Unemployment rate at 22%?

[Annie]

Williams definition of unemployment is his own. The BLS actually does measure what Williams wants to call unemployment.

I am not sure why this is truly important. Esp since Williams himself seems to say that what he wants to call unemployment is in fact underemployment.

It is important if you happen to be unemployed at the moment. The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not, or at least many of them are. Therefore, things are almost 3 times as bad as the U.S. Government really wants you to know.

Immie

These workers have never been counted as part of the unemployed population. Funny how no one cared about them during the Bush year...

yeah, they did:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread-2.html#post1439598

 

[Immanuel]

Where do you think uncle sam gets its information as to who looked for work and who didn't?

From the survey. They ask the respondents if they looked for work or not.

If you do not answer Yes, Yes, No, No then after the second claim period, you are removed from the unemployment Roles and dropped to the Not in Work Force category and you are no longer counted among the "unemployed".

No, they don't.

That is where they get the information from! That IS how they place you among the list of "unemployed".

There is no list...it's a sample survey. I gave you the FAQ. Look at the BLS site, it confirms what I've said.

Where are you getting the ridiculous idea that there's a list? Or even better, look at this: Table A-11, Reason for Unemployment How do you think they get the info on "completed temporary jobs," "job leavers," "reentrants," and "new entrants," when none of those are eligible for unemployment insurance?

Oh, and PLEASE do not just repeat your claims without giving a source for your info.

First of all, they do ask those questions every two weeks. I have answered them every two weeks for the past year and yes, if I do not answer Yes, Yes, No, No. I lose my benefits.

Second, I never said that there was a list. I said there were categories, i.e. employed, unemployed, not in labor force.

Finally, I may owe you an apology, it appears that our inefficient government may not believe in just using the numbers they have supplied to them every two weeks and may very well waste additional tax dollars actually surveying a sample of households rather than just using the information that they already collect. Who would have thought they would prefer a poll to actual raw data? I say that based only upon this, which I am not confident is accurate:

Survey reference week (Current Population Survey)
The CPS, a survey of households, asks respondents about their labor market activities during a specific week each month. That week, called the survey reference week, is defined as the 7-day period, Sunday through Saturday, which includes the 12th of the month.

How do you think they get the info on "completed temporary jobs," "job leavers," "reentrants," and "new entrants," when none of those are eligible for unemployment insurance?

Completed temporary jobs: They file for benefits just as a regular full time employee when they complete their assignments.

Job leavers: most I know and I have worked in the accounting departments of several small corporations, and managed the UE claims for these corps, file and fully expect benefits. They find out later that if they voluntarily quit their jobs they are not eligible for benefits.

Reentrants and New Entrants: I misunderstood the categories (thinking they applied to those who entered or re-entered the workforce) on these two and you have a point. Don't tell anyone I agreed with you.

However, I do apologize, it does say that they take a random sample. I cannot say that they do not use the raw data (taken by the survey of those who are filing claims) they already have, but, I suspect they do at least I would hope they do.

So, for now, I will drop this discussion and say you win.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Williams definition of unemployment is his own. The BLS actually does measure what Williams wants to call unemployment.

I am not sure why this is truly important. Esp since Williams himself seems to say that what he wants to call unemployment is in fact underemployment.

It is important if you happen to be unemployed at the moment. The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not, or at least many of them are. Therefore, things are almost 3 times as bad as the U.S. Government really wants you to know.

Immie

These workers have never been counted as part of the unemployed population. Funny how no one cared about them during the Bush year...

I think if you look at pinqy's information you will find that they have in fact been counted in separate categories of unemployment figures. That was not the issue of this discussion.

I think that they have always been counted in separate categories and I did not indicate that I felt there was anything wrong with that at all.

My complaint is that for those of us who are unemployed, the reality... sucks!

Immie

 

[skeptic]

First of all, they do ask those questions every two weeks. I have answered them every two weeks for the past year and yes, if I do not answer Yes, Yes, No, No. I lose my benefits.

That is a state survey, not the BLS.

 

[edthecynic]

It is important if you happen to be unemployed at the moment. The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not, or at least many of them are. Therefore, things are almost 3 times as bad as the U.S. Government really wants you to know.

Immie

These workers have never been counted as part of the unemployed population. Funny how no one cared about them during the Bush year...

yeah, they did:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread-2.html#post1439598

That thread began August 17, 2009. I didn't know Bush was president then.

And pinqy posted the truth on the first page of that thread too!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread.html

 

[Immanuel]

First of all, they do ask those questions every two weeks. I have answered them every two weeks for the past year and yes, if I do not answer Yes, Yes, No, No. I lose my benefits.

That is a state survey, not the BLS.

The federal government has access to it. Why duplicate the work? Wait! Maybe just to justify the department?

Immie

 

[Annie]

These workers have never been counted as part of the unemployed population. Funny how no one cared about them during the Bush year...

yeah, they did:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread-2.html#post1439598

That thread began August 17, 2009. I didn't know Bush was president then.

And pinqy posted the truth on the first page of that thread too!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread.html

Not crazy, just used wrong parameters. Here's another:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/56116-recession-the-definition.html#post735074

and here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general/52324-historic-high-for-wage-earners-14.html#post647578

 

[LilOlLady]

Put down the kool aid. The unemployment rate is at 8.9% and falling.


U.S. unemployment at 8.9%; employers added 192K jobs in Feb.
Wichita Business Journal
Date: Friday, March 4, 2011.


The national unemployment rate fell to 8.9 percent as employers hired last month at their fastest rate in almost a year, according to a report released Friday by the U.S. Department of Labor.

The Associated Press reports that while retailers and government cut jobs, the country saw a net increase of 192,000 jobs in February, spurred by growth in factories, professional and business services, education and health care.


U.S. unemployment at 8.9%; employers added 192K jobs in Feb. | Wichita Business Journal

 

[pinqy]

First of all, they do ask those questions every two weeks. I have answered them every two weeks for the past year and yes, if I do not answer Yes, Yes, No, No. I lose my benefits.

I never said they didn't, but that's NOT what BLS uses.

Second, I never said that there was a list. I said there were categories, i.e. employed, unemployed, not in labor force.

Really you didn't write [quote\That IS how they place you among the list of "unemployed".[/quote] And how can people be "put into categories" if there's no list of people and what category they're in?

Finally, I may owe you an apology, it appears that our inefficient government may not believe in just using the numbers they have supplied to them every two weeks and may very well waste additional tax dollars actually surveying a sample of households rather than just using the information that they already collect. Who would have thought they would prefer a poll to actual raw data?

Well, as it says in the FAQ, it would be incomplete. And it would take too long to process, and it wouldn't give as much information (age, sex, gender, disability, veteran, industry, reason for unemployment etc. Plus not everyone files.

Completed temporary jobs: They file for benefits just as a regular full time employee when they complete their assignments.

Not usually. Temp workers are not usually eligible for unemployment. Maybe in your state, but not in most.

Job leavers: most I know and I have worked in the accounting departments of several small corporations, and managed the UE claims for these corps, file and fully expect benefits. They find out later that if they voluntarily quit their jobs they are not eligible for benefits.

Most people know already. Surely you're not claiming that EVERYONE who quits files for beneifis?

Reentrants and New Entrants: I misunderstood the categories (thinking they applied to those who entered or re-entered the workforce)

Umm, that is what they mean. People who never looked for a job and are now looking...entering the Labor Force for the first time, or re-entering the Labor Force after being Not in the Labor Force.

However, I do apologize, it does say that they take a random sample. I cannot say that they do not use the raw data (taken by the survey of those who are filing claims) they already have, but, I suspect they do at least I would hope they do. [/QUOTE]

All kinds of reasons. Let's go your way....we lose out on every single high school and college graduate. We lose out on classifying retirees, or people who quit their jobs knowing they're not eligible for unemployment insurance. We couldn't classify all the people Not in the Labor Force who never held a job etc etc. And since the data is monthly, it would get screwed up by people not applying for benefits right away.

Actually, that part is one of the main reasons UI info isn't used...For the report that just came out, people were interviewed Feb 13-20 about their activity during the reference period of Feb 6-12. Compare that to UI claims. When did the person actually become unemployed and when did s/he file? That could take months.

And again, you'd get zero demographic info.

For state and local stats, UI claims are used to adjust the data from the national survey because the sample is big enough for a national survey but the individual samples from each state are not big enough for state data. But the base is still the Current Population Survey

 

[edthecynic]

yeah, they did:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread-2.html#post1439598

That thread began August 17, 2009. I didn't know Bush was president then.

And pinqy posted the truth on the first page of that thread too!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread.html

Not crazy, just used wrong parameters. Here's another:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/56116-recession-the-definition.html#post735074

and here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general/52324-historic-high-for-wage-earners-14.html#post647578

Well, the first link cites Bush's U3 rate at 5.7% and the objection to that is it being called full employment.

And the second link had jillian, hardly a CON$ervative, questioning what the real UE rate was. obviously without the CON$ervative pundits harping about Bush's U6 unemployment, none of the CON$ on this board will parrot them.

 

[Polk]

It is important if you happen to be unemployed at the moment. The additional 14% (22%-8.9%) of our citizens who conveniently are not counted as being unemployed by the government are still seeking employment, discouraged or not, or at least many of them are. Therefore, things are almost 3 times as bad as the U.S. Government really wants you to know.

Immie

These workers have never been counted as part of the unemployed population. Funny how no one cared about them during the Bush year...

I think if you look at pinqy's information you will find that they have in fact been counted in separate categories of unemployment figures. That was not the issue of this discussion.

I think that they have always been counted in separate categories and I did not indicate that I felt there was anything wrong with that at all.

My complaint is that for those of us who are unemployed, the reality... sucks!

Immie

On that we can absolutely agree. I'm just annoyed by those who are now attempting to claim U6 represents "real unemployment".

 

[Immanuel]

These workers have never been counted as part of the unemployed population. Funny how no one cared about them during the Bush year...

I think if you look at pinqy's information you will find that they have in fact been counted in separate categories of unemployment figures. That was not the issue of this discussion.

I think that they have always been counted in separate categories and I did not indicate that I felt there was anything wrong with that at all.

My complaint is that for those of us who are unemployed, the reality... sucks!

Immie

On that we can absolutely agree. I'm just annoyed by those who are now attempting to claim U6 represents "real unemployment".

That was not at all my stand.

There are different definitions of unemployment and they are defined and have been for some time. As long as the government remains consistent in the statistics they use then you are comparing apples to apples regardless of which set of data is being used.

Pinqy proved me wrong in my assumption that the government was not including all those who had thrown their hands up and said "screw it". It isn't the first time I was wrong, and I highly doubt it will be the last.

I'm frustrated. I'm about to throw my hands up and say screw it. Even when I can get an interview, which quite frankly have become hard to get ever since the holidays, I seem to be dealing with hundreds of applicants for one single job. I know I let my frustration out early in the thread. But, I don't care what the government says the frigging job market is brutal and it is not getting any better.

Immie

 

[Midnight Marauder]

What happened to FUNEMPLOYMENT???

That little term sure disappeared real quick!

 

[Polk]

I think if you look at pinqy's information you will find that they have in fact been counted in separate categories of unemployment figures. That was not the issue of this discussion.

I think that they have always been counted in separate categories and I did not indicate that I felt there was anything wrong with that at all.

My complaint is that for those of us who are unemployed, the reality... sucks!

Immie

On that we can absolutely agree. I'm just annoyed by those who are now attempting to claim U6 represents "real unemployment".

That was not at all my stand.

There are different definitions of unemployment and they are defined and have been for some time. As long as the government remains consistent in the statistics they use then you are comparing apples to apples regardless of which set of data is being used.

Pinqy proved me wrong in my assumption that the government was not including all those who had thrown their hands up and said "screw it". It isn't the first time I was wrong, and I highly doubt it will be the last.

I'm frustrated. I'm about to throw my hands up and say screw it. Even when I can get an interview, which quite frankly have become hard to get ever since the holidays, I seem to be dealing with hundreds of applicants for one single job. I know I let my frustration out early in the thread. But, I don't care what the government says the frigging job market is brutal and it is not getting any better.

Immie

I wasn't attributing that stand to you. I was highlighting the cause of frustration (though you clearly have a lot more reason to be upset, and I wish you the best of luck in your job search). I would dispute the notion that the job market is not getting better. It is, but the pace is too slow for my comfort, and certainly for you and others in your position.

 

[Immanuel]

On that we can absolutely agree. I'm just annoyed by those who are now attempting to claim U6 represents "real unemployment".

That was not at all my stand.

There are different definitions of unemployment and they are defined and have been for some time. As long as the government remains consistent in the statistics they use then you are comparing apples to apples regardless of which set of data is being used.

Pinqy proved me wrong in my assumption that the government was not including all those who had thrown their hands up and said "screw it". It isn't the first time I was wrong, and I highly doubt it will be the last.

I'm frustrated. I'm about to throw my hands up and say screw it. Even when I can get an interview, which quite frankly have become hard to get ever since the holidays, I seem to be dealing with hundreds of applicants for one single job. I know I let my frustration out early in the thread. But, I don't care what the government says the frigging job market is brutal and it is not getting any better.

Immie

I wasn't attributing that stand to you. I was highlighting the cause of frustration (though you clearly have a lot more reason to be upset, and I wish you the best of luck in your job search). I would dispute the notion that the job market is not getting better. It is, but the pace is too slow for my comfort, and certainly for you and others in your position.

Trust me, I'm certain that my feelings in that regard have a lot of selfishness behind them.

MM brought up "funemployment" which I actually had to look up. When you do not want to be unemployed, it is no fun.

Immie

 

[Polk]

What happened to FUNEMPLOYMENT???

That little term sure disappeared real quick!

Probably was pretty awesome until people burned through their savings.

 

[Annie]

That thread began August 17, 2009. I didn't know Bush was president then.

And pinqy posted the truth on the first page of that thread too!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/85338-legitimate-unemployment-thread.html

Not crazy, just used wrong parameters. Here's another:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/56116-recession-the-definition.html#post735074

and here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general/52324-historic-high-for-wage-earners-14.html#post647578

Well, the first link cites Bush's U3 rate at 5.7% and the objection to that is it being called full employment.

And the second link had jillian, hardly a CON$ervative, questioning what the real UE rate was. obviously without the CON$ervative pundits harping about Bush's U6 unemployment, none of the CON$ on this board will parrot them.

Well color me shocked on both! Wow, you mean whoever feels they're not being heard, complains? Thank G., you are there to make us understand the gist.

 

[edthecynic]

Not crazy, just used wrong parameters. Here's another:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/56116-recession-the-definition.html#post735074

and here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general/52324-historic-high-for-wage-earners-14.html#post647578

Well, the first link cites Bush's U3 rate at 5.7% and the objection to that is it being called full employment.

And the second link had jillian, hardly a CON$ervative, questioning what the real UE rate was. obviously without the CON$ervative pundits harping about Bush's U6 unemployment, none of the CON$ on this board will parrot them.

Well color me shocked on both! Wow, you mean whoever feels they're not being heard, complains? Thank G., you are there to make us understand the gist.

And thank you for acknowledging that during Bush's and Reagan's administrations, CON$ were not demanding that U6 or Gallup or Shadow unemployment rates be used in place of the inaccurate U3 standard, and they only started to demand that U6 or Gallup or Shadow rates be used for Obama.

I predict that for the next GOP president the CON$ervative Brotherhood will go back to the U3 standard and will again tell us that "deficits don't matter."

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
Ronald Reagan

 

[pinqy]

And thank you for acknowledging that during Bush's and Reagan's administrations, CON$ were not demanding that U6 or Gallup or Shadow unemployment rates be used in place of the inaccurate U3 standard, and they only started to demand that U6 or Gallup or Shadow rates be used for Obama.

But during the Bush years, the libs were crying out that the U3 didn't include all unemployed and cited the U6 etc.

 

[edthecynic]

And thank you for acknowledging that during Bush's and Reagan's administrations, CON$ were not demanding that U6 or Gallup or Shadow unemployment rates be used in place of the inaccurate U3 standard, and they only started to demand that U6 or Gallup or Shadow rates be used for Obama.

But during the Bush years, the libs were crying out that the U3 didn't include all unemployed and cited the U6 etc.

Which was because the CON$ said Clinton changed the standard to not include all the unemployed. As you pointed out the standard was calculated the exact same way for Clinton as was calculated before him, only the name was changed from U5 to U3.