small, but they consistently showed the same things. If you are doing research with an established institution, the University of California will most likely allow you access to their data. It damns the Government lies, but is never published. Stanford University also damns the Government lies but is more restrictive on access to their surveys. The University of Chicago is extremely restrictive but if you can get into "the Cloister" you can see their poll results. All confirm one thing and that is that the Government numbers on unemployment based upon the home survey is totally bogus. The survey of the businesses is moderately accurate, provided you throw out the death birth nonsense and other wild ass nonsense that they cling to during the recessions and now this horrible Depression.

From this point forward I will ignore you. I have warned everybody about the collapse that we are now experiencing. The world is going to hell. We actually started to make headway against this Depression, but it looks like the bottom is going to fall out. All of the false numbers will not save this government now and the other corrupt governments around the world as they start to fall. It is almost time to move to the country bunker where the understanding is "Shoot first and don't bother to ask questions."

Hard times are A Comin'.