Jobless Count Skips Millions

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Link. Interesting. Will comment later, have a chore to do.

 

[Miramonti]

I saw a show on pbs that pegged the actual number of people without work at around 17%, up from the 14-15% highs in the early eighties.

It includes the disenfranchised and those who have given up finding jobs etc. The current 6% figure is a very myopic perspective.

I'll see if I can find the study.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I saw a show on pbs that pegged the actual number of people without work at around 17%, up from the 14-15% highs in the early eighties.

It includes the disenfranchised and those who have given up finding jobs etc. The current 6% figure is a very myopic perspective.

I'll see if I can find the study.

That's what's always such a joke when the right throws up "communist" european numbers. No sh1t fella they count everyone looking, those on welfare even. We only count those activly recieving unemployment benefits usually only lasting weeks.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I saw a show on pbs that pegged the actual number of people without work at around 17%, up from the 14-15% highs in the early eighties.

It includes the disenfranchised and those who have given up finding jobs etc. The current 6% figure is a very myopic perspective.

I'll see if I can find the study.

Oh please, you are telling me nearly 1 in 5 do not have jobs? Get real!

 

[Lucky]

From the L.A. Times, what a fsking surprise, another bullsh!t article. How terrible to represent the concept of the underemployed not with someone who cannot FIND a full time job but with someone who has CHOSEN to take a part-time job at the same time as going to college. Not only that but to introduce the comletely meaningless statistic of how much she is currently earning in comparison to the grossly overpaid salary she was paying herself before her (obviously flawed) ./com business failed.

Even worse was citing the example of a dolt who quit his job for no objectively valid reason who then complains that he can't find another job/his new job isnt good enough. No wonder why you were "discouraged", you've finally realized what a fvsking idiot you are.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Lucky
From the L.A. Times, what a fsking surprise, another bullsh!t article. How terrible to represent the concept of the underemployed not with someone who cannot FIND a full time job but with someone who has CHOSEN to take a part-time job at the same time as going to college. Not only that but to introduce the comletely meaningless statistic of how much she is currently earning in comparison to the grossly overpaid salary she was paying herself before her (obviously flawed) ./com business failed.

Even worse was citing the example of a dolt who quit his job for no objectively valid reason who then complains that he can't find another job. No wonder why you were "discouraged", you've finally realized what a fvsking idiot you are.

Exactly. If the gov't counted people who had a job but were looking for something better, there would be an artificial crisis. This article is pure BS. That chick should've gone to business school and steered her business in the right direction.

 

[LunarRay]

I think the most interesting and unspinable number might be: Folks over 18 (or emacipated) and under 65 who are not in school and not employed. This should be an easy number to get. Then we'd deduct those who are disabled and can't work.. another easy number to get. We'd then have a fact. To wit: folks who could work but are not. We also know everyone employed (above the table) so we have a figure that means something. We also could deduce the number of part time jobs, rates of pay.. and etc.. all factual numbers. We could get this at least quarterly.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think the most interesting and unspinable number might be: Folks over 18 (or emacipated) and under 65 who are not in school and not employed. This should be an easy number to get. Then we'd deduct those who are disabled and can't work.. another easy number to get. We'd then have a fact. To wit: folks who could work but are not. We also know everyone employed (above the table) so we have a figure that means something. We also could deduce the number of part time jobs, rates of pay.. and etc.. all factual numbers. We could get this at least quarterly.

So simple, so scientific, yet so catastrophic for the man who intoduced it.

Can you imagine going from 7% unemplyment to 30% what that would do for your ere-election hopes!!!

Theres also the probelm of homemakers, independantly weathly, trust fund babies etc.

I think we have 94 million in payrolls. And around 170 million working age adults. Lets say 5 million are disabled. Well you see the problem.

Edit: simple would would set up an office and register as unemployed with your SS# and count them after cross refernecing with with w-2's.

 

[LunarRay]

Zebo,

So simple, so scientific, yet so catastrophic for the man who intoduced it.

Can you imagine going from 7% unemplyment to 30% what that would do for your ere-election hopes!!!

Theres also the probelm of homemakers, independantly weathly, trust fund babies etc.

I think we have 94 million in payrolls. And around 170 million working age adults. Lets say 5 million are disabled. Well you see the problem.

I'm interested in hard numbers as a base.. not a base of quicksand.. Once I've hard numbers I'll figure out some constants but, it really don't matter.. I want hard numbers!!!!

 

[Zebo]

See my edit: Taht would give hard ones.

 

[LunarRay]

We know the SSN and address of everyone so those who are not recording in a payroll status we'll get some of those Commerce folks who spend a lifetime with fuzzy un real estimates to send out post cards to solicit requisite information.. homemaker mom not wanting work.. etc.. we can get to the really real number.. Let the BLS folks deal with facts and not survey and statistical estimates at 90% confidence levels.. In the magic 400K employment thingi.. heck they could be off by hundreds of thousands.. either way..

Zebo, re your edit
We have state and federal reporting that occurs at least quarterly..

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We know the SSN and address of everyone so those who are not recording in a payroll status we'll get some of those Commerce folks who spend a lifetime with fuzzy un real estimates to send out post cards to solicit requisite information.. homemaker mom not wanting work.. etc.. we can get to the really real number.. Let the BLS folks deal with facts and not survey and statistical estimates at 90% confidence levels.. In the magic 400K employment thingi.. heck they could be off by hundreds of thousands.. either way..

Zebo, re your edit
We have state and federal reporting that occurs at least quarterly..

Look If someone feels they are unemployed they should be counted, period. I don't care if you've got 10million in the bank, are mentally disabled, or are a housefrau. It's your discision. If your looking and can't find work you're unemployed.

This is why if we set up an office, where people could register as such, then cross-refernece them with pay-roll just to make sure they're still thata way it would be 100% accurate hard number of unemployed.

Until such time we are grasping with relatives which makes me nervous and very sceptical of any accuacy.

 

[chess9]

What being "unemployed" actually means is a legitimate topic for debate and shouldn't be defined to make one political party look good. BUT...that is exactly what both parties have done. No one wants to publish high unemployment numbers for a variety of sound socio-economic reasons as well as unsound political ones.

If unemployment is actually high on election day then Bush will be in more trouble not less. We can speculate all we want as to who is actually "unemployed" but the rubber will meet the road next November. Two to three million disaffected workers will turn the election around in favor of the Dems if unemployment is actually that high.

But, right now the economy is in after-burner mode. My 401K has made back about 40% of the losses from 2001-02. My wife's 401K is doing even better. Retail sales are up, the NASDAQ is up (praise the Lord), and the Dow is up. This is not bad news for the Head Moron. Right now I'd say he will be re-elected because the majority of the American people do not care or understand enough about the war to change their vote. And, in a way, that might be good. I think Bush ought to be in office to reap the whirlwind. Bush should be careful what he wishes for.

-Robert

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Link. Interesting. Will comment later, have a chore to do.

This is a Gem, a National Media Journalist telling it like it is. Sounds like the guy has been in here in P&N. This will drive CAD & Co insane, what can they possibly say now?

Cheers to David Streitfeld of the LA Times for not being afraid to report the TRUTH:

Many economists are mystified about why a suddenly booming economy is producing so few jobs.

"More than half of the additional people who would have reported themselves as unemployed in a previous big recessionary period aren't," a puzzled UC Berkeley economist, Brad DeLong, wrote on his website.

In some eyes, a nation of burger flippers, temps and Wal-Mart clerks isn't the worst scenario for the economy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMG, wow, CAD & Co made the report!!!

Streitfeld is that you?

 

[alchemize]

What a great anecdote!

Take Steve Fahringer, who until recently was working for a Bay Area marketing agency that cut 20% of its employees and trimmed the wages of the remainder by 20%. Fahringer didn't particularly like his job. Because the recession supposedly was history, he thought he could find a new position. The 34-year-old didn't think it would be easy, but he thought it possible. So he quit.

I just want to thank Steve for keeping the employment numbers high by being a self-selected darwin unemployed

What about my dad, and my father-in-law. They are both "retired". One draws a pension, the other has a sizable retirement account. Yet they both work 2 part time jobs each? Are they unemployed? Underemployed? My mother-in-law works as a part-time teacher. She doesn't need the money, but she'd rather work full-time. Is she underemployed? My step mother runs her own house cleaning business. Is she underemployed? My wife stays at home with the kids, is she unemployed?

Heck, by this articles logic, 75% of my family is un-employed or underemployed, but not one would consider themselves in that status or hurting financially.

I'm with LunarRay. I want hard numbers, not some "all part timers are really looking for full-time work" BS. This is fuzzy math.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

It includes the disenfranchised and those who have given up finding jobs etc.

Personally, I don't think those "who have given up finding jobs" SHOULD be counted. You give up on finding a way to support yourself, you're giving up on life. If you give up on life, then please die and get out of the gene pool.

Jason

 

[zephyrprime]

"all part timers are really looking for full-time work" BS

No one ever said that so don't try to put up a red herring.

A ton of statistics can be had at the bureau of labor statistics. http://www.bls.gov/
In 2000, the

Here are some statistics for how many hours people worked. 2002 is arbitrarily set at 100 (unitless). This is only private sector. They didn't have a category for private + public sector.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann
1993 81.4 82.2 82.0 83.6 85.8 86.5 86.9 88.0 86.7 87.1 87.3 87.9 85.4
1994 84.9 84.3 86.2 87.6 89.2 90.6 90.8 91.5 91.0 91.6 90.9 91.6 89.2
1995 88.4 88.4 89.1 90.3 90.8 93.0 93.1 93.6 92.9 93.2 92.8 92.8 91.5
1996 87.7 90.1 91.1 91.7 93.4 96.1 95.0 96.3 96.0 95.4 95.6 96.5 93.7
1997 91.7 93.8 94.9 95.3 96.7 98.8 98.4 99.0 98.4 98.7 99.2 99.4 97.0
1998 95.3 96.8 97.1 97.3 99.5 100.8 100.8 102.3 99.6 100.7 101.2 101.4 99.4
1999 96.9 98.3 98.6 100.0 101.8 102.9 103.4 104.4 101.7 102.9 103.0 103.4 101.4
2000 100.7 100.4 101.3 103.5 103.2 105.0 105.8 105.3 104.4 105.0 104.0 103.9 103.5
2001 100.1 100.6 101.1 101.8 102.5 103.9 104.4 103.7 102.6 101.2 100.9 101.7 102.0
2002 96.9 97.9 98.4 99.2 100.2 102.7 100.9 101.7 101.2 100.3 100.0 100.7 100.0
2003 96.3 97.2 97.8 97.4 99.0 100.9 99.8 100.5 99.5 99.8(p) 100.3(p) n/a n/a

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

"all part timers are really looking for full-time work" BS

No one ever said that so don't try to put up a red herring.

Twasn't me who put up the red herring. Straight from the article.

But lurking behind that group are 4.9 million part-time workers such as Gluskin who say they would rather be working full time ? the highest number in a decade.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

It includes the disenfranchised and those who have given up finding jobs etc.

Personally, I don't think those "who have given up finding jobs" SHOULD be counted. You give up on finding a way to support yourself, you're giving up on life. If you give up on life, then please die and get out of the gene pool.

Jason

You define 'given up on life', actually, but you are unaware of it and will stay that way.

 

[ReiAyanami]

everybody on this planet had a job of oxygen processor/CO^2 producer. it pays zero for most but some [CEO's] get paid zillions to sit back and do this all day long a la Parlamat.

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2609950031229.gif

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

It includes the disenfranchised and those who have given up finding jobs etc.

Personally, I don't think those "who have given up finding jobs" SHOULD be counted. You give up on finding a way to support yourself, you're giving up on life. If you give up on life, then please die and get out of the gene pool.

Jason

They are in some kind of unemployed status. As is the hobo, I guess.. I want to know how many citizens there are.. we know this.. by SSN. We know the age etc..
Once we know this we can go about figuring out just how many actual jobs exist by sector etc.. all this is available data. I'm not concerned about under table or like that cuz it is illegal. Hard factual number! We can then go about determining factual conditions.
The million economists take and estimate and model it into some hocus pocus result and then survey some places and then calculate to the sixth place to the right of the decimal.. nutty..
We can find real work for these economists and the staff that call around and play with paper and fantasy numbers..
I know what I can do with numbers and models and spins it is all dependent on the end question.. what do I want to say.. then work backwards... I want to start with hard data and move forward.. to know how many jobs we need to satisfy the needs of our population and go about making that happen.. if folks want to be bums.. let them so state and they can be excluded.. if they are nutty let the be included among the nutty in the nutty bin.. whatever.. but, no more hocus pocus.. we can't make policy based on hocus pocus.. How can we and be assured the stimuli will be effective..?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I can't believe people think this is "news". It's obvious people don't understand how things have been calculated FOR A LONG TIME. OMG - THERE WERE UNDEREMPLOYED PEOPLE DURING THE "BOOMING 90s"? NO WAY!!!

(there is a new thread title for you dave )

No dave - none of this will drive me insane. I'm well aware of underemployment, unemployment, and the rest - PLUS how they are calculated and reported. It seems though that some people have been trying to make things seem worse than they really are.

Now yes - I tend to somewhat agree with luny and his statement. There needs to be "real" numbers and then there needs to be an HUGE educational movement to help people understand what these numbers mean. But that really isn't realistic unless we were all numbered(oh wait SS# ) and forced to report our situation quarterly. If that were the case we would see who is PT, FT, "underemployed"(in their mind), actively looking, not looking, retired, able to work, etc. However until that day comes there will not be "real" numbers. Sure you can get a "base" number using luny's numbers but as some here have pointed out - those numbers don't give an accurate picture of the job situation due to xxx.

But then again - I hope I am never forced to report my employment situation via the way I described above Imaging the repercussions of such a monthly/quarterly report - yikes.

Oh, btw - the "help wanted" index is up

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,
In California, the November employment figures told us in October we added some 70,000 jobs incorrectly.. so instead of a plus 30,000 we had a negative 40,000 jobs. This is my main gripe. Everyone is saying 'All right' it is turning around.. but poof ... No big deal really, though, cuz it is as it is.. BUT!
Here we report via DE6 at least quarterly the wages of every employee. We also report within 20 days any new hire. All this data is here at our finger tips. Unemployed, new claims, dropped off... and not rehired.. Welfare, WorkerComp issues, Retired folks, you name it and I bet we have a form for it or it could be added to the ones we already have. Every employer must fill out form I8, W4, etc. We have so much data we are swimming in it. But use it to know what is going on.. not just for politics or idiotic stuff like that but, to enact prudent legislation. How many schools, teachers, taxes, stimuli needs and where, Nope!
We go blindly saying all sorts of things in the politics arena and each side can point to a different set of 'facts'.. there can only be one set of facts, it seems to me. Let us force the polititians to argue the facts and legislate using facts.
If reality is that Bush is doing a great job, then fine. How can we say he's not and back it up with facts. We can't! He can't either. The brainy economists say 'statistics are a viable means to accumulate data from a vast reality' So is putting the data base of facts into the picture. How is it we can pump 500b into some program to do something when we may be needing 700b or 300b.. It just makes no sense.

 

[zephyrprime]

However until that day comes there will not be "real" numbers.

You ever here of sampling? They might not be real enough for you but they're real enough for me. The bureau of labor statistics *does* put out numbers every quarter and even every month. But numbers are kinda uninteresting to most people so they don't make as big an impact as you seem to expect.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jjsole
I saw a show on pbs that pegged the actual number of people without work at around 17%, up from the 14-15% highs in the early eighties.

It includes the disenfranchised and those who have given up finding jobs etc. The current 6% figure is a very myopic perspective.

I'll see if I can find the study.

That's what's always such a joke when the right throws up "communist" european numbers. No sh1t fella they count everyone looking, those on welfare even. We only count those activly recieving unemployment benefits usually only lasting weeks.

Just in case anyone is being mislead, this post was completely incorrect. The US unemployment numbers are not based on those receiving unemployment. It is based on a statistical household survey to identify all those people who are actively looking for work in the last month. It does not attempt to count "underemployed people" and it does not count students and those otherwise unavailable for full time work. It is as comparable to the European unemployment numbers as is possible considering different people and different governments are doing the counting.

If you need more info, here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics explanation of the basis for the unemployment data:

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

Note in particular the difference between the Household Survey which is widely reported as THE unemployment rate and the Establishment Survey.