Is there any way to get at more accurate unemployment figures than those released each Friday?

I know people like myself who have been unemployed for a while, were not/arenot eligible for unemployment, and are not accounted for in that figure. Or those who have gone from full employment to part-time or temp employment and are not steadily employed. Is there any stat that gets at that number? People intuitively know that that Friday figure is low but it is never amended when it is reported by the fact that there are thousands of other people beyond that number who are unemployed.

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090206/REG/902069980/-1/FWDailyAlert01


A Merrill Lynch analysis of the non-farm payroll numbers released on Friday makes for disquieting reading, to say the least.

The analysis by North American economist David Rosenberg indicates that the actual unemployment rate, while normally higher than the official one by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hit a level not seen since at least 1994. The good news: Inflation is not much of a threat as a result.

As Mr. Rosenberg explained, what the official unemployment rate misses is the vast degree of ‘underemployment’ as companies cut back on the hours that people who are still employed are working. Those hours have declined 1.2% in the past twelve months.

The BLS still counts people as employed if they are working part-time, but the number who have been forced into that status because of slack economic conditions has ballooned nearly 70% in the past year, according to the study. Mr. Rosenberg said was that was a record growth rate for the 15-year period he has studied.

When that amount of slack in employment is taken into account, Mr. Rosenberg found that the ‘real’ unemployment rate has actually climbed to 13.9%, an all-time high for the period he studied, and up from 13.5% in December and 11.2% a year ago.

the unemployment rate would be far higher!

as an inability to define "unemployed".
If you're a private contractor, and don't have a job lined up this week, are you "unemployed"?

The reasoning on the current statistic is that if you've stopped looking for work, you are doing something else with your time, and shouldn't be counted.

That's boneheaded, but that's the reason. Better just to look at the statistic as *correlative* of the true number...

the business died - he's been unable to find employment (except for min. wage labor) for over 6 months. Does he count as unemployed?

But like I said, the number is correlative. It just matters if it goes up, or down, not its absolute number. If it goes up every week, you know bad things are happening.

With the real # more things could get done. It's not enough to have a symbolic #

Like numbers from homeless shelters or food banks. It needs to be done. I for one am so sick of phoney numbers.

Please explain to the class how the unemployment rate is calculated and what the defintions are. And then why they're phoney.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

They account for people the Department of Labor stats don't account for. Frankly, the official government stats starting under Reagan became little more than propaganda.

The goverment does it.Why shouldn't you?
Hell,yours would probably be more accurate and you are far more believable then the goverment.

They have too many ways of not counting when it suits them.

First, unemployment insurance has nothing at all to do with the Unemployment Rate. The rate comes from a household survey.

To be unemployed, you must not have worked, be available for work, and have actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks. Otherwise you're not actualy participating in the labor market, are you?

The full report contains information on people finishing temporary work, and on part timers and reason for part time work.