Record Number get Jobless benefits - USA Today (..or scenes from the Republican Dystopia)_JW

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-01-29-jobless-claims_N.htm?csp=23&RM_Exclude=aol


By Barbara Hagenbaugh, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — " A record 4.8 million people were collecting unemployment benefits in mid-January, the government said in a week in which firms announced layoffs totaling tens of thousands, suggesting the number of Americans out of work is climbing rapidly.

~~
About 588,000 workers applied for jobless benefits last week, up 3,000 from the prior week and 61% higher than a year ago, the Labor Department said. The seasonally adjusted 4.8 million people who were collecting benefits in the week ended Jan. 17, the latest available data, was the largest since the government began keeping track in 1967.

~~

That suggests the jobless rate, which was 7.2% in December, has a lot higher to go, consulting firm Action Economics told clients.
~~
~~
Only 37% of those who are out of work are collecting unemployment benefits, the National Employment Law Project estimates. The rest have either exhausted their benefits or are not eligible to receive aid based on their work history.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see, official unemployment rate of at least 7.2%. But the National Employment Law Project says only 37% of those out of work are applying for unemployment benefits. So dividing .37 into 7.2% gives you 19.5% actually unemployed. This is the figure you should use to compare to the Great depression of the 30's - before they had unemployment insurance or refined data on the unemployed. And were getting mighty close to the unemployment rate of the 30's.

So much for the beauties of Deregulation, (retired - and out-of-town) Sen. Gramm. Ain't it great living in the http://www.geocities.com/jwalkerxy/Republican_Dystopia.htm">Republican Dystopia?

The official unemployment rate has NOTHING to do with unemployment insurance. What the article is talking about is that unemployment insurance claims for January are way up, suggesting that the Unemployment rate for January, which will be released in February, will also go way up.

One more time: Unemployment Rate = Number of people 16 years or older, not in an institution or the military, who did not work in the reference week but actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks and are currently available for work (the Unemployed), divided by the sum of the Employed and Unemployed (the Labor Force).

Claimants for unemployment insurance are different altogether.

"Action Economics is inferring a jobless rate BASED ON the climb in claims for unemployment insurance.Yes, but that figure is not 19% or anywhere near it.

The Official Unemployment Rate of 7.2% is all those who did not work, actively looked for work, and are available for work, regardless of whether or not they are or ever have collected UI. So the number of people collecting UI is 37% of the 7.2% or 2.7% of the Labor Force (it's not really, but I'm keeping the math simple)

And check the dates. The article is referring to people collecting UI in JANUARY. The official unemployment rate for January hasn't been calculated yet. So the sentance "That (referrring to the big increase in filings for unemployment insurance) suggests the jobless rate, which was 7.2% in December, has a lot higher to go.." means that a large increase in UI claims from Dec to Jan suggests that the total unemployment rate from Dec to Jan will be a lot higher.

Let me try to explain the math.

37% of those actually out of work are collecting UI.

That means: (Those collecting UI)/(Total Number Out of Work) = .37

Then if the UI rate (DEc) was 7.2% you divide the .072 by .37 to get 19% ... the total of the people out of work as a percentage of the toal population able to work.

That's what you seem to have trouble grasping. 7.2% is the official unemployment rate, which is everyone, not just those on UI.
Source and explanation of the Official Unemployment rate is at Bureau of Labor Statistics

The UI unemployment rate (which is a weekly number) for Dec was
12/06/2008 3.3
12/13/2008 3.3
12/20/2008 3.4
12/27/2008 3.4
Source is Dept of Labor
Current UI unemployment rate and moving average is at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

(Those collecting UI) is approx 37% of the Unemployed. (Total Number out of work) is the 7.2%

So .37=X/.072 where X is those collecting UI. Your mistake, which I kept trying to point out, was in thinking the 7.2% was the UI unemployment rate, when it's the total unemployment rate.

Looking at the actual numbers:
Seasonally Adjusted Employment in Dec (week of 7-13) was approx 143,338,000. Not all those are covered by UI.
Seasonally Adjusted Covered Employment was approx 133,902,387.
Seasonally Adjusted Total Unemployment (did not work, actively looked for work in previous 4 weeks and available for work) was 11,108,000.
Labor Force= Unemployed plus Employed, or 154,447,000.
So the Unemployment Rate was (Unemployed/Labor Force) 7.2%
Seasonally Adjusted UI claims (moving average) was 4,372,000.
So UI Unemployment Rate was (UI claims/covered employment) 3.3%
UI claims as a percentage of the total unemployed is then 4,372,000/11,108,000 = 39.4% which is close enough to the 37% mentioned in the article

"A record 4.8 million people were collecting unemployment benefits in mid-January,"

total collecting UI (Jan 2009)was 4.8 Mil / Seasonally Adjusted Covered Employment was approx 133,902,387. So...: (4.8 Mil)/(133.9 Mil) = .036 Collecting UI rate.

(37% of Total Unemployed are collecting UI), so: .036/.37 = .097 or...

actual Total Unemployed rate (nation-wide) of 9.7%.

The covered unemployment for the relevant week in Jan is 133,886,830(estimated) and Seasonally Adjusted UI claims number is 4,617,000 (it went up the next week to 4.8 million, but 4.6 million is the number for when the Unemployment Rate is calculated)( So 4,617,000/133,886,830=.034 And .034/.37 = 9.3% total unemployment rate. (source is DOL).

But given the definitional differences such that one can be receiving UI but not be considered Unemployed for Unemployment Rate purposes(if you haven't started looking for work yet, for example), and the difference between Employed and Covered Employed, the official rate probably won't be quite as high as 9.3%, though closer to 9.3 than 7.2 I would guess.

We'll find out Friday when the January Employment Situation Report is released.

were laid off from full-time jobs. The unemployment rate doesn't give any indication of that ugly reality.

And the numbers of those who work part time for economic reasons (reduced hours or can't find full time work) are included in the Employment Situation Report. They just don't have any business being considered Unemployed (not if you want any kind of meaningful definition).

like it doesn't give you enough to pay for food, gasoline and mortgage payments. It also can mean people who were laid off and lost their medical insurance will now increase the load for communities who have to pick up those costs.

It is still part of reality no matter how much you Republicans consider it a trivial matter.

Underemployment at 14-year high


Budget for family of 5 in Cleve OH - $67,000

U6 unemplyment rate is on the rise

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x49655


the "broadest estimate of the unemployment rate, which includes the total unemployed (the standard rate) plus “all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons… plus all marginally attached workers.”

That rate (called “U-6”) in November? A whopping 12.5%. ..."

Now, can the emotion, and tell me methodologically, why defining Unemployed as including people who regularly work makes scientific, mathematical, statistical, economic sense. How the Hell can you derive any useful meaning from statistics if one person, working 3 hours a week (by choice), is Employed and a person working 34 hours (for that one particular week...full time the week before and after) is Unemployed?

One more time...the numbers of people working part time for economic reasons ARE tracked...there's just no METHODOLOGICAL sense to it. Leave your politics out of the goddamn science.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/labor-market-deterioration/


I’ve argued on many occasions that the official unemployment rate has been a poor guide to the reality of the labor market in recent years. One alternative is “U6″, which the BLS lists under “alternative measures of labor underutilization.” It’s defined as

"Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers"

and... http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/11/undercounting-u.html">Undercounting Under-employment

"Does that relatively mild U3 unemployment rate accurately portray the employment circumstances? U3 is the official UE rate, but the BLS also reports a full -- and much uglier measure -- U6. I've long said that the U6 number is more accurate, and more and more people are recognizing that as the case."




working part-time certainly doesn't afford you enough to "eat cake."

does not claim the U6 is more accurate, nor that it should be the official measure. Of course it's true that, for some purposes, the U6 is more useful. But the U3 definition, which has been the official definition since 1967 and is the international standard preferred by the ILO and mandated in the EU as well, was not decided for political purposes nor pulled out of someone's ass. The problem with the U6, and U5 and U4 is that they are incredibly subjective and prone to non-sampling error.

For an objective measure of labor underutilization, the U3 really is the more accurate because it's the most objective measure. Either you're working, or trying to work. The percentage of people trying to work and failing is a strong measure of the health of an economy. The U4 adds in people who aren't looking because of their belief (which may or may not accurately reflect reality even if they are telling the truth) that they won't be able to find a job. That's not so much measuring the health of the economy as measuring people's belief, or rather their claims about their belief. The U5 adds in everybody who says they want to work, but isn't actualy doing anything about it. Again, assuming they're telling the truth, how objective a measure is this? The U6 adds in part time workers, who actually have jobs so saying they don't is, well, wrong. But tracking them is important, just dont call them unemployed.


Look at all the pieces by all means...that's why they're published. But if the broadest measure is made official, then how are you going to find what we now call the U3 if you've redefined "unemployed" to the widest possible meaning?

.. the labor market in recent years"


"I’ve argued on many occasions that the official unemployment rate has been a poor guide to the reality of the labor market in recent years. One alternative is “U6″, which the BLS lists under “alternative measures of labor underutilization.” "

That's what is important - reality - not turning a statistical measure into reality.

Using one statistical measure as the whole measure of reality is not a substitute for reality. In doing that you can lose sight of what you are trying to understand. And that is that quoting the unemployment rate of 7.2% doens't accurately portray how bad things are because it doensn't address the issue of the many people who are under-employed and not making a living wage - and who are capable of working in a more productive job or for more hours.

Obfuscating by obsessing over finer points of statistical indicators (the penchant of pedants and propagandists and apologists) can lead you to miss the fact that a train is boring down on you and in this case that train is the worsening economy.

Who's doing that? The alternate measures are published for a reason.

Since they are published, and available, then what would be the purpose of changing the official rate, which does serve a long-term purpose.

purpose. It is published in recognition that the oft quoted unemployment rate doesn't give a complete picture.

of unemployment insurnance payments then last june i received 13 week emergency unemployment insurance payments. i started receiving another 13 weeks in dec of 2008.

so in the last two years i have been on and off the unemployment insurance payments at least three times without actually being employed. in febuary i`ll be receiving my social security so ,unless i get a job,i`ll never be counted again.

is what I have been screaming for the last two years, that is the real number here in Michigan, if not higher.

Isn't there some simpler way for governonauts to get money to the people who need it? How about 819 billion dollars worth of income redistribution from those who have to those who haven't?