Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If you thought US Job Statistics were "cooked" --- the answer is here.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:25 PM
Original message
If you thought US Job Statistics were "cooked" --- the answer is here.
Subtracting Out the Rhetoric

Statistics and fractions are funny things and easily manipulated. For example, when talking about issues such as the unemployment rate, small percentages score political points. So the Bush administration continues to harp on just how low the unemployment rate has fallen, taking advantage of the Bureau of Labor Statistics various measures of underutilization that allows the “hiding” of millions of unemployed.

While President Bush continues to praise the “low” unemployment rate, he neglects the soaring number of “discouraged workers” leaving the labor force. In fact, a recent report by the Labor Department found that “the share of the working-age population working or actively seeking a job…fell to 65.8 percent in January, the lowest reading in 17 years.”


http://thinkprogress.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
prodigal_green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've never understood "discouraged"
does this simply mean folks whose unemployment insurance has run out? That can happen after 13, 26 or 39 weeks depending upon what congress approves. Plenty of people are still looking for work even though their benefits have run out. And, they are in more desperate straights because of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Definition of Discouraged
Edited on Thu Feb-24-05 01:34 PM by AllegroRondo
It just means that you are not actively looking for work.

The Unemployment numbers are determined by a phone survey. They ask
1) Are you currently working? If yes, you are employed, survey ends.
2) Did you look for work in the last week? If yes, you are unemployed - this is what the UE number is based on.
If you did not actively look for work in the last week, you are 'discouraged', and not part of the numbers.

on edit:
for the purpose of the weekly unemployment numbers, it doesnt matter if you are getting UE payments or not. If you did not work last week, but looked for work, you are officially 'unemployed', even if your benefits have run out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. it means those workers "Do not Count" anymore...hence a smaller number
there 6 levels of unemployment...the one that takes into account the TOTAL unemployed is much much HIGHER
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Bush figures if you're not employed, and not collecting compo, you
now count as self-employed--one a them there "entrepreneurs", you know, like the folks who make a killing selling on eBay. If you're in dire straits, why, go back to junior college and get yourself a 21st century trade, gosh darnit! (sarcasm off)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. It's done though a telephone survey.
They ask people whether they have applied for a job in the recent past. If they say yes, they are unemployed. If they say no, they are discouraged. However, it isn't the "discouraged" workers that make up the worst of it. They are only a fraction of a percent. It is "marginally attached" and other categories. More here:


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. read this link ...it explains the "intentional misleading" statistic
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/06/14/us_jobless_rate_misses_hidden_unemployed/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. They have beem misprepresenting the labor numbers for years.
Falling unemployment claims only means people have been dropped from the rolls. After that, they become non-entities and are not counted. I also think the household survey is a bit suspect as well. The payroll numbers really tell the story in my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's as obvious as can be. 10 million jobs below full employment.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. and more here...... 17 year low in jobs and people looking
Working-age people with jobs on decline

By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer | February 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The share of the working-age population working or actively seeking a job -- known as the participation rate -- fell to 65.8 percent in January, the lowest reading in 17 years, according to numbers collected by the Labor Department.

snip

Economists offer a variety of factors behind the decline: a loss of factory jobs, where some are unqualified to snag other jobs; people getting out of the 9-to-5 grind to go back to school; people deciding to be a stay-at-home mom or dad; and people abandoning job searches because they can't find a job at a pay level they want.

The participation rate hit an all-time high of 67.3 percent in early 2000 -- when the economy was still roaring and employers had a hardy appetite to hire workers. After that, the rate slowly drifted downward as the economy suffered through the 2001 recession and then struggled to recover.

snip

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. And what becomes of the "discouraged workers"?
I felt since the number of discouraged workers has grown drastically, that growth would be evidenced elsewhere and indeed it has.
Specifically, we found that the number of people requesting emergency food and shelter is increasing in every state surveyed, and in a wide range of urban areas, rural areas, and small to mid-sized towns. However, funding for these programs is inadequate and on the decline, most frequently so from government sources. Many agencies are cutting programs and turning away requests for help due to a lack of resources.

The main findings are as follows:

The number of people requesting emergency food at agencies is increasing.
• 74% of agencies surveyed reported an increase in requests for food assistance over the past year; on average, surveyed agencies reported a 28% increase in requests.

The number of people requesting emergency shelter at agencies is increasing.
• 65% of agencies surveyed reported an increase in requests for shelter over the past year; on average, surveyed agencies reported a 27% increase in requests.

Agencies reported that more people are experiencing hunger and homelessness in their communities than assistance is available.
• 24% of emergency food providers surveyed reported that they turned away requests for food this past year, primarily due to a lack of resources.
• 77% of emergency shelter providers surveyed reported that they turned away requests for shelter this past year, primarily due to a lack of resources.

Many agencies reported funding cuts over the past year; cuts from government sources were most frequent.
• 33% of agencies reported reduced income over the past year; 43% of agencies saw funding cuts from the state government and 35% from the federal government.

A significant percent of agencies that turned away requests for assistance reported a decrease in overall income in the past year.
• 39% of emergency food providers and 43% of emergency shelter providers that reported turning away requests for assistance also reported reduced income this past year.

http://www.studentsagainsthunger.org/hunger.asp?id2=15761


Hey George...you say you want a revolution?
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. and he wants to CUT soc sec benefits --- this is a Disaster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. It'll take years to recover
from this moron and his "good ol' boy" friends, if not generations.
And because of the way they cover their tracks with employment as you've pointed out, and reporting inflation numbers with food and fuel dropped out, etc. much of America will be left wondering what went so wrong.

"I looked into his soul and saw...nothing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Incredible.
Slapped it on the homepage of the site in my .sig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Excellent...I just had a look.
Great site you have there, too! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Thank you.
Trying to get them to invest in a new theme from this worthy:

http://www.7dana.com

Goran is the Big Swinging Richard of Xoops theming. He r4wKz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Other 'discouraged workers' are forced into early retirement ...
... and start collecting Social Security earlier than their 'full benefit age.' This, of course, has a prolonged impact on their standard of living since the benefits can be as much as 30% lower than if they'd wait 4-5 more years. It also has a negative impact on Social Security itself, taking someone who'd otherwise be paying payroll taxes and causing them to collect benefits instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Quite true. I imagine there are plenty of this group as well since
age discrimination was so ineffectively legislated against.
I know if I lose my job at my age I may as well hang it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Right, I know three people who started collecting at aged 62
simply because they were long-term unemployed after long professional careers and had used up all their savings, and, in one case, cashed in a 401(k), due to inability to get more than non-living wage jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tgnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. some more graphics on this at
Edited on Thu Feb-24-05 02:24 PM by tgnyc
www.intelligencesquad.com/id106.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
19. Can someone clarify for me...
I always thought that an "unemployed" person, was someone who: 1.) Is without a job; 2.) is actively seeking work; 3.) and must have filed an unemployment claim with the state.

I thought the official claim, triggered the identification of an "unemployed person." Then, those filing claims were divided by the total US population--which = the official, national unemployment percentage.

Do I totally have this wrong?

I remember learning that those NOT actively seeking work--or those whose unemployment benefits had run out--were not part of the official "unemployment statistic." However, people who are between jobs for the short term (frictional unemployment) and those temporarily unemployed due to the nature of their job--like a lifeguard (season unemployment) were included in the official unemployment numbers.

Also--"seasonal" and "frictional" employment--which are part of a normal, healthy economy--make up about 3-4 percent of the unemployment number. So full employment is around 4 percent.

Any clarification on this is most appreciated. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Yep. You got it wrong.
Edited on Fri Feb-25-05 01:49 AM by TahitiNut
"Unemployment" is reported monthly by the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) using data gathered by the Bureau of the Census (in the Current Population Survey) and directly from corporations (in the Current Establishment Survey). There are six measures of "unemployment" (U1 thru U6) using varying definitions, typically having to do with marginally attached workers, involuntarily part-time workers, and underemployed workers. Even so, many people who might otherwise be working aren't counted.

It has nothing to do with Unemployment Insurance. Nothing.

It's also a fiction that "full employment is around 4 percent." Four percent of what??? The reported "unemployment rate" fell below 4% several times in 2000, and has been as low as 3.4% in the last 40 years.


Here're some useful links ...
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
http://www.bls.gov/ces/
http://www.bls.gov/bls/employment.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddy Waters Guitar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. This is why Europe and US have such diverging figures
On unemployment, the difference is a mirage-- Europeans tend to count those "discouraged" workers as well as those actively seeking employment, in their unemployment tallies. A shame, b/c they're more aware of the scale of the problem while we continue to ignore the true extent of it here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC