Unemployment Numbers as off April 5, 2012

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The total number of employed citizens, as a percentage of the entire population of the USA, is actually a smaller percentage this month than last month.

This is the number I look at, the TOTAL number of employed over the TOTAL number of citizens of working age. Check it out U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[pinqy]

The total number of employed citizens, as a percentage of the entire population of the USA, is actually a smaller percentage this month than last month.

This is the number I look at, the TOTAL number of employed over the TOTAL number of citizens of working age. Check it out U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

While that is useful, it's really only useful in specific comparsions alongside the UE rate. For example, in 1953, the average employment-population ratio was 57.1% and in 2011 it was 58.4% But the UE rates were 2.9% in 1953 and 8.9% in 2011.

the difference of course is the social dynamic: Fewer women in the Labor Force back then, fewer dual income families, etc. So for comparing big differences in years, the UE rate is more revealing.

Short term, yes, it's more revealing that while the UE rate dropped in March, it was due to people leaving the labor force and the drop can be misleading without looking at the bigger picture.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The total number of employed citizens, as a percentage of the entire population of the USA, is actually a smaller percentage this month than last month.

This is the number I look at, the TOTAL number of employed over the TOTAL number of citizens of working age. Check it out U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

While that is useful, it's really only useful in specific comparsions alongside the UE rate. For example, in 1953, the average employment-population ratio was 57.1% and in 2011 it was 58.4% But the UE rates were 2.9% in 1953 and 8.9% in 2011.

the difference of course is the social dynamic: Fewer women in the Labor Force back then, fewer dual income families, etc. So for comparing big differences in years, the UE rate is more revealing.

Short term, yes, it's more revealing that while the UE rate dropped in March, it was due to people leaving the labor force and the drop can be misleading without looking at the bigger picture.

That last sentance is why I use these numbers. They are a much better indicator of the short term (months/4 year terms) unemployment numbers and changes.

In real terms we don't have more people working now than last month we have just slightly less. We created ~300,000 jobs but if you add up the jobs lost with the numbers of people who have stopped collecting unemployment without getting employed it is larger than the number of jobs created, hence the actual employed going down slightly.

 

[pinqy]

The total number of employed citizens, as a percentage of the entire population of the USA, is actually a smaller percentage this month than last month.

This is the number I look at, the TOTAL number of employed over the TOTAL number of citizens of working age. Check it out U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

While that is useful, it's really only useful in specific comparsions alongside the UE rate. For example, in 1953, the average employment-population ratio was 57.1% and in 2011 it was 58.4% But the UE rates were 2.9% in 1953 and 8.9% in 2011.

the difference of course is the social dynamic: Fewer women in the Labor Force back then, fewer dual income families, etc. So for comparing big differences in years, the UE rate is more revealing.

Short term, yes, it's more revealing that while the UE rate dropped in March, it was due to people leaving the labor force and the drop can be misleading without looking at the bigger picture.

That last sentance is why I use these numbers. They are a much better indicator of the short term (months/4 year terms) unemployment numbers and changes.

Not necessarily. If a large number of people turn 16 and stay in school, that will raise the population, making the emp-pop ratio smaller. Similarly a large number of people retiring will drop the employment without changing the population. And then misleading things can happen such as dual income families going to single income when the economy improves.

In real terms we don't have more people working now than last month we have just slightly less. We created ~300,000 jobs but if you add up the jobs lost with the numbers of people who have stopped collecting unemployment without getting employed it is larger than the number of jobs created, hence the actual employed going down slightly.

Well, "jobs" is a different survey...it's only non-farm payroll employment. Total unemployment, from the household survey and used in the UE rate, went down slightly.

Unemployment insurance plays no part in the Labor Force statistics. A person is unemployed if they're actively looking for work.

 

[Katzndogz]

The democrats can spin this all they want. Business knows what really is happening.

US stocks dive in delayed jobs report reaction - Channel NewsAsia

NEW YORK - US stocks sank in opening trade Monday, reacting for the first time to disappointing job market data released Friday when the markets were closed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The democrats can spin this all they want. Business knows what really is happening.

US stocks dive in delayed jobs report reaction - Channel NewsAsia

NEW YORK - US stocks sank in opening trade Monday, reacting for the first time to disappointing job market data released Friday when the markets were closed.

WOW I just saw the numbers for the last month, I was talking about feburary with pingy....last month was worse

 

[itfitzme]

TRUE Umemployment + Under-employment rate= 15.3%-16.3%+ 17.8% = 33.1%-34.1%

Oh gawd...the denial and stupidity gets worse every month.

Your head is going to explode at 8:30 EST tomorrow.

If Bush was running for President and had these unemployment numbers would you think he deserves to be reelected? Do you think obama deserves to be reelected?

The recession began before Obama took office. And we know that unemployment always peaks after the end of the recession. The peak rate was something like 10.x%. And it is now less than that. So it is better then it was. So yeah, either way, if it was Bush or Obama, or whomever. Compared to what it was when he took over, yeah.

What do you use for a reference point?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh gawd...the denial and stupidity gets worse every month.

Your head is going to explode at 8:30 EST tomorrow.

If Bush was running for President and had these unemployment numbers would you think he deserves to be reelected? Do you think obama deserves to be reelected?

The recession began before Obama took office. And we know that unemployment always peaks after the end of the recession. The peak rate was something like 10.x%. And it is now less than that. So it is better then it was. So yeah, either way, if it was Bush or Obama, or whomever. Compared to what it was when he took over, yeah.

What do you use for a reference point?

Thing is the actual unemployment is still going up. The numbers given by obama's labor department have been cooked. if unemployment is really going down why are there so many people on food stamps? And a record number at that.

 

[pinqy]

If Bush was running for President and had these unemployment numbers would you think he deserves to be reelected? Do you think obama deserves to be reelected?

The recession began before Obama took office. And we know that unemployment always peaks after the end of the recession. The peak rate was something like 10.x%. And it is now less than that. So it is better then it was. So yeah, either way, if it was Bush or Obama, or whomever. Compared to what it was when he took over, yeah.

What do you use for a reference point?

Thing is the actual unemployment is still going up. The numbers given by obama's labor department have been cooked.

I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The recession began before Obama took office. And we know that unemployment always peaks after the end of the recession. The peak rate was something like 10.x%. And it is now less than that. So it is better then it was. So yeah, either way, if it was Bush or Obama, or whomever. Compared to what it was when he took over, yeah.

What do you use for a reference point?

Thing is the actual unemployment is still going up. The numbers given by obama's labor department have been cooked.

I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?

Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.

Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.

 

[pinqy]

Thing is the actual unemployment is still going up. The numbers given by obama's labor department have been cooked.

I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?

Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.

Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.

From that link:

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed

It's not even asked in the survey. And yes, I'm amused you give a link that says the opposite of what you said it says.

 

[GHook93]

I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?

Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.

Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.

From that link:

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed

It's not even asked in the survey. And yes, I'm amused you give a link that says the opposite of what you said it says.

From the site posted

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed.

Only 4 weeks? Wow, that will hit many longtime unemployed breadwinners. So if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks you in effect fall out of unemployed (the effect basically makes them listed as 'employed' under the UE rate) and makes them not looking? I wonder if these longtime unemployed breadwinners would view themselves as unemployed or employed (that is the effect, so that is what they are considered)?

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

Interesting! So you can be considered outside of the workforce if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks, hence not umemployed, yet you they receive UE checks!

I wonder how many people receiving UE checks are considered NOT LOOKING and a positive on the unemployment rate!!!

 

[pinqy]

From the site posted

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed.

Only 4 weeks? Wow, that will hit many longtime unemployed breadwinners. So if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks you in effect fall out of unemployed (the effect basically makes them listed as 'employed' under the UE rate) and makes them not looking?

No. Active search doesn't just mean interviews.

Examples of active job search methods include going to an employer directly or to a public or private employment agency, seeking assistance from friends or relatives, placing or answering ads, or using some other active method. Examples of the &#8216;&#8216;other active&#8217;&#8217; category include being on a union or professional register, obtaining assistance from a community organization or waiting at a designated labor pickup point.

Source: Technical Paper 66 (page 5-4)

Those on temporary lay off who expect to return to their job don't have to look.

I wonder if these longtime unemployed breadwinners would view themselves as unemployed or employed (that is the effect, so that is what they are considered)?

No, again they are in no way, "effectively" or otherwise equivalent to employed if they are classified as Not in the Labor Force. Show me an actual equation...a formula, where you think someone Not in the Labor Force is "in effect" considered employed.

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

Interesting! So you can be considered outside of the workforce if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks, hence not umemployed, yet you they receive UE checks!

I wonder how many people receiving UE checks are considered NOT LOOKING and a positive on the unemployment rate!!!

Well, since eligibility for UI benefits requires job search, I'd say not many. Those working who receive partial benefits would be considered employed. And Not in the Labor Force is not a positive or a negative on the unemployment rate They would be removed from the numerator and the denominator.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm wasting my time asking you to provide your evidence, aren't I? Are you still falsely claiming only people receiving benefits are included, or did you finally give that up?

Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.

Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.

From that link:

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed

It's not even asked in the survey. And yes, I'm amused you give a link that says the opposite of what you said it says.

Re read where you got that quote from slowly

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed. Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

Now re-read what I said. What I said is when you are no longer working but also not collecting you will not be considered unemployed.........by collecting unemployment you MUST tell the government you are out of work but still actively looking as each week you have to report what jobs you went to look for. Once you stop collecting you stop telling the govt this and they no longer figure you into the numbers.

You haven't had the misfortune of collecting unejoyment before, have you?

 

[GHook93]

From the site posted

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed.

Only 4 weeks? Wow, that will hit many longtime unemployed breadwinners. So if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks you in effect fall out of unemployed (the effect basically makes them listed as 'employed' under the UE rate) and makes them not looking?

No. Active search doesn't just mean interviews.

Source: Technical Paper 66 (page 5-4)

Those on temporary lay off who expect to return to their job don't have to look.

No, again they are in no way, "effectively" or otherwise equivalent to employed if they are classified as Not in the Labor Force. Show me an actual equation...a formula, where you think someone Not in the Labor Force is "in effect" considered employed.

Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

Interesting! So you can be considered outside of the workforce if you haven't interviewed in 4 weeks, hence not umemployed, yet you they receive UE checks!

I wonder how many people receiving UE checks are considered NOT LOOKING and a positive on the unemployment rate!!!

Well, since eligibility for UI benefits requires job search, I'd say not many. Those working who receive partial benefits would be considered employed. And Not in the Labor Force is not a positive or a negative on the unemployment rate They would be removed from the numerator and the denominator.

So a breadwinner or a spouse whose income is needed (for example: my wife doesn't make nearly enough for my family to live on and my salary could hold us over, but her income is sorely needed to maintain our standard of living) isn't considered unemployed because they are considered "NOT ACTIVELY SEARCHING" for only 1 month? Are you really going to say that they are not unemployed? Do these families not need money to survive? These are probably the MOST desperate unemployed people, yet you seem to have no problem taking them out of the unemployment rate (which has the effect of listing them as employed)!

Sorry, but whether it's a Republican or Democratic administration, not calculating these people in the unemployment rate is not only wrong it's immoral!

A friend of mine never went to college and is a carpenter by trait. A rather successful one working for his Dad's business. He got married and had a kid. His Dad's business whethered the storm for a little while, but the business finally closed shop in 2010. He hasn't had a steady job since. He has done odd jobs under the table, but he can't find a job in his field. He needs one desperately, since his wife straight off the boat from Ireland, never worked and has little skills, but finding even jobs to apply for in the carpentry/construction field is hard. Unemployment benefits ran out a while ago, he is on food stamps, hasn't paid the mortgage in over a year and burned through all his savings. He is in dire straits. Yet, I guarantee he is listed as 'Not Looking' and outside the unemployment rate calculations, which in effect has him a a positive 'employed' worker for the unemployment calculations! He actually lowers the unemployment rate!

If you don't see something wrong with that then you're either dishonest or a fool!

 

[pinqy]

Once you STOP collecting unemployment and no longer apply for it you are no longer counted in the "unemployment percentage" that is reported to the public in the media.

Therefore if your 99 weeks is up but you still are not working you are NOT considered unemployed. This is how they calculate the numbers.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS) <----that is the information you requested.

From that link:
It's not even asked in the survey. And yes, I'm amused you give a link that says the opposite of what you said it says.

Re read where you got that quote from slowly

I
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed. Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed.

Now re-read what I said. What I said is when you are no longer working but also not collecting you will not be considered unemployed.........

Yes, and you are wrong, as the BLS site shows.

by collecting unemployment you MUST tell the government you are out of work but still actively looking as each week you have to report what jobs you went to look for.

True, but irrelevant. As the BLS site says, that's not the source used. The UE rate comes from a household survey, not UI.

Once you stop collecting you stop telling the govt this and they no longer figure you into the numbers.

again, they don't use those numbers.

I'm at a loss as to how you think that "Receiving benefits from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has no bearing on whether a person is classified as unemployed." means "we only count people receiving benefits and stop counting them when they run out"

 

[kaz]

There is a reason the republicans planned this economic crash like they did.

The boomers were about to retire and they had some decent savings and pensions coming.

the republican party crashed the economy so these things could be raided by the wealthy.

It worked just as planned by the republcan party.

You know George Bush is reading your thoughts right now through the periscope in his bathroom on his ranch in Crawford. He's almost ready to send his army of evil, flying kangaroos after you. Make sure you have the tinfoil on your head good and tight so he can't find you. Oh and wear crocs, they make less sound when you walk. The pink ones are the best, I don't know why. Also never wear clothing, Bush figured out how to weave clothing from microfilm and you can't tell which clothing it's in. Though if it was made before he took office in 2001 then you're safe. Probably...

 

[pinqy]

So a breadwinner or a spouse whose income is needed (for example: my wife make nearly enough for my family to live on and my salary could hold us over, but her income is sorely needed to maintain our standard of living) isn't considered unemployed because they are considered "NOT ACTIVELY SEARCHING" for only 1 month?

Your examples seem to be of people who are employed. So job search has nothing to do with it. If someone worked during the reference week, they'd be employed.

Are you really going to say that they are not unemployed?

By the standard economics definition? No. If someone is not trying to work, they're not unemployed.

Do these families not need money to survive? These are probably the MOST desperate unemployed people,

What on earth does that have to do with employment status? ThUE rate isn't a measure of poverty.

yet you seem to have no problem taking them out of the unemployment rate (which has the effect of listing them as employed)!

hmmm now if someone retires, and is not looking for a job, they are also out of the labor force. Are you claiming that in effect they are still classified as employed?

Sorry, but whether it's a Republican or Democratic administration, not calculating these people in the unemployment rate is not only wrong it's immoral!

why? It certainly makes no difference to the person.

A friend of mine never went to college and is a carpenter by trait. A rather successful one working for his Dad's business. He got married and had a kid. His Dad's business whethered the storm for a little while, but the business finally closed shop in 2010. He hasn't had a steady job since. He has done odd jobs under the table, but he can't find a job in his field. He needs one desperately, since his wife straight off the boat from Ireland, never worked and has little skills, but finding even jobs to apply for in the carpentry/construction field is hard. Unemployment benefits ran out a while ago, he is on food stamps, hasn't paid the mortgage in over a year and burned through all his savings. He is in dire straits. Yet, I guarantee he is listed as 'Not Looking'

He's not "listed" as anything. There's no list.

And outside the unemployment rate calculations, which in effect has him a a positive 'employed' worker for the unemployment calculations! He actually lowers the unemployment rate!

Again, THREE EXCLUSIVE categories: Employed, UneMploed, Not in the Labor Force.
You really don' seem to understand the formula. Next post tell us the formula and how removing someone from unemployed (or employed) and reclassifying them as not in the labor force is the same as classifying them as employed.

 

[itfitzme]

Funny how the lame-stream media is not reporting that the faux unemployment numbers remain stagnant in March....

The BLS publishes six separate summary statics for unemployment.

The are found at Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

These are;

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

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

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

They are ever increasing groups divided by the labor force.

The March 2012, seasonally adjusted numbers are 4.6%, 4.5%, 8.2%, 8.7%, and 15.4%. These are down from the same month last year which came in at 5.3%, 5.4%, 8.9%, 9.4%, 10.3%, and 15.7%.

The BLS has two survey sites, the CES (Current employment survey) and the CPS (Current population survey). Don't ask me what the difference is but they both cover unemployment. It is the CPS that seems to have the info we want. Maybe the thing is that the CPS is just the overview numbers while the CES is details on industries.

I generally go here, Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age for the time series data.

There is so much data, presented in so many ways, that it is ridiculous to say the the government has some nefarious intent. There are dozens on pages of table and data. There are thousands of data sets.

When the BLS presents a single number, they present U-3. It's not the smallest or the largest number, it's just the standard number, the total number of people that are unemployed and looking.

But everyone is welcome to look at any of the measures any time they want to. And, you don't have to make up bogus numbers either.

 

[GHook93]

Funny how the lame-stream media is not reporting that the faux unemployment numbers remain stagnant in March....

The BLS publishes six separate summary statics for unemployment.

The are found at Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

These are;

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

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

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

They are ever increasing groups divided by the labor force.

The March 2012, seasonally adjusted numbers are 4.6%, 4.5%, 8.2%, 8.7%, and 15.4%. These are down from the same month last year which came in at 5.3%, 5.4%, 8.9%, 9.4%, 10.3%, and 15.7%.

The BLS has two survey sites, the CES (Current employment survey) and the CPS (Current population survey). Don't ask me what the difference is but they both cover unemployment. It is the CPS that seems to have the info we want. Maybe the thing is that the CPS is just the overview numbers while the CES is details on industries.

I generally go here, Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age for the time series data.

There is so much data, presented in so many ways, that it is ridiculous to say the the government has some nefarious intent. There are dozens on pages of table and data. There are thousands of data sets.

When the BLS presents a single number, they present U-3. It's not the smallest or the largest number, it's just the standard number, the total number of people that are unemployed and looking.

But everyone is welcome to look at any of the measures any time they want to. And, you don't have to make up bogus numbers either.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

OK here is off the site you listed. Interesting it shows the faux unemployment rate at 8.4% for March, which come out to 12,904 (which I assume in the millions) . However it doesn't list a rate for the 'Not In Labor Force Number' for breadwinners or the longtime unemployed, THEREFORE YOU HAVE TO ESTIMATED IT YOURSELF.

Again faux unemployment listed by the site 8.4 or 12,904.
'Not In the Labor Force' is 88,288 (Again not listed as a percentage rate). Now if you want to take out the legit not in the labor force, like college students, house wives, retirees and disabled and want to put the number VERY liberally at 20% (I say it's more like 30-35%), then you have 17,657 LONGTIME UNEMPLOYED BREADWINNERS NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE. Add that to the 8.4 faux unemployment and TRUE UNEMPLOYMENT is between 17-20%!!!

Not making up numbers going off the charts