Question about the unemployment rate--please and thank you

ok so the unemployment rate is 4.5% so my question is-what about people who have run out of benefits, are they counted anywhere, and if so what do you think the actual unemployment rate would be?

what the rate was if you took away people working for minimum wage or at a place that doesnt offer any benefits at all.

instead of focusing on the unemployment rate, maybe we should look more towards the poverty statistics

But I do know that years ago under Ronald Reagan, the unemployment benefits were dispensed for up to one year - 52 weeks. What with the economic problems of the time, and Ronnie's conservative agenda, unemployment was cut to 26 weeks. After that time you fall off the books. The only other "studies" that are done are derived from corporate payroll information, which of course stops reporting unemployed personnel even quicker.

Once the benefits run out, or before, most folks are forced to take jobs at much lower rates of pay, if they're lucky enough to be hired at their age or once the new employer sees what they were making before. If this is counted, it is listed as "underemployment" and IMHO is a useless statistic.

In my own immediate family, a manufacturing engineer was forced to learn to drive a truck, and a Data Processing Analyst was forced to work in a plant nursery in order to bring in $ once it became obvious that older workers weren't in demand. They were grateful, believe me.

I believe the actual unemployment/underemployment rate of this administration is in the double digits, but I do not have the tools to research this. I sincerely doubt the MSM would do it, because the effect on the national "in debt" economy would be shock & reaction - bad for those rich investors.

:think:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/01/augmented_unemp.html

and here at

http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/media/0403media_bias_and_the_unemployment_rate.html

It'd help if people stopped making such stupid claims.

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

sometimes that just happens.

The number is derived from a survey of 60,000 households. From that they're able to assume the correct number?

How is this survey done? Do they go door to door and ask people? If so is there a larger chance of people fudging numbers in bad neighborhoods rather than actually knocking on doors? If it were done by phone the fact that many people lose their phones when they're out of work would also skew the accuracy one would think. Then there's cell phones and how many households don't have landlines anymore.

It seems as if there's a possibility of a large margin of error using such a method.

but do not get paid they count you as employed. If you want a full time job and only work part time you are counted as employed. If you work 3 jobs that counts as 3 jobs for them.

The CPS is described on the BLS site. If there's a margin of error large enough to show at the tenth-of-a-percent level, it'd only be in a metropolitan area statistic for a relatively minor measure. The national numbers are pretty solid ... from a statistical perspective, at least.

The 'spin' in the numbers, to the degree it exists, is in the birth/death models employed ... and that's quite technical.

to apply for the minimum three jobs a week.

or people who have given up looking?

The participation rate in April fell from 66.2% to 66.0% ... which means that 0.2% have given up being in the work force.

which is quite well-hidden at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. It is the "U6" unemployment rate. When you hear France announce its numbers, they report U6. Our U6 rate was 8.2% last month.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm