Govt. Unemployment Numbers, do they include these folks?

Some folks feel that folks who have been "downsized, fired, letgo, downsized, merged out or otherwise gotten rid of from their place of employment have applied for Social Security Benefits claiming they have back pain or mental problems. It's up 50% to 20% since Bush was anointed. Some claim that this is skewing "unemployment figures to be lower than Govt. reports. I say: Yes! and there's more! There are the "other folks" who aren't trying to get SS Benefits and THEY aren't included, either. Here's my experience with these folks who aren't counted by Elaine Chou at US Labor Dept.!

"Buy Out Packages" from Companies which encourage employees to leave, aren't counted, nor are the "Severance Packages" which give employees income so they are still paid but don't show up as unemployed. Some of these folks with hefty severance packages, are now not finding work (mid and upper level managers being let go from major Pharma and Telecommunications Companies
commonly receive "Buy Outs and Big Severance Packs).

This has been going on since the late nineties. The most recent "Layoffs" since Bush are not really showing up in the counting, yet.
I know five people who can't find work and they are examples of either "Buy Outs for Early Retirement," or Severance. All of them are in late 40's early 50's and want to find a job...two have Ph.D's and the rest MA in Business, and they have not been able to find anything, because of the "downsizing and mergers."

This is all over the country and reaches across all age groups. Yet, it really isn't discussed as skewing these Government numbers into fantasy land.

I guess they feel people will "believe the lie" that companies are now hiring and that this Economy is just "roaring along." Those who can't find work when they are highly qualified are made to believe that there's just something wrong with "them," that they can't find a job.

(This is from DU'er Maeve's LBN Post....and well worth the read!)
-------------------------------------------------------
NYT's Op Ed about Unemployment and Folks filing for SS Disability:'
Thought y'all might find this POV and facts interesting...

The Unemployment Myth
By AUSTAN GOOLSBEE
The government's announcement on Tuesday that the economy grew even faster than expected makes the current "jobless recovery" even more puzzling. To give some perspective, unemployment normally falls significantly in such economic boom times. The last time growth was this good, in 1983, unemployment fell 2.5 percentage points and another full percentage point the next year. That's what happens in a typical recovery. So why not this time? Because we have more to recover from than we've been told.
The reality is that we didn't have a mild recession. Jobs-wise, we had a deep one.
The government reported that annual unemployment during this recession peaked at only around 6 percent, compared with more than 7 percent in 1992 and more than 9 percent in 1982. But the unemployment rate has been low only because government programs, especially Social Security disability, have effectively been buying people off the unemployment rolls and reclassifying them as "not in the labor force."
In other words, the government has cooked the books. It has been a more subtle manipulation than the one during the Reagan administration, when people serving in the military were reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed" in order to reduce the unemployment rate. Nonetheless, the impact has been the same.<more>


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/opinion/30GOOL.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors
---------------------------------------------------------------

My husband did not collect unemployment when he was laid off last year, so he probably wasn't counted at all.

That's exactly how they are skewing the figures. We got a big "severance" package and so were not entitled to "Unemployment." So, that's what's going on!

unemployment benefits and the unemployment rate. The only issue is whether you are actively seeking employment. If you're not employed and have been looking for work for six years you still get counted in the unemployment rate.

Now, you ARE correct that people on long-term Disability do not get counted as "unemployed" because they are not "part of the work force". But that's actually OK because they really ARE NOT part of the work force. They aren't looking for work and they aren't unemployed because someone fired them, it's because they can't work. If they COULD work they wouldn't qualify for disability.

They also don't count as unemplyed because they actually get paid something. Not every disability insurance plan is the same, but I think if I was permanently disabled tomorrow I would get about 60% of my current salary (plus whatever SSI pays). Seems low, but since disability pay is not taxable I would end up with about the same pay as what I make now. Wouldn't be fair to count me as "unemployed".

Okay?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

I'm just grabbing this from a previous post of mine to save time. It's pretty much on point and was in reply to someone who insisted that you drop off the reported "unemployment" figure when you stop receiving unemployment benefits. If this was the case? Bush could slash "unemployment" by vetoing the bills extending benefits after 9/11. Stop paying out the benefits and those people just "disappear".

It's all the fault of the people who look at 6% unemployment and think (correctly) "that figure isn't bad enough to get rid of Bush, it MUST be higher". And, in some ways, they are correct. But it was also higher under previous administrations. The real change (if there is one) is the higher number of "discouraged workers" who give up on the economy.




Some highlights from the link:



"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. "



- snip -

"The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work (the key in your disability example) are unemployed.

People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force."


- snip -

"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. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview;
A public or private employment agency;
Friends or relatives;
A school or university employment center;

Sending out resumes or filling out applications;

Placing or answering advertisements;

Checking union or professional registers; or

Some other means of active job search."

where it is. I think that the NYT's article which includes to me "shocking" disability claims (given all the red tape one must go through to get govt. benefits in the first place) and your articles are still not to the heart of the matter that Govt. Statistics are WAY Skewed.

I see what you say from a brief read of your links (I will look harder later at your post) but scan read says that we should be more reliant on Govt Data than I would trust with Bush Administration. I think they re-wrote the rules.

Plus, as I said in my post, I've seen much that lies about what the Government is saying from my own experience.

:shrug:

:kick:

Why would we necessarily believe any unemployment figures his administration puts out. It is well known that Reagan and Bush I jerked the numbers around when they were in office. If Bush, jr. would lie about the reasons for war, I for one would not believe anything put out by his administration.

I read someplace that arms people were really gearing up. I do not know the names of these places, but I read this story some place.

I don't know about other states,but here in OK,most employees for "non-profit" corporations and "charitable" organizations are not eligible for unemployent benefits. I would be curious to see those figures included too.

That's a really "Huge" group.

The people who DON'T get counted are the people who "give up" looking for work because they get discouraged by the current economy. And that COULD be lots of people (more than previous years?).

As soon as you answer the question "have you actively sought employment during the last four weeks?" with "hell no! There's nothing out there! Why even look?"... THEN you are no longer counted as "unemployed". You're not part of the "workforce" any more than the person who decides to stay home to care for the kids. You're not looking for work, so you don't count.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm
What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

* People with jobs are employed.
* People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
* People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.



Who is counted as employed?

Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:

* On vacation;
* Ill;
* Experiencing child-care problems;
* Taking care of some other family or personal obligation;
* On maternity or paternity leave;
* Involved in an industrial dispute; or
* Prevented from working by bad weather.


Who is counted as unemployed?

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.
Who is not in the labor force?

All members of the civilian noninstitutional population are eligible for inclusion in the labor force, and those 16 and over who have a job or are actively looking for one are so classified. All others--those who have no job and are not looking for one--are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who do not participate in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labor force activities.
What about cases of overlap?

When the population is classified according to who is employed, unemployed, and not in the labor force on the basis of their activities during a given calendar week, situations are often encountered where individuals have engaged in more than one activity. Since persons are counted only once, it must be decided which activity will determine their status. Therefore, a system of priorities is used:

* Labor force activities take precedence over non-labor force activities.
* Working or having a job takes precedence over looking for work.


Employed persons consist of:

* All persons who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week.
* All persons who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a family-operated enterprise.
* All persons who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, bad weather, industrial dispute, or various personal reasons.


Unemployed persons are:

* All persons who were not classified as employed during the survey reference week, made specific active efforts to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work.
* All persons who were not working and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off.


Persons not in the labor force are those who not classified as employed or unemployed during the survey reference week.
How large is the labor force?
The labor force, then, is not a fixed number of people. It increases with the long-term growth of the population, it responds to economic forces and social trends, and its size changes with the seasons. On average in 2000, there were roughly 135 million employed and 6 million unemployed making up a labor force of 141 million persons. There were about 69 million persons not in the labor force.
How are seasonal fluctuations taken into account?

As suggested in the previous section, the number of employed and unemployed persons fluctuates during the year in a pattern that tends to repeat itself year after year and which reflects holidays, vacations, harvest time, seasonal shifts in industry production schedules, and similar occurrences. Because of such patterns, it is often difficult to tell whether developments between any 2 months reflect changing economic conditions or merely normal seasonal fluctuations. To deal with such problems, a statistical technique called seasonal adjustment is used.
What do the unemployment insurance figures measure?

Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a byproduct of unemployment insurance (UI) programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims which serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures.
How is unemployment measured for States and local areas?
See the Local Area Unemployment Statistics Frequently Asked Questions page.
Is there a measure of underemployment?

Because of the difficulty of developing an objective set of criteria which could be readily used in a monthly household survey, no official government statistics are available on the total number of persons who might be viewed as underemployed. Even if many or most could be identified, it would still be difficult to quantify the loss to the economy of such underemployment.

Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?

The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified, but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.

In January 1994, a major redesign of the Current Population Survey was introduced which included a complete revamping of the questionnaire, the use of computer-assisted interviewing for the entire survey, and revisions to some of the labor force concepts.

Last Modified Date: October 16, 2001

Didn't I just give that link to you?

What part are you trying to draw attention to?

That would be interesting to know.

The 'unemployment rate' is based on a PHONE SURVEY.

Okay? Not benefits, not layoffs, but PHONE CALLS.

If you tell the person who calls that you're seeking work and unemployed, then you're counted. If you've given up, you're not.

It's extrapolated statistically based on a bunch of PHONE CALLS.

Stupid stupid stupid.

And yes, they're cooking the books as well... or outright stopping some reports altogether.

Yeah... we need to wake the hell up. NOW.

It's an incredibly scientific poll being done by a staff of over 1500 people who do NOT change with administrations (so most of them served the previous administration as well AND were the same people who pointed out the run up over the last three years - but all of a sudden they're cooking the books?). I'm pretty sure it's done in person since each agent only calls on forty people in a four week period (two per day is unlikely to be by phone). AND it's 60,000 households per month. That probably adds up to direct data on 100-150,000 people each month (with 25% rotated out each month). That's a heck of a lot more reliable than 800 registered voters polled over three days.

and me. How do you think they keep their jobs? They have bosses that know how to massage the numbers. You don't need all 1,500 people to cook the books. Hell, you can cook books with only two or three "managers". How do you think that Bush stole Fla? Just leave some names off the voter rolls. How do you think that Enron fooled investors? Just get a couple of Arthur Andersen partners to sign off on the financials.

It can be done. They could poll cities with a heavy military presence. If you polled Ft Benning, GA, you're going to get a higher employed percentage than if you polled Hartford, CT.

The numbers have looked pretty good (for us politically, bad for the overall economy) for the last three years and we've been happy with the work those people provide and now that it drops one tenth of one percent a couple months in a row and their all crooked?

Let's get a little perspective eh?

1) We want Bush to lose
2) The economy in the tank can do that
3) Therefore we need the economy to be in the tank
4) Therefore we believe the economy IS in the tank
5) Therefore any data disputing that must be a lie.

i.e. "don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind"

There are too many cooperative numbers from divergent sources to believe that there is some massive conspiracy (for .1%?). I have no problem believing that one of the slowest employment recoveries from recession in history actually WILL eventually recover - especially in light of the biggest defecit spending in decades.

I bet anything that there isn't a single person at BLS or Census or BEA who is going to lose their job if the administration doesn't like their numbers. At the BLS, there is exactly one person who serves at the pleasure of the President. Everyone else is civil service. This argument comes up every month at this time and it never stops getting old.

UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY:

The official government figures say that the jobless rate in the U.S. is now 6.2 percent. But for African Americans that rate is nearly 12 percent and for Hispanic Americans it is 8.4 percent. Moreover, millions of women with children have been thrown out of work over the past months.

But the numbers don't tell the whole story. They don't tell the stories of the half-million or so Americans who have lost jobs and have just given up on finding a new one and thus are not counted in unemployment figures. They don't tell the stories of the millions of Americans who are involuntary part-timers - people who would like to work full-time, but can't find full-time jobs (most of whom therefore are living without benefits, including health care.)

They don't tell the stories of the underemployed - those who are working below their educational and experience levels or of the people who are earning substantially lower salaries than they did a few years ago. They don't tell the stories of men and women who worked their whole careers in manufacturing jobs which made this nation great, like the steel industry, and now find themselves working in low-paying service industry jobs. No, the economists' numbers don't tell the whole story.

The economists also don't have to look at the realities of those Americans who must stay in the work force longer because of pension funds lost by corporate fraud and mismanagement. Their jobs might have been vacant for younger workers, except for this reality. Nor do economists' numbers show recent college graduates forced to take service industry jobs, again without benefits, because of the poor job market.

(SNIP)(reporter goes on to talk about Bush's Economic Growth Figures)

But, as the Economic Policy Institute recently pointed out, much of this growth was due to the unusually large increase in defense spending early this year due to the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism. In fact, this kind of defense spending in relation to the nation's gross domestic product has not occurred since the Vietnam War.

http://www.sacobserver.com/business/commentary/091603/employment.shtml

Thanks.