What are the real unemployment numbers?

[socrattt]

EconProf I just can’t imagine that 320,000 +/- people (the percentage of people that would amount to the .3% of people in question) just stopped looking for work. It just doesn’t make sense. Even in a strong economy I can’t imagine that high of a percentage of the unemployed would just drop off the map. I think the government will see some major fundamental problems with the way they track unemployment if and when we get out of this mess.

[EconProf]

Imagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.

[EconProf]

Imagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.

[EconProf]

Imagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.

[EconProf]

Imagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.

[EconProf]

Imagine it. Actually the news today was that some 440,000 people moved from unemployed status to “discouraged worker” status, meaning they were no longer looking for work but would take it if offered. (Look again at the carefully crafted questions asked in the Household Survey).
The BLS tracks #s of “Discouraged Workers”, “Underemployed”, and also “Long Term Unemployed” (more than x weeks unemployed), what we used to call hard core unemployed.
Remember that the # of “Unemployed” is actually a stock–a sum measured at one point in time. It is the result of two flows–the # of people moving into unemployment status each month less the # of people leaving unemployment status (got hired or else stopped looking, i.e. discouraged worker), plus the # of people remaining in that stock from the previous month.
It is not inconceivable that 440,000 people left the pool of 10,250,000 unemployed pool and gave up looking for a job last month.
Now, what would our unemployment rate be if we hadn’t seen those 440,000 drop out? It would have gone up to 7% from 6.5%, not the reported 6.7%. Add to this revisions DOWNWARD in the previous two months’ payroll figures and you have a really catastrophic jobs picture right now. The official figures actually understate the deterioration unless properly interpreted.

[socrattt]

So essentially what I am saying above is correct. There are plenty of unemployed in this country that just aren’t accounted for because their monthly checks have stopped and they aren’t technically part of the unemployment calculation.

I think the government is smart to keep these numbers down, so that we don’t panic, but knowing this system is far from fool proof puts these numbers into perspective.

[socrattt]

So essentially what I am saying above is correct. There are plenty of unemployed in this country that just aren’t accounted for because their monthly checks have stopped and they aren’t technically part of the unemployment calculation.

I think the government is smart to keep these numbers down, so that we don’t panic, but knowing this system is far from fool proof puts these numbers into perspective.

[socrattt]

So essentially what I am saying above is correct. There are plenty of unemployed in this country that just aren’t accounted for because their monthly checks have stopped and they aren’t technically part of the unemployment calculation.

I think the government is smart to keep these numbers down, so that we don’t panic, but knowing this system is far from fool proof puts these numbers into perspective.

[socrattt]

So essentially what I am saying above is correct. There are plenty of unemployed in this country that just aren’t accounted for because their monthly checks have stopped and they aren’t technically part of the unemployment calculation.

I think the government is smart to keep these numbers down, so that we don’t panic, but knowing this system is far from fool proof puts these numbers into perspective.

[socrattt]

So essentially what I am saying above is correct. There are plenty of unemployed in this country that just aren’t accounted for because their monthly checks have stopped and they aren’t technically part of the unemployment calculation.

I think the government is smart to keep these numbers down, so that we don’t panic, but knowing this system is far from fool proof puts these numbers into perspective.

[blahblahblah]

esmith brings up some good points. Both of my parents fall into the “under 65 and employable” catagory, yet neither works anymore. They left today to go run a marathon, so they arnt in the unemployable catagory yet they inflate your stats as they dont have jobs. They saved and invested and worked hard and now are enjoying a long retiremnet for it. They should not be counted as “unemployed”.

They won’t be counted. The unemployment calculation works like this:

% Unemployed = % of population currently receiving unemployment benefits

Since unemployment benefits run out after a few months (varies by state), the number doesn’t reflect those who never found a job before their benefits ran out.

[blahblahblah]

esmith brings up some good points. Both of my parents fall into the “under 65 and employable” catagory, yet neither works anymore. They left today to go run a marathon, so they arnt in the unemployable catagory yet they inflate your stats as they dont have jobs. They saved and invested and worked hard and now are enjoying a long retiremnet for it. They should not be counted as “unemployed”.

They won’t be counted. The unemployment calculation works like this:

% Unemployed = % of population currently receiving unemployment benefits

Since unemployment benefits run out after a few months (varies by state), the number doesn’t reflect those who never found a job before their benefits ran out.

[blahblahblah]

esmith brings up some good points. Both of my parents fall into the “under 65 and employable” catagory, yet neither works anymore. They left today to go run a marathon, so they arnt in the unemployable catagory yet they inflate your stats as they dont have jobs. They saved and invested and worked hard and now are enjoying a long retiremnet for it. They should not be counted as “unemployed”.

They won’t be counted. The unemployment calculation works like this:

% Unemployed = % of population currently receiving unemployment benefits

Since unemployment benefits run out after a few months (varies by state), the number doesn’t reflect those who never found a job before their benefits ran out.

[blahblahblah]

esmith brings up some good points. Both of my parents fall into the “under 65 and employable” catagory, yet neither works anymore. They left today to go run a marathon, so they arnt in the unemployable catagory yet they inflate your stats as they dont have jobs. They saved and invested and worked hard and now are enjoying a long retiremnet for it. They should not be counted as “unemployed”.

They won’t be counted. The unemployment calculation works like this:

% Unemployed = % of population currently receiving unemployment benefits

Since unemployment benefits run out after a few months (varies by state), the number doesn’t reflect those who never found a job before their benefits ran out.

[Author]

Posts