U.S. jobless seen nearing 10 percent

[UpInArms]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. unemployment will approach 10 percent as the country endures its worst recession since World War Two, leaving more than 13 million Americans jobless, according to a Reuters poll of economists.

The economy will level out in the third quarter, the results showed, but the poll painted a bleaker picture than a survey conducted just a month ago.

Median forecasts now assume gross domestic product will shrink an annualized 5.3 percent this quarter, following a brutal 6.2 percent decline at the end of 2008.

<snip>

The Reuters poll indicates the jobless rate, already at a 25-year high of 8.1 percent, will climb to 9.6 percent, probably sometime early next year, before receding. An eventual rebound in hiring will probably be mild and erratic.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52B1KM20090312

[PSPS]

1. 10 percent my ass!

This is the usually quoted U3 figure, which omits about half the unemployed. The U6 is at 15% and the actual figure is closer to 20% now.


The SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated "discouraged workers" defined away during the Clinton Administration added to the existing BLS estimates of level U-6 unemployment.

[pinqy]

5. It doesn't omit any unemployed..

Before 1967, the definition of Unemployed was

...all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community.

In 1967 the definition changed to

Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

It was then, not under Clinton as shadowstats falsely implies, that discouraged workers (those who claim they want a job and are available but aren't looking because they don't believe they'll find work) were excluded because it was too subjective and based on what people say they want instead of what they're actually doing.

In 1994 the definiton of Unemployment changed a little: removing "were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days. from the category of people who don't have to be actively looking for work.

Also in 1994, the definiton of "discouraged worker" (which, again, was not at that time considered part of the labor force) was modified to add the requirement that the individual must have looked sometime in the last 12 months.

Also added was the new category of "marginally attached" which includes ALL people who say they want a job and are available and looked sometime in the last year regardless of reason for not looking. The U-6 includes these marginally attached, not just discouraged workers, and also people who are working part-time for economic reasons (the underemployed).

So what Mr. Williams is doing is taking the U-6 (which has never historically been used as an official measure anywhere) and then guessing how many people would say they want and are available to work but haven't looked in the last year and adding them on.

There's just no rational Statistical or Economic reason to do this except to distort the real numbers to make things look worse.

I posted a fuller explanation of the numbers and why to use the different measures http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5213520">HERE

[mbperrin]

2. Gawsh! Those economists have been so right so often that I'll rush

right into some big spending plans for the 3rd quarter!!!!!


Or maybe not......

[Doctor_J]

3. Wha't s that in real numbers - 18%?

20%?

[sarcasmo]

4. At least that in Michigan.