A Bit More Data Behind the Unemployment Rate

[David]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

[ghaverkamp]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

 

Just the BLS clamoring for future budgetary funding. Hard to believe a bunch of numbers compiled by government employees, anyway.

[upflying]

Funny, I have not heard any of the government propoganda media reporting this. Maybe we need some more of that stimulus and deficit spending folks are talking about.

Dreadful news nevertheless.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

The excrement is really hitting the rotary air distribution device, ain't it?

 

No improvement in the situation despite all the spending.

 

This is not looking good at all.

[Ken H.]

Yup, the commonly quoted number is the U-3 number, while meantime the (more accurate) U-6 number is 17.0% in the USA.

 

As extended unemployment benefits were not renewed by the US Congress on Monday, watch for the headlines in January to rejoice in the drop in the unemployment rate in December. But in reality it will only mean the U-3 number went down which doesn’t count those who lost their benefits but still haven't found a job. "Discouraged workers." By the BLS they are not unemployed, they just aren’t working.

 

Often seen is Canada’s unemployment rate (7.6%) compared to the USA’s. But it’s not apples to apples. Canada's method is most closely the USA’s U-5 methodology, except Canada drops off people under 21 who have left the workforce for, in particular educational reasons. But it always counts those able and willing to work (“marginally attached to the work force”) regardless of if they are collecting EI benefits or not.

 

[Whip]

I wish I was surprised.

 

(see my sig line)

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

U4 & U5 don't mean anything. Those people aren't looking for jobs and are therefor not "unemployed," they're quitters.

 

The difference between U5 & U6 is 5.7%.

 

Hence the unemployed + part timers who want to work full time is (U3) 9.8% + 5.7% or 15.5%, not the 17.0% the BLS wants us to think. (not that 1.5% is a big number- but it is a lot of people)

 

Furthermore, of that 5.7% of the workforce that's working part time but wants to work full time, how many are working 2 jobs or more like some of us did when we were younger? While that doesn't necessarily allow for benefits, it does allow for a "full time" wage. Some of us went many years under this model of employment and were never "unemployed" or underemployed.

[John Ranalletta]

Two personal economic indicators turned negative this week.

 

The husband of one of our employees is a craftsman/carpenter. Until last week, he was building staircases and custom trim in 6k+ sq. ft. houses. All that work has dried up around here.

 

I paid a social visit to a past client and president of a large credit union. She is spending most of her time trying to cut costs as members (in her words) "have virtually shut down all borrowing for cars, houses and household goods."

 

It's plausible that CUs and banks will have to charge customers to hold money in savings. Welcome to Japan's last decade.

 

On the bright side, locally, a new JW Marriott is opening and accepting applications. A few people I know are applying.

[Ken H.]

U4 & U5 don't mean anything. Those people aren't looking for jobs and are therefor not "unemployed," they're quitters.

Just because their unemployment benefits have ran out, no matter how hard they are trying to find a job; they are “quitters”!?! That’s pretty harsh!

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

U4 & U5 don't mean anything. Those people aren't looking for jobs and are therefor not "unemployed," they're quitters.

Just because their unemployment benefits have ran out, no matter how hard they are trying to find a job; they are “quitters”!?! That’s pretty harsh!

 

Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work

 

That reads, "people who quit looking for a job" to me.

[StuGotz]

No improvement in the situation despite all the spending.

 

You talkin' recently, the past decade, or the last 30 years?

 

Wanna see how bad it gets? Give it a little time. I'm thinking it could have been worse, but perhaps we just put a bandaid on a bigger problem.

 

MB>

[yabadabapal]

I ll tell you this much. More than 2 million people are about to receive their final unemployment checks. That equals about 1 person out of every 150 people in the USA.It also equals about 50,0000 people per state. So, lets take about 10% of that 2 million and suppose that equals the percentage that will not be able to handle the situation. So thats about 200,000 people.

Now lets take the 50 states and divide it up and we have about 4000 cases per state that may well be prone to respond to this event in a criminal or violent manner. Im telling you right now that the effect is going to be an increase of recognizable proportion in the crime stats across this country. I dont know what most people have been doing with their unemployment checks.

What percentage of the 2 million people about to receive their final check are home owners and of that percentage, how many of them still have their homes because they have been using their unemployment checks to stall foreclosure. Im not making any judgement on this unemployment event but when 2 million people suddenly realize they have to take care of themselves, things are gonna happen.

[philbytx]

Remember the Boy Scout motto anyone?

 

I love Texas