Why Are The Feds Lying Or Misleading People About Unemployment?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

The headline number is meaningless and misleading...

The real number is a lot closer to twenty percent than ten percent...

[PoliticAverse]

1. It's important to note that over the century they've changed the way they measure unemployment...

and inflation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. It Would Be Unfair To President Obama To Change Them Now

But the 9.1% figure makes me LOL.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Additional discussion of the unemployment issue can be found at...

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/u3-and-u6-unemployment-during-great-depression

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-unemployment-as-bad-as-during-great.html

[FSogol]

3. It is 83 deg F this morning, but it feels like 92 deg F, right?

:shrug:

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. I can find U6 without difficulty. It's not a secret.

It appears in wire service stories whenever U3 is released, with an explanation of the difference.

Is it incorrect? Because then the BLS would be lying.

BLS use of U3 isn't driven by anything more sinister than the need to have a consistent measure over time. It's closer to the earlier Unemployed Non-Farm Workers number that was used prior to 1947. Absent that, any time-series would involve apples-to-oranges comparisons.

U3 is also essentially the ILO's way to count unemployment, which makes country-to-country comparisons meaningful.

Economists tend to use labor-force participation rate anyways.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Does U6 Include Unemployed Independent Contractors?

~

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. BLS labor force statistics using Current Population Survey...

...data include work on one's own farm, or in one's own business or profession, or in a family business, for 15 hours that week, with or without pay, as employed, if not, not.

So the short answer is 'yes'.

[pinqy]

11. U-1 through U-6 (all measures) include the self-employed etc

Did you do no research at all?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. What's It To You,Pingy?

And, yeah, I did some researh and saw conflicting results.

[pinqy]

27. You asked a question, I knew the answer, I answered.

What's the problem?

[Brigid]

8. The methodology may have changed over the years.

Still, I am sure the fudge the numbers in an attempt to avoid this:

http://www.google.com/m/search?q=London+riots&pbx=1&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=7936&fsdt=23143&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=&site=images&gl=us&source=mog<oken=a3edbb38#i=26

[Sheepshank]

9. I think most people are interested in the increase or decrease of the workforce or the unemployed

and those numbers are and should be based on a consistent methodology. You wanting to suddenly use a different methodology, different criteria, now is interesting. If the same criteria had been used under Bush, and Clinton and every other President, then yes, reveal those types of calculations. For sake of comparison, I agree. But that's not what you want.

Your call for honest and full disclosure isn't what it appears to be. You don't want provide comparative and equal methodologies. You suddenly want a different type of disclosure and you want to compare that with unrelated study methodologies. For me, it appears it's clearly for purposes of hurting the current Presidency. Why suddenly now are you wanting to compare apple and oranges?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Why suddenly now are you wanting to compare apple and oranges?

Because I'm unemployed.

[Sheepshank]

15. are there more or less unemployed now than 1, 2, 3 months ago?

Doesn't knowing the directional trend tell you what you want to know regarding an improving trend or a degredation of employment opportunities? How does it help you to compare one set of calculations and methodologies today, to a idfferent one 1,2,3 months ago?

I am sorry you are unemployed...truly, but I don't understand your reasoning.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I Agree It Would Be Unfair Not To Report The Headline Number (NOW)

But it is a grossly misleading number.

There is evidence that the real number is closer to 20% as I originally stated.

[Sheepshank]

18. you are pressing a meme that still doesn't make sense

if the Feds used the same methodology this time as 3 months ago, there is no lying or misleading going on. They are giving ghe reader the tools to compare.

You want to say 16% is close to 20% then fine....but how about using that same methodolgy for employment or rather unemployment numbers and using that ans a growth (or not) comparison for January 2009.

Do those number tell the truth you are wanting to portray?

[BklnDem75]

20. Looks like people want a reason to claim...

unemployment jumped 10% under this President.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. The Assertion Embodied In Your And Others Statement Is I Am Trying To Make The President Look Bad

I don't blame the president.

I do want a job. I do want a job for my gf. And I do want a job for my fellow citizens who don't have one.

[BklnDem75]

24. It's inconsistent

If the numbers changed at a new President's term that would be one thing. Suggesting that now is offering the opposition a hammer to beat Democrats on the head with.

[BklnDem75]

17. So the numbers didn't matter when you was working?

Now that your status has changed, you want things to appear worse than they are?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Well

In normal times I suspect the real number hovers around ren percent. That's the number I saw thrown around during the nineties. Now it hover around twenty percent.

I think if Americans knew that one in five of their fellow citizens were unemployed, underemployed, or too discouraged to look they would demand more action or maybe not because they have a job, for now...

[BklnDem75]

23. I think you're wrong

I think boosting the numbers based on information that's not solid can only be damaging.

[pinqy]

10. I note your complete lack of any support or evidence

Let's look at the math (if you can follow it) for July 2011.

Unemployed (did not work, looked for work in previous 4 weeks or on temp layoff) = 13,931,000

Employed (worked at least 1 hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in family business. Includes self-employed etc) = 139,296,000

Labor Force (Employed + Unemployed) = 153,228,000

Unemployment Rate (Unemployed/Labor Force) = 13,931,000/153,228,000 = 0.0909 = 9.1%
So, to figure out how many people we would need to add to get 20%, the equation is (13,931,000+X)/(153,228,000+X)=0.2
(X is added top and bottom because anything in the numerator must also be in the denominator).

Solve for X, X = 20,893,250

But wait, for those Not in the Labor Force (meaning no job and not currently looking for one), the question is asked "Do you want a job right now?" There are 6,575,000 who want a job now (but are not looking and/or might not be available to work, so these are people who theoretically want a job). So where are you getting 14 million more people from?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. If You Include The Unemployed, The Underemployed, And Those Too Discouraged To Look

Then the official number rises to 16.1%

on edit- it looks like I can follow the math just fine as 16.!% is a lot closer to 20% than 10.%

[pinqy]

26. Why stop there?

Why not add everyone who doesn't have a job, that would put it up to over 40%. Add in children, prisoners, people in comas...stacks up even more. But why?

First, it's insane to think that adding people WITH JOBS as UNemployed makes any kind of sense. Note that BLS calls the U-6 a measure of "Labor Underutilization" and NOT "Unemployment."

Second, since the different measures tend to move in the same direction, what's the point of adding in categories to make the percent higher? What exactly are you trying to measure, why are you trying to measure it, and how is your measure better? And don't just say you want to measure "Unemployment" as that's meaningless without context.

Third, you've changed your tune. The question was why the govt is "lying" but now you're just claiming you want different definitions. That's not the same.

[stevenleser]

21. Unrec. This is nothing new. n/t

[Hawkowl]

25. As long as the Feds understand the difference

This isn't a big deal as long as Obama understands that 1) the actual unemployment is much higher and 2) the unemployment is the proximate cause in the fall in wages and demand which has resulted in an economic depression.

Fix employment and wages and he can fix the depression. It will continue until it is fixed.