"Dep't of Labor recorded 17,000 jobs lost nationwide in the month of January"

[El Pinko]

http://www.hudsonreporter.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19277959&BRD=1291&PAG=461&dept_id=523590&rfi=6


Show me the money!

By: Nicolas Millan
Reporter staff writer 02/10/2008


Further proof that the national economic situation is worsening was unearthed Feb. 1, when the U.S. Department of Labor recorded 17,000 jobs lost nationwide in the month of January.

Gary Steinberg, press officer for the U.S. Labor Department, confirmed the figures and also noted a 4.9-percent unemployment rate for the month as well.

....

Last Wednesday, the bill was blocked by the Senate Republicans in a 58-41 vote. Although many Republicans agreed to amend the bill to include benefits for veterans and seniors, they didn't want to include benefits for the long-term unemployed.

....

According to one local Union City resident, Oscar Perez, "We're already in a recession, and it's only going to get worse."

[havocmom]

1. How many unemployed has benefits run out? They are no longer counted as unemployed

so did the figures end up looking better? It makes me furious that huge groups of unemployed people just simply vanish from the stats.

[TahitiNut]

2. That's just not true. It's a myth.

The miscomprehension that people are no longer counted as unemployed when their benefits run out is repeated endlessly ... but it just ain't true and never has been.

It's easy to ascertain this, simply by reading http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm

Where do the statistics come from?

Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, 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.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. There Are, However, Underlying Assumptions In The Figure

That's how the numbers can be made to look better. For those who simply haven't looked for job in the last 4 weeks, there has to be an estimate from the sample data. Moving that estimate around, in some circumstances can change the reported number by a statistically significant value.

So, tricks can still be played to the advantage of the "reporting body".
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

7. Yes, indeed. As with any sampling and survey-based methodology ...

... certain population assumptions will certainly present an opportunity to bias the conclusions. The CPS itself assumes a somewhat static residency and household composition. Clearly, the newly homeless will fall through the cracks, for example ... and there ARE employed and newly unemployed homeless persons. That's just one of the more obvious areas for an introduction of bias in month-over-month measures.

There are two ways in which one might see bias/inaccuracies: (1) in absolute terms and (2) in relative terms from one period to the next. It's one thing to argue that the measure of 4.9% is itself inaccurate and quite another to argue that an increase of 0.1% over last month (or 0.4% over last year) is inaccurate... and I'm not talking about "seasonal adjustments" which introduce a whole 'nother playground of bias.

All such inaccuracies and biases, however, are far more technical and esoteric than the misapprehension that only people receiving unemployment benefits are 'counted' and they're no longer 'counted' when their benefits expire. That's just grossly untrue ... and such a misapprehension precludes any more productive understanding of the figures.

As one who monitors (and charts) these figures regularly and has for over 10 years, I can certainly confirm the frequent "tweaks" that have made material changes in the (recent historical) numbers. Those "tweaks" and revisions have occurred several times in the Cheney/Bush adminstration ... but did a few times during Clinton/Gore, too. The gut sense I've gotten is that the "tweaks" have been far more 'convenient' in creating a rose-colored scenario during Cheney/Bush.

[radfringe]

3. since middle to jan to now

in the Wilkes-Barre - Scranton PA area ... 500 jobs cut from three larage employers...

I know the numbers are much higher from layoffs at smaller companies that aren't making the local news

[slackmaster]

4. Which does not include the 18 that got laid off by my employer on February 1

:argh:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

5. Trying to move home

Im in the twin cities right now which still has a pretty dang good job market. If I lost my job today Im pretty certain I could find another within a month (Though it would probabally be contract w/no bens). My wife and I want to move back to WNY, my parents are geting older and I want the angels to know them and them to know the angels. (also my wifes family in in NYC so were I in WNY they could drive up whenever they felt like staying a couple of days)

But this economy has me frightened, WNY already had a bad economy thats why I left (in 2002) I can even imagine how hard it would be for me to find work now..