Sorry To Be The Barer Of Bad News, But .........

[blackrock13]

Jobless rate is still going down in the US, 8.3%. Could it hit 8.0% by the fall. It's the 5th straight month for a decline, the first time that happened since 1994, so it can't be called a blip. It's the lowest it's been since Feb 2009.

I'm sure the Republican supporters will claim it's happening dispute Obama's moves and would have probably happened anyway.

 

[Aardvark154]

The issue is really the real unemployment rate. The above number doesn't include anyone who hasn't filed or refiled with their state's Labor Department, the real number is at present held to be about double the official number.

 

[rld]

The issue is really the real unemployment rate. The above number doesn't include anyone who hasn't filed or refiled with their state's Labor Department, the real number is at present held to be about double the official number.

Look, when the old issue is making progress, the loyal opposition has to create a new issue...

 

[danmand]

The issue is really the real unemployment rate. The above number doesn't include anyone who hasn't filed or refiled with their state's Labor Department, the real number is at present held to be about double the official number.

Strangely enough this is exactly what I posted during the previous republican administration, and was roundly attacked for by you and OTB.

 

[blackrock13]

The issue is really the real unemployment rate. The above number doesn't include anyone who hasn't filed or refiled with their state's Labor Department, the real number is at present held to be about double the official number.

Can you show us a graph of it's progress then. Any chance they're going down as well. Those are the people who are less employable and unfortunately will be the last to be hired, so lag behind. Yes the 'true rate' is around 15%, but that's not the one that is quoted daily. In the same vane, why do we consider ~4% unemployment as full employment?

 

[someone]

The issue is really the real unemployment rate. The above number doesn't include anyone who hasn't filed or refiled with their state's Labor Department, the real number is at present held to be about double the official number.

This is a common misperception that many people in both Canada and the United States have. The official unemployment rate has nothing to do with whether someone has or has not filed for unemployment insurance. It is based on a country’s labour force survey. Basically this is a survey that Statistics Canada (or the Labour department in the United States) undertakes. Basically it is a phone survey (in some countries there is also a postal follow up for those who did not answer their phone). For more information on the Canadian survey, see http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-543-g/71-543-g2011001-eng.pdf. If you do a search, I’m sure you can find the American guide. There are many other arguments that you could make for the number being misleading (the most common ones are discourage workers and involuntary part-time workers) but this is not one.

BTW, if you do a search, you will find that this point has been raised and corrected before.

There is a separate statistic on the number that have filed for benefits but it has nothing to do with the calculation of the unemployment rate.

Edit: I did your search for you. For information on the American survey see http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

 

[Aardvark154]

This is a common misperception that many people in both Canada and the United States have.

I stand corrected.

Can you also explain why at least the U.S. Department of Labor has of recent years frequently subsequently corrected the unemployment figures higher several months later, how using the method they state, do they get things so wrong?

 

[someone]

I stand corrected.

Can you also explain why at least the U.S. Department of Labor has of recent years frequently subsequently corrected the unemployment figures higher several months later, how using the method they state, do they get things so wrong?

I know that statistics agencies often make big revisions with other data series. Big revisions to GDP come to mind. In this case, it is just that data is slow in being collected and Statscan publish initial results based on estimates of what has not been collected. However, I was not aware that it also happened with the unemployment rate (I’m a microeconomist, not a macro person). I could make guesses. For example, when it comes to other survey’s Statistics Canada sometimes finds a certain group got oversampled (e.g. if blacks in the U.S. got oversampled, it would lead to an overestimate of unemployment). However, I am only guessing. It would be best to find the answer yourself. If you do, I would be interested in the explanation (but not interested enough to do the research myself, lol).

 

[WoodPeckr]

Strangely enough this is exactly what I posted during the previous republican administration, and was roundly attacked for by you and OTB.

+!!!!!!!

I did the same also during the reign of Dubya & his DICK only to hear the same.

Is is funny NOW to hear Aardie saying EXACTLY WHAT I SAID JUST A FEW YEARS AGO!!!....

 

[great bear]

WTF is a Barer of bad news?? I am really getting tired of you guys on Terb who fuck with us Bears.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Careful there ....or JAJA will come looking for you again.....:Eek:

 

[Aardvark154]

Heard on the radio this afternoon that there are (approximately) 28 million people in the U.S. who are considered "discouraged workers" (those who are unemployed, have been unable to find work for several years and are no longer actively seeking employment). Many of these people have University degrees if not advanced degrees.

 

[blackrock13]

Heard on the radio this afternoon that there are (approximately) 28 million people in the U.S. who are considered "discouraged workers" (those who are unemployed, have been unable to find work for several years and are no longer actively seeking employment). Many of these people have University degrees if not advanced degrees.

I wonder how many of those were in the same boat 3 years ago. I thought SOMEONE explained it pretty well.

 

[Aardvark154]

I wonder how many of those were in the same boat 3 years ago.

Three years ago or six years ago? Presumably not nearly as many six years ago as there are at present.

 

[blackrock13]

Three years ago or six years ago? Presumably not nearly as many six years ago as there are at present.

Purely a guess and you know it.

 

[Fred Zed]

I stand corrected.

Can you also explain why at least the U.S. Department of Labor has of recent years frequently subsequently corrected the unemployment figures higher several months later, how using the method they state, do they get things so wrong?

I think you are referring to " seasonally adjusted" employment data
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/article.asp?articleid=634
That did not start in recent years.
In addition some data series may be estimated at the time of publication of the employment statistics, and revised later when more information is received.

 

[Aardvark154]

I think you are referring to " seasonally adjusted" employment data.

This is something different Fred. These are actual changes made to the numbers several months afterward.

 

[Aardvark154]

Purely a guess.

Oh come on Blackrock that is like saying water isn't wet.

 

[onthebottom]

Strangely enough this is exactly what I posted during the previous republican administration, and was roundly attacked for by you and OTB.

Not true, it's discouraged workers that's the issue... oddly enough you'll know when the labor market is back because the unemployment rate will rise briefly as those who have been unemployed for a long time and have given up looking come back into the job market.

That said, 250k new private sector jobs is a good thing!

OTB

 

[Fred Zed]

This is something different Fred. These are actual changes made to the numbers several months afterward.

Even so, there is no guarantee the numbers would be adjusted downward. It is possible during the initial count the Dept of Labor
make some estimates that are later revised after more information is received.