A) From Reuters:
U.S. jobless rate misses "hidden" unemployed
Buried inside the official U.S. employment report each month is a little-known figure that gives a much less rosy picture of the labor market than the headlines.
The government agency that produces the data also publishes an alternative measure that tries to capture the hidden unemployed, those who are not included in the official unemployment rate for various statistical reasons.
That broader measure is dramatically higher, at 9.7 percent in May, compared with the official level of 5.6 percent.
That's an extra 5.96 million people, in addition to the 8.2 million "officially" unemployed, who are waiting on the sidelines and may at some point step back into the labor force.
...
The Labor Department's adjusted measure of unemployment adds in people it describes as "marginally attached" to the labor force. These are workers who have not actively looked for work in the past four weeks, including "discouraged workers" who have given up altogether. They also include those who have given up looking for full-time jobs and have settled for part-time work instead.
None of the unemployment measures include the 1.7 percent of the male wage-earning population who are in prison, or another 1.36 million men, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
"We have had this unprecedented withdrawal from the labor force over the past three years," said Lee Price, research director at the independent Economic Policy Institute. "The traditional measure of labor market slack, the unemployment rate, is giving us a misleadingly tight picture.
Indeed, the labor force participation rate is at its lowest level since 1988 -- lower even than in the last recession.
...
On Wall street, analysts generally hold upbeat views on the economy and accept the unemployment rate at face value, said HSBC Chief Economist Ian Morris. "There is a whole debate to be had on unemployment, but it's not happening," he said.
The adjusted measure shows "unemployment remains stubbornly high and higher than it should be at this point in the cycle," said Jose Rasco, senior economist at Merrill Lynch.
B) Have you see rtorgerson's piece? Heck he might even be a member here, and this came out days ago, but I wanted to make sure it was seen.
http://rtorgerson.blogspot.com/2004/06/most-of-those-new-jobs-reported-are.htmlAnd follow his link to J. Crudele's piece in the New York Post for a simply explanation one could use to help explain to Republicans even.
(Wrap up of what torgerson is saying: fully 85% of the new jobs claimed to have been created since March 2003 are imaginary)The 1.2 million new jobs in 2004 that the Bush administration has been boasting about are mostly imaginary too!
Here's a link straight to Crudele's piece:
http://www.nypost.com/business/23936.htm It's priceless.
http://news4u.alturl.com
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(491 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
