Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Unemployment: It depends on how you define it...

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
chiburb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 03:53 PM
Original message
Unemployment: It depends on how you define it...
Edited on Mon Sep-08-03 03:54 PM by chiburb
Inspired by a post by mhr in a locked LBN thread:

(I know this is old ground for many here, but it bears repeating and bookmarking for when the "official" number (U3) comes down as we near the 04's. It is also helpful to remember these things during our "Jobless Recovery")


Snip:

The deal is that there are six government-sanctioned definitions of unemployment. The six measures produce a broad range of unemployment numbers. For April 2003, the range was a scant 2.5 percent to a scary 9.8 percent.

One of the midrange numbers, dubbed U-3 and defined as "total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force," is the official unemployment rate.

• People with jobs are employed.

• People who are jobless but are looking for jobs and are available to work are unemployed.

• People who do not have jobs and are not looking or available for work are not in the labor force.

The official unemployment rate measures joblessness without including people in the third group. People in the third category -- such as "discouraged" job hunters who have temporarily given up looking because of the sour job market -- aren't counted in the official rate.

To catch these nearly invisible jobless or income-impaired people, look to three other less publicized unemployment measures:

• U-4, which estimates total unemployed plus discouraged workers. In April, U-4 was 6.1 percent.

• U-5, which estimates total unemployed plus discouraged workers plus all other "marginally attached" workers. (The marginally attached are those who are neither working nor looking for work but say they want a job and are available for one and have looked for work recently.) In April, U-5 was 6.7 percent.

• U-6, which estimates total unemployed plus marginally attached plus those who settled for part-time employment even though they want a full-time job. In April, U-6 was 9.8 percent.

In the U-6 category is the engineer who can't find an engineering job and so is working part time watering plants at the garden center. Here also is the retail clerk whose hours were cut back to 20 a week.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/business/5962629.htm

Also:

From a PBS Newshour report:

Snip:

PAUL SOLMAN: When the government adds the white-collar unemployed to out-of-work urban youth, plus the manufacturing workers who've borne the brunt of the recession and jobless recovery, it comes up with an average official unemployment rate of 6.4 percent, highest in a decade, and more than 50 percent higher than it was just two years ago. Now, there is a positive way to look at it. Today's 6.4 percent is nowhere near the post-depression record of 10.8 percent, set back in the recession of 1982. Chicago-based John Challenger, however, in the outplacement business since the early '80s, says unemployment is much worse than the official number suggests.

JOHN CHALLENGER: 6.4 percent only tells the first part of the story. There are discouraged workers. There are people who have been marginalized, and that puts unemployment up over 12 percent.

PAUL SOLMAN: John Challenger's extreme claim, first made to us on the phone, is what motivated this story, and what we came to Chicago to explore: That today's unofficial unemployment rate is much higher than the official 6.4 percent. And in fact, what we found suggests that for men in the workforce, today's number actually rivals the 10.8 percent record of 1982, because, it turns out, there are four factors suppressing today's official number, at least for men: Millions more discouraged workers than there were in 1982; millions more on disability; nearly 1.5 million more incarcerated men; and finally, there's a demographic factor. Today's is an older workforce. To make it comparable to 1982, the economists we spoke with would adjust today's number upward for that reason alone. And the same is true for each of these categories. Take discouraged workers, who aren't officially counted as unemployed unless they say they actively looked for work in the past four weeks.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/unemployment_07-29.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. How true
• U-6, which estimates total unemployed plus marginally attached plus those who settled for part-time employment even though they want a full-time job. In April, U-6 was 9.8 percent.

In the U-6 category is the engineer who can't find an engineering job and so is working part time watering plants at the garden center. Here also is the retail clerk whose hours were cut back to 20 a week.

---

count me in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Only U3 on BLS site now - all other series (U1 to U7) hidden!
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea2.txt

Then one notes that "Not strictly comparable with prior years. For an explanation, see "Historical Comparability" under the Household Data section of the Explanatory Notes and Estimates of Error.The population figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.Beginning in January 2003, data are not strictly comparable with data for 2002 and earlier years because of the revisions in the population controls used in the household survey."

Amazing! :-(

Only average annual numbers are now linked - all the old Clinton spreadsheets that gave one 40 years of monthly data have been removed. But the US Media does not object - so why should I? :-)

year..........unemployed...................discouraged/or not looking

2000........2975 male+2717 female.......25684 male+ 44310 female
2001........3690......3111..............26396.......44962
2002........4597......3781..............27085.......45621

It looks like the first two years of Bush (6 months of "recession and 18 months of expansion) have resulted in lost jobs by U3 definition of 2,686,000 and new discouraged workers of as many as 2,702,000.

I wonder if the financial media will ever dig and find the true extent of the Bush economic disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Highly doubtful.
"I wonder if the financial media will ever dig and find the true extent of the Bush economic disaster."

If they did that, then it would put into question the religion of supply side economics, and the promise of "free markets" as a panacea to all our world's problems.:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hi Chiburb
Edited on Mon Sep-08-03 05:34 PM by mhr
Thanks for the posting credit.

I use the article on unemployment rates almost daily. Every time I speak with anyone that believes the economy is fine out comes this article. Understandably most people have never heard of the other unemployment rates.

I have been unemployed for a very long time and can quote many stats by heart. Those that still have employment cling to the belief that only the lazy are out of work. I have resorted to many tactics to find employment. The latest is magnetic signs for my car doors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kick for Exposure
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chiburb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. One more kick for the dinner hour...
Anybody got a job for this person?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vision Donating Member (818 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. Second hand knowledge here
My boss' girlfriend works in an unemployment in the KC Metro area. We were talking today and I said that real unemployment is probably about 10% and he said "No it isn't. It is much higher." He went on to explain that his girlfriend see the raw numbers and that it is worse than that in the KC area at least. He did not put a number on it but since he is a big Repub and Bush supporter I was really surprised that he said what he did. Who knows what the real numbers are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaPaJohn Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. MI
In West Michigan the official unemployment is 8.5%. In fact Muskegon county is 10.5%. This is an area that had a much lower un emplyment rate than the rest of the country just a couple years ago. It is brutal in the job market right now. I wonder what the stats look like for the people who have given up looking for work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Hi PaPaJohn!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. I have to ask
how does the government know you're looking for work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aries Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. They call you up at home
in the Current Population Survey...

"...These statistics are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which is conducted by the Census Bureau for BLS. This monthly survey of the population uses a sample of households that is designed to represent the civilian noninstitutional population of the United States...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. why in the hell can't the media challenge any of the phony #'s....
typical "reality" that is spun like a top by this admin.
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 Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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