PDA

View Full Version : Juggling the unemployment numbers. 9.0% Not!!



Sev
02-04-2011, 12:22 PM
Its amazing what can be done when the administration starts shifting how unemployment is counted.

Only 34,000 jobs were created last month and unemployment drops .8%??

http://www.zerohedge.com/
When considering <span style="color: #006600">the number of people who are not in the labor force, but who want a job now. The number just hit 6,643K, a jump of 431K from December, and the highest number in history. These are people that would send the unemployment rate to about 12.8% if they were in the labor force (and, as indicated, looking for a </span>job).

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Political/Person20Want20Job20Now.jpg

Also the labor force participation has fallen to a 26 year low.
<span style="color: #006600">At 64.2%, the labor force participation rate (as a percentage of the total civilian noninstitutional population) is now at a fresh 26 year low, the lowest since March 1984, and is the only reason why the unemployment rate dropped to 9% (labor force declined from 153,690 to 153,186). Those not in the Labor Force has increased from 83.9 million to 86.2 million, or 2.2 million in one year! As for the numerator in the fraction, the number of unemployed, it has plunged from 15 million to 13.9 million in two months! The only reason for this is due to the increasing disenchantment of those who completely fall off the BLS rolls and no longer even try to look for a job. Lastly, we won't even show what the labor force is as a percentage of total population. It is a vertical p</span>lunge.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Political/Labor20Force20Participation_1.jpg

llotter
02-04-2011, 01:05 PM
Ya know, there are a growing number of women who have finally seen just how empty is the feminist movement and have found their calling in the kitchen with their brood and they rightfully are not counted among the unemployed. The database of jobs for the men of the house will be growing as informed women continue to find their vocation as mom and homemaker.

There is good reason the celebrate the great numbers the administration is putting out...I think I'll pour myself a scotch right now.

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 01:19 PM
Only 36,000 new jobs last month, not even enough to keep up with population growth, and yet the government is telling us the number of unemployed dropped!
How stupid do they think we are??????????

Steve

Sev
02-04-2011, 01:30 PM
HAHAHAHA!!

JohnnyD
02-04-2011, 01:37 PM
The truth will set them free.
JD

cushioncrawler
02-04-2011, 03:51 PM
Az i think i hav sayd for a long time i think. The main stat iz the % employed, az a % of population.
And, even this stat, duznt tell us much about the (%) badly-employed, non-happyly employed, under-employed, wallst-employed, and congress.
mac.

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 04:14 PM
Mac.
Another thing it doesn't count is people who are unemployed, but not collecting unemployment benefits. People who were self employed and lost their business are not counted, since they aren't elegible for benefits.
Neither are people who's benefits have run out.
New graduates who are looking for their first job are not counted.
The actual percentage of unemployed is realistically closer to 20 or 25% than the 9% the government reports.

Steve

LWW
02-04-2011, 04:39 PM
Gallup says the actual UE rate is 9.9% ... and we all know the left loves Gallup, except when it rarely disagrees with the regime's Ministry of Truth.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 04:56 PM
Its amazing what can be done when the administration starts shifting how unemployment is counted.

Only 34,000 jobs were created last month and unemployment drops .8%??


Sev, NOBODY is saying that unemployment is being counted differently now than before. Yes, the U-2 and U-3 numbers always understate what U-6 says, and yes, the government uses either one or the other lower numbers for the 'official' rate of UE. THEY ALWAYS DO. It's no different now.

What you're noticing, and it already came up in the last reported drop in UE a week or two ago, is a technical artifact issue that is always there when counting UE-- you are only COUNTED as unemployed if you are still looking and willing to take a job, still are eligible for UE benefits, and haven't accepted a part time job when you really want and need a full-time job. (If you're looking at counting these numbers, look at U-6, which is published, but not reported in government releases to the press.)

As for that graph of the workforce percentage of the population, it is a prime example of badly misleading through graphing tricks. Leave off the zero baseline, amp up the gradations to halfs of a percent, and yes you get a free-fall looking graph, as they say. Put in the zero baseline, use 1% (instead of 0.5%) as the data points on the y axis, and that free-fall will be a mild downward curve that is far less scary looking.

JohnnyD
02-04-2011, 04:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Az i think i hav sayd for a long time i think. The main stat iz the % employed, az a % of population.
And, even this stat, duznt tell us much about the (%) badly-employed, non-happyly employed, under-employed, wallst-employed, and congress.
mac. </div></div>Yet again another excellent post.AND for such a long time you have told the truth.The truth will set some free.

Soflasnapper
02-05-2011, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only 36,000 new jobs last month, not even enough to keep up with population growth, and yet the government is telling us the number of unemployed dropped!
How stupid do they think we are??????????

Steve </div></div>

Actually, there seems to be some reason that this drop isn't only an artifact of how these things are counted.

For there are two competing measures of employment. This figure of 36,000 new jobs comes from a pretty speculative 'birth/death' model of jobs, which relies on a number of assumptions that are unprovable and probably wrong.

However, there is also the survey of households, which is more fact-based (even as it relies on sampling). The HOUSEHOLD SURVEY shows 600,000 more people employed from the last sampling to the most recent one.

The markets appear to have believed the drop in the EU figure was more real than not, based on what they did after the announcement.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employment rose by a meager 36,000 jobs in January, far less than expected, as severe snow storms slammed large parts of the nation, but the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since April 2009.

Despite the conflicting signals in the Labor Department's report on Friday, economists agreed a job market recovery was proceeding apace if not gaining speed. Many investors also saw the data as a sign of strength. Government bonds sold off, while the dollar rallied against the yen and the euro.

The payrolls gain reported by U.S. employers was a quarter of the 145,000 gain economists had expected. But a separate household survey, which is used to determine the jobless rate, showed nearly 600,000 more people reported they were employed.</div></div>

Reuters report (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2011/02/payrolls_barely_grow_but_jobless_rate_plummets.php ?ref=fpa)