Thanks for the Digg

If you’re actively seeking work, then you count as member of the labor force. The UER is defined as the ratio of the unemployed-but-actively-seeking-work to the labor-force. The labor force is defined (loosely) as folks who are either working or actively seeking work.

From your description of your situation, you qualify as unemployed-but-actively-seeking-work.

Unless, of course, you’ve taken a job at Home Depot or Wal*Mart, etc. Then you’re working, even if you aren’t working in your area-of-expertise.

Dugg and recommended.

But the point is, how is this information gathered?
I too am unemployed but because I owned my own business and sold it I don’t register anywhere as “unemployed” or “looking for work”, I am ineligible for unemployment.
I have been working my entire life and have never been unemployed.
In fact, I have never been passed over for a job I wanted. Until now.
I actually went on an interview and the interviewer asked me if she hired me would I try to take her job. Nice.
This downturn is much worse than is being portrayed, at least here in California.

Bush’s parting gift for GM workers

As GM chief coasts, workers forced to accept cuts, strike prohibition
A little-noticed provision buried in the Bush Administration’s $13.4 billion loan package to General Motors will prohibit the United Auto Workers from launching a strike as long as the company receives funds from the federal government.

Not only that, but a strike would give the federal government the power to call in their loan — putting the loan in default and forcing GM into bankruptcy. The government now has the power to force a bankruptcy if “any labor union or collective bargaining unit shall engage in a strike or other work stoppage.”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0109.html

But that’s part of th point. How can they know I’m still actively looking? I don’t check in with unemployment offices anywhere. Do they check my usage on Monster or HotJobs? Do they check the records for those submitting resumes anywhere and everywhere?

I don’t have the stats in front of me but I believe I’ve read that the economy has to create something along the lines of 150K jobs PER MONTH just to maintain and keep up with the expanding work force. Which means if I’m calculating correctly, the economy of the US would have had to create 14.4 Million jobs in the last eight years to maintain the Clinton status quo.

We’ve been shedding jobs this last year. Unemployment rate HAS to be much larger than is actually reported just because they cook the books. And even though I am looking I am highly doubtful that they are counting me.

By his count, if unemployment were still tallied the way it was in the 1930s, today’s jobless rate would be closer to 16.5 percent — more than double the stated rate.

That number seems more realistic.

The unemployment rate (UER) is computed from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), so it’s an estimate of the unemployment rate. We don’t have the resources (in time and money) to do a census. Your situation is represented by others in similar circumstances who were surveyed.

Unless you are in the CPS sample (very unlikely), then you aren’t directly enumerated. But just as you don’t have to eat the whole pot of stew to determine if the spices are right, we don’t need to do a census to get useful estimates of unemployment rates and other population characteristics.

The way the books get cooked is in the definition of the UER: it’s based on the labor force size, not the population size. They’ve tinkered with the definition of discouraged worker (i.e., someone who would work if there was a job available, but hasn’t found one and isn’t looking). Paris Hilton (and others of her ilk) shouldn’t count in the labor force, because she is effectively retired. She works when something is available that interests her more than running around without her panties on.

If you really want to interpret employment statistics, you cannot simply look at the UER and say, “Oh, it’s X%, so all is well.” You have to look at how the civilian-noninstitutionalized-population-18-to-65 breaks out into the various categories: (1) Employed, (2) Actively seeking employment, (3) Discouraged worker, and (4) Not seeking work and don’t want any.

Especially in that age group, membership in the various groups is fairly fluid, and you have to track movements. The UER is manipulated down because the definition of Discouraged worker is pretty loose.

By rights, what we ought to do is study the employment rate and the labor-force-participation-rate together. If both the ER and LPFR are high, then things are good. If the ER and LPFR are both low, things suck.

I think you are still missing the point though. Regardless of how they calculate the rate, they’ve been cooking the books and purposefully not counting people who are unemployed.

By saying, “Oh, we’re not going to count the folks who got frustrated and have given up looking for a job or just don’t want a job” they purposefully undercount the real situation. If you asked all the people they don’t count because of frustration if they’d like a job, I’d wager the vast majority would answer affirmatively. Which means they purposefully undercount to make the stats look better than they are.

Frustration with the system when you do not have a job does not mean you are not looking for work nor willing to accept employment. Why should the stats not reflect the actual figures of folks unemployed?

Answers to your questions about how unemployment is measured in my original diary. It’s from a survey, a very large one by standards of U.S. economics statistics (60,000 households) but so small that you are unlikely to be personally surveyed.

Oh, dakine01, I forgot my manners in my rush to be informative. I wish you well, and hope that something comes along.

Like eCAHN, I’ve forgotten my manners. I hope something comes your way soon.

Perhaps I am missing your point, but I think you’ve missed my points as well. My first point is that it’s not necessary for any particular individual to be counted to get a useful estimate of social rates. My second point is that even if the UER is cooked (as you believe), the numbers necessary to “uncook” the rate are available. If anyone is misled by numbers, it’s because they’ve accepted a one-dimensional summary of a complex phenomenon as a complete representation.

Do the mainstream media suck? Yeah, they do. They generally want to tell you the UER and drop it. If you are interested in labor statistics, you have look at the whole picture, not just the shiny object being waved in front of you.

So, when your local paper writes up some nonsense story about everything being hunky and dory because the UER is X%, respond. Send them a LtE with the whole picture: that is, the change in the number of labor force participants, the LFPR, the UER, and just for giggles give them the fraction of the civilian-noninstitutionalized etc population that is employed. Then point out that employed includes people with advanced degrees in various areas working as greeters at Wal*Mart or misleading people at Home Depot. As far as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau are concerned, underemployed is still employed.

Because on the bottom line, you’re right. The UER may be 6-something percent, but when you look at the structural components it’s really awful.

Dugg your Diary dakien! And recommended!

Been there and still doing it… but since 9-21-01 when I last got laid off… must have applied for a thousand or more IT support positions, all the way down to desktop support(:>((…. Since then it has been small fry little jobs for short times. Good luck hope you find something(:>()

By his count, if unemployment were still tallied the way it was in the 1930s, today’s jobless rate would be closer to 16.5 percent — more than double the stated rate.

Hey, it’s amazing how well things look when you can cook the books! And we’ve been cooking the unemployment books for a l-o-n-g time now.

Now if we can only get the MSM to cover the story.

Thanks. It’s a tough place to be that’s for sure. And I think there are a whole lot of folks that are going to be joining us in this wilderness.

People just need to be reminded that there are living breathing humans having these experiences and not just numbers on a page for statistical analysis.

I checked out that website and he seems like a flake. I’ve dealt with scores of people who decry the govt stats, but have not found the charges credible. There are shortcomings, to be sure, but not debilitating ones.

Perhaps you might find the U-6 measure of labor underutilization more appealing. Discussion here.

Diary heck get a front pager to cover that one.

Holy mackerel.

That BLS number you provide puts the rate in the 13.5% range. The gentleman quoted in the Reuters article puts it in the 16.5% range. Both figures are significantly higher than the ‘reported’7.2% rate.

Plus I know you are an economist but given the activities of the last 8 years, are you really willing to put much faith in anything reported by Mrs. McConnell’s Labor Department. I’m not particularly trusting of anything reported by this admin.

As it is, I predict there will be an adjustment to these numbers sometime by the end of January or early February that will adjust the Unemployment Rate as reported closer to 7.5 to 7.7%.

It’s the way they do business in Bushland.

Question:
Most of the people who work in TeeVee (not stations or national like the Today Show) are freelance labor. They work by the show, event or season and get paid as a vendor. So they may invoice X hours and X expenses they get paid just like you supplied food to the set. How are these workers counted?

I’m not sure but I don’t think they get counted. I believe they are considered “independent contractors/business owners” so would not be accounted for by this. Similar to Valleta at comment #4.

But I also may be wildly wrong on that.

That BLS number you provide puts the rate in the 13.5% range. The gentleman quoted in the Reuters article puts it in the 16.5% range. Both figures are significantly higher than the ‘reported’7.2% rate.

Good question how, why do they justify 7.2% then?

North Dakota is hiring. And recruiting workers. And looking for people to move to our state.

Yeah, the winters can be nasty, but the opportunities are worth it.

Microsoft has a big presence here and lots of other high tech. We’re not just farmers anymore.

“independent contractors/business

Then I am not counted

Bill Moyers’ topic = Labor

dakine, forgive me — I also forgot my manners. I think it is incredibly important that we all know one another’s stories right now, hard as it is to go public in the face of all the prejudices we also know too well.

I’ve been self-employed for long periods and then suddenly forced to give up paid work to become the primary caregiver for my husband. Those of us who’ve done that know that we don’t get counted in one sense, although we also know that in another sense the state is counting on us, on unpaid labour and most often the unpaid labour of women, a whole lot.

I try to respect the serious stats we have, but I think that they will never be properly nuanced until the statisticians stop pretending that the politics of the situation don’t matter.

I admit that, cynic though I am, I have not been cynical enough.

Having said that, I spent 25+ years on the phone with govt data drones. Only once did I find them less than solid citizens. And, in fact, most of the time they were much more diligent and forthcoming than anyone in private industry, in charge of data, would be.

Why is that? Because the only reason they do what they do is because they care. They do not have the funds to do basic research into how the changing economy should influence data collection, but they do the best with what they have. Their mistakes are honest.

I do not know that as a fact. But all the evidence I have supports that hypothesis.

WRT Chao and other higher potential manipulators of data, I’d offer the following possibility: they just lie. My experience with the people who put the data together suggests (unlike the CIA) they do not cave to political pressure. Not that they are heroes, but quite the opposite: they are mundane and do what they have been doing all along, while looking for ways to improve what they do on limited budgets.

Meanwhile, Chao et al have shown themselves to be too stooopid to manipulate data in a clever way.

Use Occam’s razor: the competing hypotheses are that: (1) Chao is clever and has maniputlated the data which still show that W is the worst prez for employment since WWII or (2) the data are a reasonable approximation of reality.

Here’s the answer.

Because of changes made in the Johnson admin (according to the Reuters article linked above), where they quit counting those discouraged workers who “stop looking for a year” or part-time workers looking for full time or under employed workers.

Striking is a right ain’t it? That’s something no one can give you or take away!

No such change was made in the Johnson Admin.

Unemployment is a BS stat. What is the size of the work force? who many jobs are there? How many people cannot work? How many people don’t have to work because they are rich?

Unemployment is a % of what?

i had a similar situation happen to me in 1990. remember that econ downturn? iv’e been self employed ever since in info tech. some good years some really bad like this one. know what yer goin through. my recommendation is ta fill the holes or change careers. back in 1990 i was a network manager/programmer when it paid to be that. my choice when i got downsized was to go full c++/vis basic .net and be a nerd coder again or do sometin else. i went telecom. bought my own tools, took courses and worked for cheap for years to get my foot in the door. now i call my own shots. if i don’t like ya or the pay rate i don’t work. it’s that simple. you need ta create what you want.

When was it changed then? I know the change has been made in my lifetime. And I believe it has been modified multiple times, just like the rules have been changed on who and how eligibility is calculated for Unemployment Compensation.

And even with the dumbing down of TradMed, Reuters is still one of those orgs that reports fairly straightforwardly.

The As can be found here.

All the workers who were kicked off payroll and made into independent contractors can never be counted as unemployed.

In fact, corporation A can turn all their employees into “contractors” and then take away their work and they would not show up as unemployed.

There has been no change in the measurement of employment/unemployment in the post-WWII period.

Ecahn, are those surveys like polls which extrapolate from a small sample?

So it was Truman or Roosevelt then who quit fully calculating all the true unemployment figures and not Johnson as reported in the article? Is that when they quit reporting the figures that most likely would have been what the U6 figure would be?

The sample, 60,000, is statistically designed to be representative. It is large by comparisons with other samples of U.S. economic statistics, but clearly small in the sense that, of the 100+ million households, very few will be samples.

I coordinated with the U. Mich. consumer survery on 2-3 occassions. They only call about 500 households/month (vs. 60,000 in the BLS household survey) and their results are amazingly informative.

In other words, “small” samples, well designed, are incredibly revealing.

Reject the govt data at your peril.

Dugg, thanks very much dakine.

This probably isn’t worth the time it takes you to read it, but that never stopped me before. IMHO Texas based EDS now HP used their relationship with the Bush administration to increase market share wrt state administered Medicaid programs by imho marketing renting their off-the-shelf interChange platform as software that the states thought was unique to them. AFAIK, EDS/HP and other consultants convinced state governments to lay-off privatize, their in-house software resources. That essentially left the state’s at the mercy of vendors such as EDS/HP. Worse, imho a lot of the software that connects each state to EDS/HP’s propietary system is done offshore. That’s state tax revenues being shipped off-shore. Finally, I am afraid that in most contracts EDS/HP acts as the state’s fiscal agent. AFAIK, that means EDS/HP gets a cut of each and every Medicaid transaction they process. AFAIK, even as EDS/HP bills the states for providing quality control and anti-fraud tools, in their capacity as fiscal agent, they have a strong financial incentive to not find evidence of fraud in processing as many claims as possible. IMHO, states might be looking for software auditors who might be interested in the kinds of skills you appear to have.

Based on your routinely terrific comments here at FDL, I know the software industry desperately needs people with your skills.

U-6 didn’t start to be measured until 1994. I don’t undestand your Q.

So unless someone calls them and asks them if they are working then they don’t count. Many of the TeeVee people are on the road 85-90% of the time.

This type of contract labor needs to change, no one covers them for workman’s comp and some companies do not take out withholding because they are paid the same as the guy who delivers the bread. Just like KBR contractors were paid.

At some point in time, the Federal government through the Labor Dept and BLS, reported unemployment figures that included ALL unemployed, including those long term unemployed who had gotten discouraged and quit looking full time. They also I believe reported on thsoe that were under-employed.

They no longer report these figures as part of the “Unemployment Rate” that is officially 7.2%.

The Reuters article above states that if the reporting was calculated the same today as it was during the Great Depression, the current number would be
16.5% and not 7.2%

I’m wondering under which administration did they quit calculating unemployment in the same fashion using the same basic formula that was used during the Great Depression. The gentleman quoted in the Reuters article states it was done during the Johnson Administration. You say no.

That, and use of cell phones, is part of the increasing possibility of bias in the BLS stats. However, few have investigated what the actual influence of that problem will result in, wrt econ stats.

Thanks. One of my skills that has both helped me and hurt me is I can be a real PITA in a drive to get things done correctly.

A lot of firms don’t really want someone who will hold them to what they signed up to do. Project Managers don’t often like it either.

I’ve had some wonderful bosses who understood what my value was but I’ve also had those bosses that were looking to find a way to get rid of me soonest.

There was no comparable statistically robust survey of unemployment during the 1930s. To my knowledge (not to be taken as gospel) the pre-WWII data have been cobbled together from sparce surveys at the time. The post-WWII data are roughly consistent. The ones prior to that should be regarded as approximationds.

Unemployment is more like 14- 20% of those who need work and can’t find it.

::flash:: wow, dakine01 your story sounds remarkably familiar. the biggest difference is that my unemployment began about a year after your own. although i had been employed as an engineering professional for more than 30 years by very well known corporations, i do not hold one of those “coveted” degrees. my skill set is vast, but that is my personal gap. my expertise is on the hardware side of the aero-telecom industries as opposed to the software side.

i am most certainly not reflected in todays unemployment statistics either. as a woman in her early 50’s, it is terrifying to have worked through nearly all my retirement and savings to keep the bills paid … and yet, i am most grateful to have had that to survive. (i tease with friends who have joined me more recently in the ranks of unemployment that at least i got to spend mine.)

i am almost hopeful that the new administration will become a pivot point that encourages new job creation for manufacturing technologies within renewable energies and national infrastructures that allows me to plug back in without having to move to taiwan, china, viet nam or hungary. almost.
i am deeply interested in contributing, again, in manufacturing technology development … but, we have to be manufacturing something for that to occur.

thanks for speaking about those of us who have become a sort of invisible appendage of the economy of this country. we are many.

dakine0,

You’re not alone. Almost the same situation as me, except I’m a few years younger. I know I’ve sent out +/- 2700 resumes since late 2004.

The worst thing has been finding jobs that cost me to work at them. One job had me covering expenses for an out-of-town assignment which ran at 40% on top of taxes. That lasted a couple of months before I quit and I was taking home less than minimum wage for about 60 hours per week. A second job ended after 8 months (who’d a thunk it?) and cost me between $11k-$12K since I had to cover my apartment hunting trip, apartment deposit, cover half the cost of the move up, out-of-pocket for 4 months remaining on a 1-year lease for the apartment, paying for the license & auto tags transfer, and then the cost of the move back.

The thing I realized recently is that if things do get back on track by 2011 and there are jobs, I’ll be in my mid-50s which makes it hard to get hired…yes age discrimination is prevalent on top of all this.

Looking back, I should have cashed out and moved to another country for another life or early retirement.

Why would anyone be surprised that the Bush Administration has been cooking the books on unemployment? Commander in Chief? Cost of the Iraq war? Iraq Army Training? Healthy Forests? Clean Coal? Department of Justice? etc.

Wow! We are living parallel lives! Ex-SQA mostly unemployed since my layoff from a major website (I’ve been writing ever since). I too am off the unemployment roles and no longer being counted. Nice to know I’m not alone. :)