Unemployment Deception

[unlawflcombatnt]

Friday's decline in unemployment is another testament to the Bush administration's statistical chicanery. The raw numbers give an unemployment rate of 5.1%. However, using the mystical "seasonal adjustment," the rate declines to 4.7%. Though the payroll employment number rose by 193,000, the number of those who dropped out of the participating labor force increased by 168,000. Below is a copy of the "Not In Labor Force" numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


This information can also be found at the "Not In Labor Force" statistics from Bureau of Labor Statistics site at: N.I.L.F. During November the number of new dropouts from the labor force was 250,000. Thus, over the last 2 months the number of "Not In Labor Force" workers has increased by 418,000. In fact, at a different section of the U.S. BLS site, the non-seasonally adjusted increase in the number of unemployed workers increased 652,000 in the last month alone, from 6.956 million in December to 7.608 million in January 2006. Over the last 2 months, the number of new payroll jobs has increased by only 233,000.This can be found at BLS: Employment

Thus the number of those dropping out of the labor force had increased almost twice as much as the number of new jobs, even when using "seasonally-adjusted" numbers. Using non-seasonally adjusted numbers for the last month alone, the 652,0000 workers dropping out of the labor force is over 3 times the number of new jobs created.

Both seasonal adjustment, and alteration of the "Not In Labor Force" workers has a tremendous effect on the unemployment rate. Those that drop out of the participation labor force (labelled as "Not In Labor Force") are not counted as unemployed. As a result their number is not included in the total for unemployed workers. With a total employment 143.07 million, and a total participating labor force of 150.11 million, there are 7 million unemployed workers. This gives an unemployment percentage of 4.7%. However, if the "non-seasonally" adjusted numbers were used (which are the actual raw numbers recorded by the BLS) the total number of employed workers would be 141.48 million, total participating labor force of 149.09 million, and a total of 7.608 million unemployed. Again, these latter numbers are the actual raw numbers, not the "adjusted" ones used to concoct the 4.7% number. Using the raw numbers, the unemployment rate would be 5.1%. Below is a copy of the page from the BLS showing these numbers.



These numbers can also be found at Employment.

Furthermore, even these latter numbers do not take into account the unusually high number of people who just stopped looking for work. It's just amazing how many more people have given up on finding a job under Bush than they did under Clinton. In fact, people have dropped out of the labor force under Bush at twice the rate they did during Clinton's last 5 years. In fact, had the dropout rate from the labor force over the last 5 been the same as that under Clinton, the number of those counted as "unemployed" would be 10.5 million, instead of the current 7 million. And this change alone would make the unemployment rate 7.0%, instead of 4.7%. If the seasonal adjustment factor had not been used as well, the total number unemployed would be 11.1 million, and the unemployment rate would be 7.3%.

Don't be deceived by a 4.7% unemployment rate. The numbers have been cooked by the Bush administration. Not only have they reclassified 3.5 million from unemployed into the "not-in-labor-force" category, they've used the so-called "seasonal adjustment" factor to reduce the rate even further. Without the "not-in-labor-force" manipulation, the unemployment rate would be 7.0%. But even when using that manipulation, the raw numbers put the unemployment rate at 5.1%. However, by the magic of the "seasonal adjustment" factor, that 5.1% has been further reduced to 4.7%.

The Bush administration is the most dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent administration in U.S. history.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[varkam]

1. Fuzzy math?

Excellent post.

[sandnsea]

2. Not to be rude, but

Could you give me like a 30 second radio spot on that, cuz I'm confused. :silly:

[unlawflcombatnt]

8. Explanation

In general, the unemployment rate has been lowered through 2 mechanisms. The first is by reclassifying unemployed workers as "not-in-the-labor-force." This has artificially lowered the number of those classified as unemployed. My best estimate is that it has reduced the number of reported unemployed workers by 3.5 million. I made this estimate because during the last 5 years of the Clinton administration, 3.5 million new workers dropped out of the labor force (and off the unemployment rolls.) During Bush's 5 years, the number of workers who dropped out of the labor force was 7 million. Since there is no reason why 3.5 million more workers would have dropped out under Bush than did under Clinton, I consider the increase statistical chicanery. I doubt twice as many workers simply became "too lazy" to work under Bush than did under Clinton.

The seasonal adjustment factor is the second tool in the Bush administration's miscalculation arsenal. Using the actual numbers reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (and including the arbitrary removal of 3.5 million workers), the unemployment rate would be 5.1%, not 4.7%. Again, due to some mysterious calculation known as "seasonal adjustment," they altered the actual numbers and calculated an unemployment rate of 4.7%. I can't really explain how they do this latter calculation because it makes no sense to me.

The charts may be somewhat confusing, especially one with the "empsit" part in the link. Those charts are designed to be confusing, so that the general public will have difficulty following them. And if the public can't follow and critique the actual numbers, then they're forced to accept some Right-Wing spin artist's interpretation instead.

The overall point here is that the published unemployment number has been severely doctored in several different ways. Under the Bush junta, the stated unemployment rate is almost useless information.

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[laheina]

12. Right.

I consider the increase statistical chicanery. I doubt twice as many workers simply became "too lazy" to work under Bush than did under Clinton.

More likely that they either gave up, they settled for a lesser paying job, or their unemployment simply ran out. These are all ways that unemployed or underemployed people can be left our of unemployment statistics.

[NoFederales]

35. Do you have statistics on other reclassification chicanery like

remaking service industry jobs ( McDonald's burger cooks ) into "other" industrial categories. I read somewhere that had happened but never took the time to run it down?

NoFederales

[unlawflcombatnt]

41. Other Statistical Chicanery

I don't have any information in front of me on other unemployment chicanery, such as the "McDonald burger cook" classification, but I can certainly dig some up. I certainly have a lot of references in how the inflation rate is manipulated, however.

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Sawber1000]

58. Actually

You need to consider the aging workforce. Older folks are leaving the workforce in greater numbers than they did during the 90's.

[unlawflcombatnt]

61. Older Workers

Actually, that's not true. The older-age group participation rate has actually increased since the 90's. It's the only age group where labor force participation has increased. I've actually got a copy of a graph somewhere that shows this. I'll post it when I find it.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[guidod]

28. The Seahawks kick ass...

...good luck tomorrow!

[Virginian]

3. But Dell just announced that it will be hiring 5,000 new employees...

...
.
.
In India.

When he talks about how many jobs have been created during his term in office, how come no one ever asks how many H-1b visas were issued to foreign nationals to take those jobs.

[varkam]

4. I agree

it seems like the news media is oft reporting on how many new jobs were added to the workforce, but neglects to mention that those gains are largely marginalized by how many jobs are lost / outsourced.

[laheina]

13. Or that any new jobs

pay less or have no benefits. Like when * and his people were trying to reclassify jobs at McDonald's as "manufacturing" jobs.

[Mnemosyne]

5. This is the number we can never know

"Furthermore, even these latter numbers do not take into account the unusually high number of people who just stopped looking for work."

This is the number that tells the true story of the American unemployed. And it increases weekly.

Heartbreaking.

[EST]

6. Beautiful job!

I have beaten people over the head with these numbers for over a year, now. No matter how you slice it, the real unemployment rate comes out to over 11%.
Since I don't throw things and yell anymore when they announce these numbers, and merely mumble and grumble, I've gone from "violent" to "disturbed."

All seriousness aside, there are some other things they do, as well, in how the counting is done that puts the actual number at 17% or more, with non-white numbers around 60%+. Tragic.
The really amazing thing is that, like a magician, the administration thinks they can get away with selling the bullshit instead of doing something about this smelly mess, and they are right!

(A comic strip magician, from 50 years ago, on being asked to cast a spell on a flat tire, since they were in a hurry to get to the airport, told his driver, "I can hypnotize you into believing the tire is ok; I can even hypnotize me into thinking the tire is ok, but how in the hell am I going to hypnotize the tire into thinking it's ok?!)

[American liberal]

7. thank you very much...

I told a friend of mine today that I get much of my news and info. from DU these days, 'cause I sure as hell can't trust the MSM regurgitating machine.

[banana republican]

9. they have been lying for several years now.

Krugman has written several articles about this over the years....

[Nederland]

55. Yes, for like 30 years now

This information is nothing new. The department of labor has produced seasonally adjusted numbers and "Not in Labor Force" numbers for years. It really doesn't matter too much how you calculate the numbers, so long as you always do it the same way.

If you always do it the same way, you can always see the trends...

[Digit]

10. I will be one more added to the rolls in about two weeks

I have been sending out resumes now for the past 7 months, and have not even managed an INTERVIEW!
I sent out 8 in the past week alone. Nothing. Nada. Oh, and these are not high paying jobs at all.
Maybe I am being optomistic that they may give me a dollar more when actually hired.
It is all about lowering my expectations, but GEEEZZZZZ.

Somedays the despair I feel almost overtakes me. I feel cast aside and am having a difficult time finding joy in anything. And you know, I am not one of the WORST off out there, and I know that.
How in the hell are they getting by?

[Free the Press]

11. Be advised, Corporations ARE hiring a lot now too.

They are trying to give reason to believe the statistics.

Was it Dostoevsky that said the best lies are little ones surrounded by mostly truths?

National Election years have brought massive hiring practices by corporations over the last 6 years: in 2002, 2004, and now in 2006.

By massive I mean 25% or better for some corporations.

In the off years, massive layoffs and firings.

It almost serves as a Corporate personnel shake-up practice that rewards Republicans at the ballot box, who then reward corporations with more tax breaks and corporate welfare, all while keeping lower workers at corporations scared as hell and ready to do anything to keep their jobs.

The fix is in, but the effort to legitimize the election results is vast and determined.

Don't be surprised if the Republicans pick-up a super majority in Congress, though they may have to settle for the DLC's CENTRIST candidates in order to pass their CORPORATE LEGISLATION for a couple of years until the smoke from these scandals clears.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2438061&mesg_id=2438061

[unlawflcombatnt]

14. Corporations

I share your dislike of Corporations. I think the biggest problem we face today is Corporate control of our country and our government. Most legislation is written by Corporate lobbyists. The overwhelming number of laws passed by the federal government are designed to assist and protect corporations, not the common man.

The creeping increase in corporate control of our country is only a short step from overt fascism.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[bananas]

15. Don't forget - the "not seasonally adjusted" data are seasonally adjusted

by the CES Net Birth/Death Model:
"The net birth/death model component figures are unique to each month and exhibit a seasonal pattern that can result in negative adjustments in some months."
"Note that the the net birth/death figures are not seasonally adjusted, and are applied to not seasonally adjusted monthly employment links to determine the final estimate."
http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

[Neil Lisst]

16. Every month they float this outrageous LIE about unemployment.

I cannot believe the media simply report it, as if it were true.

If employment were as full as team Bush reports each month, the revenues would obviate the need for more deficit financing, and jobs would be chasing young grads, instead of the opposite.

There is no bigger fraud being perpetrated on the public today then this LIE of a 4.7% unemployment rate.

[AndyA]

20. We can thank Reagan for the one-sided media reporting

He did away with the requirement that media present fair and balanced news.

God in heaven, what have the Republicans ever done that was GOOD for America?

[Greyhound]

47. Yes he did, followed by 41 allowing foreign nationals to own US

media, followed by Clinton allowing the consolidation of the media. The corporations are well represented in both parties. Nine months today, can we give birth to a new, 'better' way?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

64. Clinton too

He helped, then they finished the job in 2003.

[unlawflcombatnt]

23. Exactly

I completely agree. I don't see how they can keep a straight face reporting this number when there are over 77 million in the working age population who are simply classified as "Not-In-Labor-Force."

The revenue shortage certainly doesn't support this artificially low number. However, that's also complicated by a combination of the Bush Corporatocracy's 2nd and 3rd biggest lies, regarding inflation and real wages.

Inflation is up in everything that the BLS doesn't measure. And that under-calculation causes them to understate the real wage declines that American workers have experienced.

The Bush junta believes that if you're going to lie, you might as well lie about everything. And you might as well make them big lies, since it's just as easy.

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Neil Lisst]

24. It's like taking all the small cards out of the deck, then showing ...

... then showing your hand and saying "look, all face cards!"

Well, Duh!

No one has ever dreamed of cooking the books like they're doing. If we had full employment as they represent it is, the deficit would disappear due to increased revenues.

NOT COUNTING the unemployed doesn't make them EMPLOYED.

[A Simple Game]

25. No of course not counting the unemployed doesn't make them

employed, but it does make them not unemployed. That is all they care about.

They don't care if any of us have a job, they just care that they look good.

[unlawflcombatnt]

42. Percentage Employed

I think we should start using the percentage employed statistic, like the British do. Instead of using the completely fabricated unemployment number that has got too many nuances to count, we could easily calculate the percent of the working age population actually employed. This would come out to about 65% to 66%. It wouldn't fluctuate as rapidly, and it wouldn't be subject to all the alterations of the number considered unemployed. All those not working in the working age population would be put in the same category, regardless of the whims of Administration spin artists.

It still wouldn't eliminate the misclassification of the marginally employed as truly employed, but it would be a step in the right direction.

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[area51]

17. 5.1%

Everyone who's tried to get a job in this economy & failed knows the unemployment rate is much higher than 5.1%.

[NMDemDist2]

18. my hubby and I are both "out of the labor force" and have been

since 2003

it ain't pretty out here ......

[raccoon]

34. Are you both over 40? nt

[Yupster]

62. Come down to the oil patch

Plenty of jobs down here.

Don't know how long the boom will last, but we're starving for workers down here right now. Almost any job as the oil jobs have pulled people from every other occupation leaving everyone needing workers.

[TheUnspeakable]

19. thanks so much for this!

I knew the numbers were false (just by looking around me at friends and family)
but didn't know how to check it. thanks!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Other fudges

Anyone who works even one hour a week is counted as "employed," so the worker who is reduced to part-time or temping is counted the same as the worker who has a forty-hour job.

Furthermore, we have more of our "surplus" workers in prison than any other industrialized country.

If we take all the discouraged workers, the part-timers who would rather be full-time, and the people who are in prison because economic desperation led them to drug dealing or theft, our unemployment rate is as high as any in Europe. The difference is that most European countries have a real social safety net.

[unlawflcombatnt]

22. Other Factors

There certainly are a lot of other fudges used by this administration to artificially lower the unemployment rate. Even some of those working for the Federal Reserve, such as Katherine Bradbury of the Philadelphia Fed, have put the number much higher. The Bush administration has used every statistical manipulation tool at its disposal to concoct lower numbers. The "Not-In-Labor-Force" number is the most glaring example and the easiest to demonstrate.

It simply makes no sense that twice as many people have dropped out of the labor force under Bush than did under Clinton's last 5 years. The only explanation to me is that they have simply reclassified and moved 3.5 million truly "unemployed" workers into the category of "Not-In-Labor-Force." This allows them to eliminate that 3.5 million from the number classified as unemployed, lowering the number unemployed by 1/3. Thus they are calculating the unemployment rate using a total unemployed number that has been artificially reduced by 1/3.

Eliminating the other fudges would make the total number even greater than the 10.5 million number that I've calculated.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[robcon]

26. You can't have it both ways...

Statistically, the numbers are valid. The seasonal adjustments have been standard for decades, and there is not a whiff of problem with the analyses.

The big seasonal differences between December and January is the availability of temporary workers - most of them in retail for the holidays. These are temporary entrants into the labor force, and they fill temporary jobs, mostly at retail stores and shipping companies (e.g., UPS, FedEx). There are also some peaking of manufacturing jobs in some industries.

The big effect in January is the removal of these retail/shipping workers from the labor force, especially the return of students to school, thereby removing them from the workforce - defined as people who say they are working or are looking for work.

These are adjustments that have been going on since the Truman administration. The unadjusted unemployment rates are:

December 2005: 4.6%
January 2006: 5.1%

These are less reflective of the state of employment than the seasonally adjusted numbers, which are

December 2005: 4.9%
January 2006: 4.7%

The BLS is a partisan-free agency, IMO.

[sandnsea]

27. That's just one category

I agree with you on the seasonally adjusted, been around since I can remember.

However, I do know they are counting people who are doing odd jobs as self-employed now, when they used to be counted as unemployed because they would take a good job if they could fine one. I remember hearing them discuss it a few years ago. I believe the number of people in prison is also creating a false sense of reality on job availability. There has also been reports that half the new jobs are going to immigrants and illegal immigrants. So there really is alot more going on with the raw unemployment statistic than we're being told. Don't you find it peculiar that we've supposedly created more jobs in the last 2 years, yet the unemployment rate is going up? Makes no sense at all.

[unlawflcombatnt]

30. Adjustments

The point is that the actual numbers give an unemployment rate of 5.1%, not 4.7%. That's just one of the methods used to understate the unemployment rate, and a minor one at that. It would be far more honest to say that the unemployment rate is 5.1%, but it's always higher in January. Instead, they simply changed the actual calculation using the actual numbers and claim it has been "seasonally adjusted."

But there is a much more important method used to understate the unemployment rate. This entails moving 3.5 million more truly unemployed workers into the "Not-In-Labor-Force" category than was done over the same amount of time under Clinton. Again, this reduces what would have been a 10.5 million unemployed number down to 7 million unemployed. That's really where the big difference is. And it's pure, absolute statistical manipulation, and nothing more.

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[AllegroRondo]

33. Still more fudges

in 2003, they switched people who received SS disability from 'not in the labor force' to 'employed'.

[murdoch]

38. "The" Unemployment rate is actually officially Unemployment Rate III

The official unemployment rate reported in the news comes from the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics. But it is just the "U-3" rate, unemployment rate #3. There are actually 6 unemployment rates, U-1 to U-6. U-1 is very conservative and very small, smaller than the offical U-3 rate. U-6 is more liberal, including people who say were lawyers and are now forced to work at McDonalds, or who want to be full-time but want to work part-time.

When they say US unemployment is lower than European unemployment, that's not really correct, it is usually comparing the U-3 rate with a European equivalent of a U-6 rate. Also, if the US did away with unemployment insurance altogether, that would make unemployment drop, but that's not necessarily a good thing in that scenario, right?

[tritsofme]

39. When expressing European unemployment using US methods

US unemployment is still considerably less than unemployment in countries such as Germany or France:

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=key_workplace

[Greyhound]

48. How about the other way? Using the european method to count

US unemployment?

[depakid]

40. Thanks for the prison angle

Most people don't consider about that even though it's a significant part of the overall equation.

[guidod]

29. Greay thread, thanks!

A lot of people have had their unemployment run out, where do they fit in?

[cyberia]

31. One note of caution:

Is it possible that at least a portion of those leaving the labor force are going into retirement? We haven't hit the baby boom bulge, but perhaps it is heating up as early retirement kicks in.

In France, many go on unemployment at about age 60, so they account for part of the high unemployment statistics. In fact, they are not unemployed, but have made an agreement with their employer to take early retirement. Until age 65, the pick up unemployment insurance, then their pension kicks in.

The point: Early retirement exagerates unemployment figures in France; perhaps it contributes signficantly to those leaving the labor force in the US.

[mike923]

49. I think so...

my dad retired late last year, my mom retired early last year. Are they considered unemployed?

[tritsofme]

32. You make it sound as though "not in the labor force" is a new idea

Its been around as long as I can remember.

And just because the reasons it is done may not be clear or agreed upon by all, does not make it wrong.

If a person is no longer actively searching for work, how can they still be considered as part of the labor force?

You also need to be careful when comparing numbers derived from the Establishment Survey and the Current Population Survey.

The government isn't hiding anything either, they put all of the information on the internet, you can see alternative measures of unemployment here:
http://stats.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

I also see nothing wrong with seasonal adjustments, if we know every year that there are certain cyclical patterns that can be measured and taken out to smoothen the unemployment picture, there is no reason it shouldn't be done.

[unlawflcombatnt]

44. Not In Labor Force

I'm not sure if you understood the point I made in the OP. The number of new people classified as "not in the labor force" has increased twice as fast under Bush as it did during Clinton's last 5 years. Though the concept has been around for years, it has never been abused as much as it has been by the Bush administration.

When the unemployment rate declines, and the number of those classified as not in the labor force increases, it's not much of a stretch to connect the 2. If more out of work workers are classified as "not-in-the-labor-force," and the unemployment rate declines, it's at least partly the result of less of those out of work workers being classified as unemployed.


EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[tritsofme]

45. I don't see it as abuse

Rather its a picture of economic reality, and has many contributing factors.

As the labor market has been fairly lackluster the past several years, people who can't find work are leaving the labor market. Maybe to retire, maybe to go back to school.

This isn't abuse of a statistic, its just the way things are.

A more consistent stat to look at would be the labor force participation rate and the employment population ratio.

[unlawflcombatnt]

50. Employment to Population Ratio

That's a good idea and it is one the British use.

Regarding the participation rate, that's a number I've frequently sited on this board and know right off the top of my head. During the last years of the Clinton administration that number was 67.2%. It currently stands at 66.0%. If there are 228 million working age Americans, that 1.2% reduction = 2.7 million workers. This means there are 2.7 million more workers "not working" who are classified as "not-in-labor-force" than there would be if the Clinton-era participation rate had been used. To me this simply means that these workers would have been classified as "unemployed" under Clinton, whereas they're classified as "not in the labor force" under Bush.

I think it is deceptive to site an unemployment statistic that has been calculated this way and then compare it to the Clinton-era unemployment rate which would have included 2.7 million more workers on the unemployment rolls.

The "not-in-labor-force" determination is not the slightest bit scientific. It's based on subjective answers on a questionnaire. It's less scientific than palm reading.

This manipulation of the labor force participation rate may not be "abuse," but it certainly is deceptive. And this deception needs to be pointed out as often as possible.

Bush is doing an awful job as president, especially when it comes to employment and the economy. His only defense to his economic buffoonery is to lie about it, just like he has with everything else.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[tritsofme]

51. You can find the employment to population ratio on Table A-1

of the Employment Situation Report.

As for the rest, I understand your argument, but I do not believe that the way we calculate the unemployment rate is inherently wrong.

Historically, a labor force participation rate of 66% is on the upper end of the scale.

The average LFP since 1980 is 65.9.

However the general rise in the LFP in post war America has more to do with women joining the labor force than anything else.

The LFP coming off its late 1990s peak is probably a mixed reaction to a weak economy and an aging population begginning to retire in greater numbers.

[unlawflcombatnt]

52. Labor Force Participation Rate

I agree that the LFPR coming off the 2000 peak is due to a weak economy. As for the "average" rate since 1980, it should be computed in when comparing the unemployment rate under Clinton, when the participation rate was over 67%. In other words, when the unemployment rate under Clinton was calculated to be 3.9%, it should be downwardly adjusted further if the labor force participation rate was abnormally high. So that would probably put the lowest unemployment rate under Clinton in the low or mid 3 percentage range.

Bush is clearly doing much worse, if you adjust for the labor force participation rate changes.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[tritsofme]

53. I agree with most of you said

But the criteria for measuring the labor force has not changed since the 1990s.

Would you disagree that structural changes in the economy, including the retirement of the baby boomers, ceteris paribus will cause the LFPR in general to stagnate or decline from its late 90s peak?

[unlawflcombatnt]

54. Structural vs. Cyclical

No, I do not agree that this is due to "structural" changes as it relates to unemployment and job skills. I believe it is cyclic, and related to a stagnating economy. It is not due to American job skills not matching the job skill requirements of American business. What it is related to is the pay requirements of American workers not matching what Corporate America is willing to pay. Maybe that could be labeled a "structural" change.

In fact, many workers in the high-skill sector have lost jobs, despite the alleged demand for such skills. This is especially true in computer-related fields.

The decline in demand for many of these jobs is the result of capital investment in foreign labor markets allowing American owned Corporations to substitute cheap foreign labor for American labor.

"Structural" unemployment is a convenient term used by economists when they can't explain job loss in an economy that is "strong, and getting stronger." Though I accept that such a concept exists, it certainly does not apply at present. And it certainly does not explain the increased number of those allegedly dropping out of the work force at present.

There is a simple, free market solution to increasing the number of high-skilled workers. Pay them more. It works every time.

There is no such thing as a job an American won't do. Nor is there a shortage of workers skilled enough to do any job. There is only a shortage of employers willing to pay enough to hire Americans to do those jobs.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Roland99]

56. And it doesn't being to cover the UNDEREMPLOYMENT issues

as well as workers lacking in healthcare coverage vs. that under the Clinton years.

[unlawflcombatnt]

60. Underemployed

You're right. It certainly does not cover those who are underemployed. It's hard determine how many actually would fall into that category.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

[The Straight Story]

57. Isn't this to be expected with more people getting older

ie, baby boom generation leaving the work force?

As a side note, I know 5 people off the top of my head, all in their 20's, who are not looking for work at all and are leeching of parents/grandparents. All have found jobs and quit them because they don't like working.

[unlawflcombatnt]

59. Nothing New

I knew people like that all through the 80's and 90's. There's nothing new about a bunch of guys in their 20's deciding not to work and live off their parents. What is new is that a higher number of truly unemployed workers are being re-classified today as "not in the labor force." That's the only difference between years of the Bush buffoonocracy and all of the previous years. More of these so-called "not-in-the-labor-force" workers were classified as "unemployed" during Clinton's last 5 years, thus making the unemployment rate calculation higher under Clinton than it would be today.

Using the same labor force participation used during the end of Clinton's presidency (67.2%) would make today's unemployment rate 6.8%, not the statistically manipulated 4.7% that the administration is currently claiming.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[NoFederales]

36. kick

NoFederales

[AX10]

37. Very Well Done my friend.

:hi:

[PsycheCC]

43. Great Reading! Thanks for all the research.

:kick:

[jfern]

46. I played around with making URLs

Here's one that shows just the data for the Bush adminstration.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS15000000&output_view=data&from_year=2001&to_year=2006

[dsc]

63. a few things

First bravo on your post. You did a great job here and I love the way you got the table to show up neatly. I haven't figured that out at all.

I do have a few questions though.

One, is there a decimal point missing on your table? I don't believe that 77 million people age 16 and over are out of the labor force. Am I messing up here?

Two, I don't actually think Bush is cooking stats here, but that doesn't leave him off the hook by any means. Bush refused to extend unemployment benefits which resulted in people being kicked off them sooner and thus being listed as dropped out of the labor force. Also having a corps of discouraged workers is hardly an accomplishment. Bush has demonstrably made that situation worse. I just don't think it is through misreporting unemployment that he has done so.

Again great job.