General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

13. They don't.

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 10:05 AM

Apr 2012

Why do they say people who run out of 99 weeks of unemployment have left the job market and are not looking for work?

They don't.

The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits. The unemployment rate is determined via a survey. Which is why they're able to produce so many different unemployment rates.

U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

U6 is the one I personally think they should use. That was about 14%.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Economy Adds 120K Jobs In March; Unemployment Falls To 8.2 Percent [View all] ProSense Apr 2012 OP

Errrr. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #1

I missed the joke? n/t ProSense Apr 2012 #2

Unemployment falls to 8.2. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #3

Ah ProSense Apr 2012 #4

Let's see how your claim stands up to reality... mathematic Apr 2012 #12

So how many rates are there? CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #16

It's not wacky. You just don't understand it. mathematic Apr 2012 #17

You are making up stuff. former9thward Apr 2012 #19

That poster posted nothing but pure facts. phleshdef Apr 2012 #22

You are wrong. former9thward Apr 2012 #26

Um, no, I'm completely right. phleshdef Apr 2012 #37

Um, no, that is not what the Labor Department does. former9thward Apr 2012 #38

Yes. It is. phleshdef Apr 2012 #39

I think we are talking past each other. former9thward Apr 2012 #40

To answer your first question, of course not. phleshdef Apr 2012 #41

How strange... mathematic Apr 2012 #23

How strange... former9thward Apr 2012 #25

If you're going to pretend I mean things I don't say why are you even bothering to respond? mathematic Apr 2012 #28

Seems like CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #36

Oh, really? klook Apr 2012 #18

Don't Count Your Chickens... SpencerShay Apr 2012 #32

well, better to be adding jobs than losing them, but still was expecting over 200,000 new jobs WI_DEM Apr 2012 #5

Remember this number is only an estimate. aaaaaa5a Apr 2012 #9

Not true. former9thward Apr 2012 #20

We have different information. aaaaaa5a Apr 2012 #30

I took my numbers directly from the OP. former9thward Apr 2012 #31

Fair enough. I stand corrected. aaaaaa5a Apr 2012 #34

The "recovery" is due to the Fed. CAPHAVOC Apr 2012 #10

They don't. jeff47 Apr 2012 #13

"The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits" phleshdef Apr 2012 #21

Every down tick is good to see ... gonna upset the haters. JoePhilly Apr 2012 #6

Or a dog to trap in a cage on top of his car. Tennessee Gal Apr 2012 #8

When the President took office I believe we were losing over 700,000 jobs per month! aaaaaa5a Apr 2012 #7

True. Obama inherited a terrible situation WI_DEM Apr 2012 #11

Correct. Dawson Leery Apr 2012 #27

Good news is always good. great white snark Apr 2012 #14

Oh well, Romney still has the planned parenthood issue aint_no_life_nowhere Apr 2012 #15

Yes, about half the number of jobs expected to be added, MadHound Apr 2012 #24

Declines in the labor force aren't necessarily a bad thing mathematic Apr 2012 #29

The report was a disaster. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #33

Really? ProSense Apr 2012 #35