Somebody needs to investigate: Unemployment down; layoffs up?

[cantstandbush]

How is it possible that with the number of layoff that have occurring in the last two years that unemployment is the lowest in the last five years? Counting the number of layoffs by major companies and the number of jobs outsourced this figure is either a lie or it means something else.
I suspect that people who are laid off are not looking for work within the first year or two, at least not officially, choosing instead to live off their unemployoment or employee severance money. People who are not looking for work, although unemployed, are not counted in the unemployment numbers. Just a guess on my part but I really suspect these numbers. i know too many people who were employed five years ago who are still unemployed.

[NanceGreggs]

1. I stand to be corrected ...

... but I think this is right: The 'numbers' are derived from the number of people collecting Unemployment benefits. Once your benefits run out, you are off the list - so by 'their' count, you are no longer unemployed.

[smartvoter]

3. Yes. They changed the way unemployment is tallied after * got in.

The last estimate I saw, which was at election time, was that it is 2.5 to 3 points higher under historical measurement standards (this was a paper from BYU, I think).

[FloridaPat]

4. Seem to remember the same problem under Reagan.

Unemployment was around 8%, but tons of people were out of work. People suggested the real unemployment rate was the same as the Depression - around 25%.

Just heard that since all the Baby Boomers are starting to retire, we really don't need all those jobs. Good thing we're sending them overseas than.

[havocmom]

2. Changed the way they arrive at the unemployment number

When someone's benefits run out, they are no longer counted. See, magic!

Sort of like the way they change items indexed to compute the cost of living/inflation rate. If something does not fit the results they want at the end, it is removed from the equation.

[Nordmadr]

5. I don't know how much unemployment statistics can be relied upon.

They never seem to make any sense to me, but since it is just a sample surveying, seems likley to be fairly variable.



Where do the statistics come from?
Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed persons in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics of such persons. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate--which tells you the percent of the labor force that is unemployed--receive wide coverage in the press, on radio, and on television.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Other people think that the Government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted--just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker come to their homes every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey.

More:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Olafr

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Because of Poor/Fraudulent Stats

My understanding is that unemployment figures in the US do not count the "chronically" unemployed. European numbers do. If we counted unemployment the way Europe does, our numbers would be similar to Europe's - 8%-12% range.

In general, US statistics, such as unemployment and income are designed to make things seem as good as possible, rather than to be accurate. For example, "family income" is usually cited instead of "individual worker income" - individual worker income has been dropping since 1970 or so, but family income went up for a fair number of years as more people per family went to work.

Feh.

[cantstandbush]

7. So, if I am understanding you all correctly, we will suffer even more high

interest rates because the Bush administration is fudging the unemployment numbers. Ah ha!! Follow the money. Higher interest rates benefit whom? You got it, the "money changers" big business, banks, insurance companies, etc. while the little people have to pay through the ass once again.

[AllegroRondo]

8. When 24,000 people apply for 350 jobs at a new Wal Mart

you know theres something wrong.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html