The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

  • Thread starter Thread starter anthony022071
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The U3 unemployment ONLY counts those collecting unemployment benefits as unemployed.

If they’re out of work more than 6 months, they no longer can collect unemployment, game over, they drop out of the unemployment rate. Even though they are still looking for work.
BLS:

“Unemployed persons include those who did not have a job during the reference week, had actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work. Actively looking for work includes activities such as contacting a possible employer, contacting an employment agency or employment center, having a job interview, sending out resumes, filling out job applications, placing or answering job advertisements, and checking union or professional registers.”

If you aren’t doing any of those things then you are not looking for work.
 
Technically everyone age 16 and up can and should be employed. Why should people who don’t want to be employed and/or have no intention of being employed be counted in a metric intended to measure the health of the job market for those who do want to be employed and are looking for work?
I would agree with this but one should exclude full time HS and Post secondary students while they are in school.
 
Because people who have given up in despair are still victims of this corporate dominated economy.

Once they reduce us all to the same level of desperation that illegal immigrants are in they might close the border.
I heard this morning that virtually all new jobs created since 2007 have been taken by immigrants. Approximately 2/3 of those were taken by illegal immigrants or immigrants whose status is undefined. About 1/3 are legal immigrants.

Maybe that’s as true as they made it, and I don’t doubt for a minute that corporate interests support cheap labor through immigration. But the government, whose actual responsibility it is to enforce immigration laws, is the most to blame. It is also evident to me that the current administration favors open borders and generous grants of work permits to illegal immigrants. “If you don’t like the population you have, then…”
 
I heard this morning that virtually all new jobs created since 2007 have been taken by immigrants. Approximately 2/3 of those were taken by illegal immigrants or immigrants whose status is undefined. About 1/3 are legal immigrants.

Maybe that’s as true as they made it, and I don’t doubt for a minute that corporate interests support cheap labor through immigration. But the government, whose actual responsibility it is to enforce immigration laws, is the most to blame. It is also evident to me that the current administration favors open borders and generous grants of work permits to illegal immigrants. “If you don’t like the population you have, then…”
In this Republic which elects most of its major officers, that the government is taken over by corporate lobbyists is entirely WE THE PEOPLE’s fault.

Maybe if we spent more time reading about the political machines and less about football spread sheets, lol, maybe we could address the problem better.
 
Yes they are. The BLS has always stated in the employment situation summaries that those who have not searched for work within a certain number of weeks leading up to the survey are not counted. And why should they be? Unemployment statistics wouldn’t have any value at all if you’re lumping in retirees and other people who either don’t want to work or just aren’t looking for work. What would be the use-case for a such a statistic?
The problem with any single statistic is that it has limitations. Data can sometimes be hard to collect, hence somebody has to decide where to draw the line and how to take the measurement.

Hence, I agree with you in that this is a number consistent with the methodology in the past. We can’t go comparing it against past years/decades if we change the methodology. Sure it’s a lie, but it’s always been a lie, just not a deliberate one- it was only one indicator and not intended to capture the entire job/labor situation.

There is another number (at least) that one has to look at in conjunction with the unemployment rate to understand the health of the US job market. Labor participation rate, which is very bad. There are more folks than ever before both in total numbers and as a percentage of the population who are not participants in the labor pool. These are folks of working age who neither hold jobs or are looking for jobs. There’s always been a number for folks who don’t want jobs (SAHMs, SAHDs, trust fund babies -some of those folks are unpaid volunteers as an avocation- full time students on scholarships, etc.). But that number/percentage has grown substantially over past years- folks who’ve been out of work so long they no longer receive unemployment benefits and have given up on looking for work. Given up on a job, not wanting to be without a job.

You could also throw in cost of living vs prevailing wages, income growth, income distribution, net jobs created, wages for lost jobs compared to wages for jobs created… any one number won’t convey the entire situation.
 
The problem with any single statistic is that it has limitations. Data can sometimes be hard to collect, hence somebody has to decide where to draw the line and how to take the measurement.

Hence, I agree with you in that this is a number consistent with the methodology in the past. We can’t go comparing it against past years/decades if we change the methodology. Sure it’s a lie, but it’s always been a lie, just not a deliberate one- it was only one indicator and not intended to capture the entire job/labor situation.

There is another number (at least) that one has to look at in conjunction with the unemployment rate to understand the health of the US job market. Labor participation rate, which is very bad. There are more folks than ever before both in total numbers and as a percentage of the population who are not participants in the labor pool. These are folks of working age who neither hold jobs or are looking for jobs. There’s always been a number for folks who don’t want jobs (SAHMs, SAHDs, trust fund babies -some of those folks are unpaid volunteers as an avocation- full time students on scholarships, etc.). But that number/percentage has grown substantially over past years- folks who’ve been out of work so long they no longer receive unemployment benefits and have given up on looking for work. Given up on a job, not wanting to be without a job.

You could also throw in cost of living vs prevailing wages, income growth, income distribution, net jobs created, wages for lost jobs compared to wages for jobs created… any one number won’t convey the entire situation.
And you can also throw in that quit/fired ratio to test the health of an economy. 🙂
 
Yes they are. The BLS has always stated in the employment situation summaries that those who have not searched for work within a certain number of weeks leading up to the survey are not counted.
The unemployment rate is made known to the public by way of news articles,which usually do not mention that people who are not looking for work are not counted as unemployed.
And why should they be? Unemployment statistics wouldn’t have any value at all if you’re lumping in retirees and other people who either don’t want to work or just aren’t looking for work. What would be the use-case for a such a statistic?
It would show how bad or good the situation is with employment overall. If a large proportion of people who can and should be working are not,for whatever reasons,that is a societal crisis that can bring down civilization. What is the use of a statistic that does not count all the people who could and should be working? If half of the population was unemployed,partly because of unwillingness to work,partly because of discouragement at the lack of jobs,but the unemployment rate was said to be 5%,would that be an honest account of unemployment? Would that be a “healthy job market”?
 
That is not correct. The unemployment rate has nothing to do with whether or not one receives benefits. It is from a totally separate survey.
Correct.

When I was unemployed and my benefits ran out, I was still a member of the local division of employment office who helped with job searches and interview and resume education.

Those members, although not receiving benefits are counted as unemployed by the government.

Jim
 
BLS:

“Unemployed persons include those who did not have a job during the reference week, had actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work. Actively looking for work includes activities such as contacting a possible employer, contacting an employment agency or employment center, having a job interview, sending out resumes, filling out job applications, placing or answering job advertisements, and checking union or professional registers.”

If you aren’t doing any of those things then you are not looking for work.
And if you read a little further down on that page:
The benchmark process re-anchors sample-based estimates to a nearly complete count of employment based primarily on Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax records for March of each year
After six months they run out of unemployment benefits, they’re not counted as U3 unemployment rate (the one trumped in the subject line) but are definitely part of U6.
 
wallstreetonparade.com/2015/02/gallup-ceo-fears-he-might-suddenly-disappear-for-questioning-u-s-jobs-data/

Yesterday, Jim Clifton, the Chairman and CEO of Gallup, an iconic U.S. company dating back to 1935, told CNBC that he was worried he might “suddenly disappear” and not make it home that evening if he disputed the accuracy of what the U.S. government is reporting as unemployed Americans.

The CNBC interview came one day after Clifton had penned a gutsy opinion piece on Gallup’s web site, defiantly calling the government’s 5.6 percent unemployment figure “The Big Lie” in the article’s headline. His appearance on CNBC was apparently to walk back the “lie” part of the title and reframe the jobs data as just hopelessly deceptive.

Clifton stated the following on CNBC:

“I think that the number that comes out of BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the Department of Labor is very, very accurate. I need to make that very, very clear so that I don’t suddenly disappear. I need to make it home tonight.”

After getting that out of the way, Clifton went on to eviscerate the legitimacy of the cheerful spin given to the unemployment data, telling CNBC viewers that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population “is the worst it’s been in 30 years.”

Clifton drilled down further in his on line opinion piece, writing as follows:

“Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is ‘down’ to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

“None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast ‘falling’ unemployment.

“There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

“Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.” (Read the full article here.)

Another bold truth teller when it comes to the jobs data is Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. For years Roberts has written about the lack of attention to the measurement known as U6 – which covers the unemployed, underemployed and those who are not looking but want a job. That figure stood at 11.2 percent in December of last year, exactly double the official unemployment rate known at U3.

The fact that hourly earnings are not improving with the improvement in the official unemployment rate and that the labor force participation rate of working age men (ages 25 to 54) now stands at the lowest level since the BLS started keeping records more than 60 years ago adds further fodder to “The Big Lie” theory.
 
Once again, if someone is too lazy to look for work, why should we care whether we count them as unemployed.
 
Because it is a statistical fact that they are unemployed.
No, unemployment has a very specific definition. It is true that they are not working, but there are a lot of people who don’t work, such as stay at home mothers. We don’t count stay at home mothers as unemployed, why should we count people who are too lazy to look for a job?
 
No, unemployment has a very specific definition. It is true that they are not working, but there are a lot of people who don’t work, such as stay at home mothers. We don’t count stay at home mothers as unemployed, why should we count people who are too lazy to look for a job?
It has nothing to do with laziness. After sending out thousands of resume’s and doing dozens of interviews to only see some H1-B or an illegal get the job instead is just so discouraging that people start to feel like they are not expected to work.

tightropeforum.com/showthread.php?9084-Sth-Cal.-Edison-co.-abusing-H1-B-visa-program-to-hire-Illegals

investmentwatchblog.com/in-search-of-cheap-labor-in-tech-behind-the-h1-b-visa-scenes-theyre-bringing-in-people-with-a-couple-of-years-experience-to-replace-us-and-we-have-to-train-them/
 
No, unemployment has a very specific definition. It is true that they are not working, but there are a lot of people who don’t work, such as stay at home mothers. We don’t count stay at home mothers as unemployed, why should we count people who are too lazy to look for a job?
Prove that they are too lazy to work, dude.
 
No, unemployment has a very specific definition. It is true that they are not working, but there are a lot of people who don’t work, such as stay at home mothers. We don’t count stay at home mothers as unemployed, why should we count people who are too lazy to look for a job?
Who doesn’t count stay at home mothers as unemployed? They are unemployed. It doesn’t say anything about their moral character,its just a fact. And the BLS doesn’t decide who is lazy and choose to not count them as unemployed.
 
Who doesn’t count stay at home mothers as unemployed? They are unemployed. It doesn’t say anything about their moral character,its just a fact. And the BLS doesn’t decide who is lazy and choose to not count them as unemployed.
The BLS does not count stay at home mothers at unemployed. They are not considered in the labor force.
 
Who doesn’t count stay at home mothers as unemployed? They are unemployed. It doesn’t say anything about their moral character,its just a fact. And the BLS doesn’t decide who is lazy and choose to not count them as unemployed.
Below is an explanation of who is counted in the unemployment figures. As you can see, the people not included would be retired, students, stay-at-home parents, people working under the table, people living off of investments, etc, along with those who have stopped looking. If you counted everyone over the age of 16 and divided it by the number of people reporting earned income (W2 income), I suspect the number would be closer to 30 or 40%, maybe even 50%. Don’t forget that a huge number of people are starting to retire.

from investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/economics/unemployment-rate-809

*The unemployment rate measures the percentage of employable people in a country’s workforce who are over the age of 16 and who have either lost their jobs or have unsuccessfully sought jobs in the last month and are still actively seeking work.

The formula for unemployment rate is:

Unemployment Rate = Number of Unemployed / Total Labor Force

How it works/Example:

In the U.S., the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the unemployment rate in its Employment Situation report, which is released on the first Friday of each month at 8:30 AM EST. The report discloses the current unemployment rate, the change in the unemployment rate, and a variety of other labor statistics. The data in the report is generated by surveys taken from almost every major industry in over 250 metropolitan areas. The Bureau conducts two surveys: the household survey, which interviews 60,000 households, and the establishment survey, which reviews data from 160,000 businesses and agencies.

It is important to distinguish between the percentage of people who are unemployed and those who are simply not working. Some people may be in school full-time, working in the home, disabled, or retired. These people are not considered part of the labor force and are therefore not included in the unemployment rate. Only those people actively looking for a job or waiting to return to a job are considered unemployed.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top