View Full Version : Unemployment in the 7%s!!??!! -- Gallup
07-18-2012, 02:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> U.S. Unemployment Down Slightly in Mid-July
Unadjusted rate down to 7.9%; adjusted, to 7.7%
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist
PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, was 7.9% in mid-July, down 0.1 percentage points from June and May. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate also declined 0.1 points, to 7.7% in mid-July.</div></div>
From Gallup's report on this. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/155744/Unemployment-Down-Slightly-Mid-July.aspx)
Spare me the rejoinders that I'm hypocritical on this.
Yes, I disputed its <s>credibility </s> accuracy when others posted citations when it was over 9% (when the official numbers on U-3 were in the higher or mid-8%s), if I remember that situation correctly.
I dispute it now, as well. It's interesting, but a very different data set from those upon which the official BLS statistics are based.
Still, I mention this because a) it was new to me, hadn't heard it mentioned (unlike when it showed a worse number than the official number), and b) to ask those who thought it was a great and more reliable number THEN if they still think it is, now that it says things are better than the official number?
It's too bad you didn't read the article as it answered your question.
07-18-2012, 04:48 PM
If they can't show that things are improving, there is no hope for a second term for Obama. Also, notice those are the unadjusted numbers. For the past 38 months, the numbers originally published have later been adjusted to something worse than originally reported.
(You would think they could figure this out, but then, they don't even know that the economy sucks. Barry tells us the private sector is doing fine.)
Here's a clue...if it comes out of Washington, it's probably a lie...regardless of which party is promoting it.
07-18-2012, 05:23 PM
Stated UE, UE-3, has been declining across all states, with about 2 exceptions. That's what 24+ months in a row of private sector job growth results in. The 4-1/2 million or so of such jobs (measuring from the nadir of the economy) is more than Bush the Wiser and Bush the Less Wise saw created in the private sector in their 12 years in office.
This is particularly relevant in the dozen or so swing states, where people say this election will be determined. As their governors are saying as bragging about their performances (although all states minus one or two are also performing better).
07-18-2012, 07:43 PM
I hope it's real and people are actually finding jobs. But that doesn't quite fit with the reality I see around the country.
And, in spite of all the washington numbers you reference, the biggest one you missed was the one that there are fewer people working today than there were 3 and 1/2 years ago. Yes, there has been job growth, but at a rate that can't even keep up with population growth. It's a good thing more baby boomers are retiring, or those numbers would really suck.
The simple fact is that Obama wasted 2 years pushing Obamacare and not worrying about the economy. Now that the election is close, I predict that the numbers out of Washington will show a steadily improving economy and greater job growth. (it can all be adjusted after November, so accuracy is not important.)
I sincerely hope that you are simply providing an alternative viewpoint for the sake of lively discussion, and don't seriously believe that Obama has been good for our country.
Still haven't rad the article I see.
07-19-2012, 09:55 AM
Of course I read it, and I have now re-read it, to see if I missed something.
If you'd like to explain what part of it you refer to, I'd appreciate it, as I don't see anything there to dispute my take.
That it wasn't seasonally adjusted? Not on the top headline level, but they do supply the seasonally adjusted number as well, WHICH IS LOWER, YET. 7.1% UE as of the seasonal adjustment.
They EXPECT the BLS numbers to show up lower, based on a lag factor (Gallup measures and tracks all during the month, the BLS tracks only at the end of the month.)
Now, there are technical differences in how they survey, which they lay out. One thing is that the start with 18 year olds, whereas the BLS starts with 16 year olds. (I guess the 16-17 year old population has a very bad UE rate, naturally.)
Although they say there has been a substantial drop over the past year, the drops in the last few months have been far more slight, so they are tracking a slow down in improvement. That may be what you refer to, I suppose.
07-19-2012, 10:04 AM
Steve, the labor participation rate has been declining since about 2001.
And the average monthly job gain has exceeded that necessary to keep up with population growth, which despite what some have said higher, is about 90,000 a month. That last 80k figure slid below it, I agree, but even this year still averages at about 125,000 a month with the poorer monthly figures recently averaged in.
07-19-2012, 01:26 PM
The labor participation rate doesn't account for those who have been unemployed so long that they no longer qualify for UE benefits. Care to comment as to why you think more people are signing up for SS disability? Could it be they still can't find a job and need to pay some bills?
You can spin the numbers any way you like. But anyone who thinks the economy is on the right track is blind to reality. There are already quiet suggestions from economists that we are very close to a double dip recession. Manufacturing is down, housing starts are down. home prices are down. retail sales are down. and we are still realistically at 15-16% un/under employment.
In this case, I might suggest that numbers certainly can lie. The reality is the middle class is still hurting from the poor economy.
07-19-2012, 04:22 PM
Actually, yes, THE LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE does account for the totally discouraged workers who aren't on UE. By not putting those people in the workforce, although they're potentially capable of work. You are thinking of the UE standards, not the labor participation rate.
The labor participation rate is the percentage of all non-institutionalized (not senile, not incarcerated) people above the age of 16 (and onwards to infinity age, btw) who are in the work force by having a job or being in the work market (maybe thereby counting those seeking work who are still eligible for UE benefits).
Arguably, this way under counts the LPR, as they do not cut out the part of the 'adult' population who are full time students who aren't seeking work at all, or retired folks who are not seeking work at all any longer (if they aren't in a nursing home or hospitalized), whatever their age, OR the disabled possible working adults.
It isn't that sensible to talk about septuagenarians, octogenarians, or nonogenarians as 'possible workers' who aren't working (cause they're fully retired), but the LPR doesn't make that distinction.
When the numbers of those signed up to SS disability is discussed, they do not mean those who apply. Even really disabled people are routinely denied, on the first pass through, I have heard. They are discussing the number actually granted SS disability status. Since they have passed stringent review, they have gotten SS disability because.... they are disabled (fully or partially).
True, maybe some tried to continue to work without seeking a disability status before, and have become very discouraged in this work environment so as to take that route, but they do not get it unless they qualify.
The point I'm making is not that we are in a good situation. It's that it's been a 30-year long slow slide for the American worker that was amply present in the numbers of the prior president's 8 year term. America simply did not create much in the way of private sector jobs in the prior 8 years, most of which was not in recession times. George W. Bush's private jobs creation record for the economy when he was president is at the lowest end of history, if not dead last. Each of his terms qualified as among the worst on that measure.
So this is a longer term problem, that most Obama critics don't know about or ignore. How is it that by utterly failing (they say), there has been a 4 x multiple (or so) of private job creation in less than 4 years compared to the prior 8 years?
07-20-2012, 09:03 AM
I haven't dug too deep into this (sorry, just don't have the time for my usual nerdy statistical analyzing lol). But did notice a few things:
Sample size is half that of USBL.
Not seasonally adjusted
16 and 17 year olds are not part of the sampling
That said, the actually numbers will likely be different. BUT, with the exception of the <18 portion, that difference could sway in the bad OR good direction as well.
Sack--- has hired on 6 more people in 2 days... doing his part!
07-20-2012, 10:04 AM
Right, strictly speaking, these are not exactly comparable, even as they are somewhat related and will probably track together over enough time.
But you missed that they do provide a seasonally adjusted number as well, apparently. It was much lower, at about 7.1%.
They mention that in text as well as show it on a graph.
Seasonal adjustment is important to smooth out typical patterns of employment annually, but is still a funny concept. It's odd to consider what month it is as saying who has or doesn't have a job, which sounds like a separate question from a calendar date. But they and the BLS state it both ways.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.