(?) Does anyone know exactly how unemployment rates are figured?

[bush_is_wacko]

I have noticed a trend among friends of mine who are being essentially laid off for financial reasons to later be denied unemployment because their employers say the reason for the separation was the employees fault. I know of three people that have lost jobs recently over ONE undocumented complaint that conveniently came at a time when their employers were having financial difficulties. When they go to collect unemployment they have gotten notices that the reason for the separation was their fault and they are denied benefits. 2 of these people appealed and were ultimately denied. The other has recently told me she is going to appeal but I am fairly confident she will not succeed in her endeavor.

Do the factor in people that are not collecting unemployment benefits when they figure unemployment rates? If not, how can this number be accurate?

[ixion]

1. the 'official' number is relevant to no earthly reality, IMO

it's essentially pulled out of their a**. :grr:

[stop the bleeding]

2. I always thought they only counted the people who have filed claims

in other words if your un-employed and not collecting anything and have not filed, then you are not part of the total, but I could be wrong.

[TahitiNut]

5. Yes ... that's WRONG. Unemployment rates are derived from the CPS.

See my post below.

[juajen]

18. Sorry, in advance

"You're" is a contraction similar to "they're". "Your bicycle" or "you are (you're) going to the store" such as your statement "if your un-employed", should read "if you're unemployed".

I'm in a picky mood today and this is my pet peeve, so please excuse the spelling lecture.

[TahitiNut]

3. Collection of unemployment benefits has NOTHING to do with the 'RATE'

... of unemployment.

Where do the statistics come from?

Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm


Read about the Current Population Survey ("CPS") here - http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_a.htm

[Atman]

9. Don't trust any information from a government web site.

Come on...the BLS isn't going to post anything contradictory to BushCo.

[bush_is_wacko]

11. Just what I thought! How the hell can we ever have an accurate count

if they only do a random sample? I suspect unemployment rates are WAY higher than what pretzel boy said they were in his SOTU address! I know too many people out of work and out of money!

[TahitiNut]

14. Nonsense! A 'sample size' of 60,000 is MORE than enough ...

... for the level of statistics discussed on DU. For the national unemployment rate, such a sample size is far and away enough to achieve a level of confidence in the number to a tenth of a percent. When the numbers are presented for MSA (Metropolitian Statistical Areas), you can quibble a bit. At the national level - BULLSHIT.

[bush_is_wacko]

17. So you think local samplings are more accurate than national

sampling? That makes sense to me. So why don't they use the local/state sampling to then go on to predict the national levels? Some states are naturally going to have higher rates than others and averaging the local/state rates would seem to me to be a better indicator of the true unemployment rates.

Is this what you are saying?

[liberal N proud]

4. Depends on who is doing the figures

What I do know is that prior to the Reagan regime, they were figured much differently. It used to be if you were out of work and continued to look for work, you were considered "unemployed" Not so now.

[Atman]

6. Keep rejiggering the numbers to make sure it hovers around 5%

Any method will work.

Dumping people from the employment roles is BushCo's favorite. After you've been unemployed long enough, they consider you're no longer looking, so you're no longer "unemployed." Just probably a lazy liberal bum. They also redefined "manufacturing" to include cheeseburger flipping at McDonalds.

Again, the only important factor is the end result. Start with 5% and work all the figures until that percentage is achieved. Then issue a press release. Then, a month later, re-issue the "adjusted" figures showing that you way over-estimated the previous month's figures.

[AllegroRondo]

13. Some other changes they made

in 2003, they changed the status of people receiving SS Disability from "not in the work force" to "employed"

also in 2003, they changed active duty military from "not in the work force" to "employed"

made the numbers look better.

[kineneb]

20. so the disabled are "working"?

Tell that to Hubby, who spends three hours per day, three days a week hooked up to a dialysis machine. Working, my ass. Surviving, yes. I quit my job to care for him, so technically, I am also unemployed as well.

The unemployment stats should read around 13-16%, at least.

[bush_is_wacko]

26. |That is insane! I guess technically they can't be counted as unemployed

but they are certainly not "employed!"

What do they consider national guard members who have been deployed? You know a heck of a lot of those people made darn good money and have taken MAJOR pay cuts to go over there.

[MountainLaurel]

23. Another such factor

Is that they don't count people who are underemployed: So, a librarian with a master's degree who cannot find a full-time position and thus works 15 hours a week at Barnes & Noble is considered employed. As would a Ph.D. who can only get adjunct teaching jobs, perhaps getting $1K to teach one class during a semester.

[mzmolly]

7. It's a matter of who's getting unemployment benefits. If you have run out

of "time" your no longer counted.

Reagan had the same "trend" people were out of work long enough that they didn't show up in the red tape.

[juajen]

21. Again, you are (you're) no longer counted, not "your"

I'm so out of it this morning. I usually try to ignore this, but, God, I hate it. It's (it is) a contraction people.

[mzmolly]

25. Thanks for taking time out of your busy day to enlighten *me.*

I think you overused "the comma thing" above, but, I'll, try, not,,to let it get to me. ::sarcasm:

On edit, I really do appreciate YOUR correction. I need a refresher now and again. ;) I have no idea how I did so well in english composition class?

[Brotherjohn]

8. I believe it only includes those collecting unemployment benefits. Anyone?

If this is the case, you're right. How can this be accurate?

More galling, the Bush administration recently either shortened or refused to extend the amount of time those on unemployment could remain on it (or something like that). This had the effect of taking millions OFF the official unemployment rolls, although they were still unemployed. It was using policy to cook the books (resulting in the direct pain and suffering of millions).

I'm not sure if this is the same thing, but there has also been reference made to the fact that the unemployment number does not take into account those who are unemployed but are no longer looking for employment (the market's not good enough for them to decide to get back into the workforce). Some of these may be workers in two-worker households. But nevertheless, they are unemployed now whereas they were employed before.

Real numbers, I'd guess Unemployment is 6-7%.

[Atman]

10. No, the actual estimated unemployment was about 10% last I checked

I just can't recall where I found that figure. Sorry, I can't supply a link, but I recall it was from a reputable source, like a major economics magazine or something. If I find it, I'll post it for you. But, doing calculations the "old fashioned" way, without burger flippers on the manufacturing roles, and people working three jobs not counted as three people employed, I am virtually certain the rate is about 10%. Probably higher by now.

[bush_is_wacko]

15. Sad, Just sad. All those people thinking they are the only people

having a hard time because the figures are inaccurate.

My latest unemployed friend was in tears thinking everything was all her fault and she just must deserve this shit. I don't know how you even begin to console someone like her who was steadily employed and worked her butt off for 7-8 years for the same company only to be laid off because she was the highest paid employee and her new employer was having financial difficulties. Her employer set her up,IMO. She had never recieved any complaints. In fact, from what I heard she was really well liked by everyone that worked with her. I was there enough to know they seemed to really like being around her. She is devastated her employer would treat her this way. I've been there before so I wasn't really all that surprised about the unemployment denial. The fact is her employer had recently bought the company from her old employer and wanted to reduce payroll. Exactly the same circumstances as my unemployment 3 years ago!

[formernaderite]

12. Most payroll services as part of their package will fight ALL

unemployment claims. They don't always win, but they try to maintain the lowest rates possible for a company. My wife used to run a very small marketing company. She had numerous part-timers quit, and then try to claim unemployment dollars. Since she used an outside payroll service, they went to bat for her. If you do have a blemish on your employment record, it becomes more difficult to argue....but if there's no negative report, and you've worked at a job beyond their probation period, and the employer let's you go, you will probably collect the funds....but they are pretty low.

[MadHound]

16. Here's how it is figured

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does a phone survey of a random 60,000 households every month. When somebody answers the phone, the question is asked "Are you employed ten or more hours a week?" If the person answers yes, they are politely thanked, marked down as employed, and the caller hangs up. If the answer is No, the they person is asked "Are you actively seeking employment?" If the answer is Yes, then that person is counted as being unemployed. If the answer is No, then that person isn't counted at all.

There are a multitude of problems with this method. First off, when you are unemployed, one of the first things to go is your utilities, especially the phone. Therefore, if you don't have a phone to be surveyed, you aren't counted, and thus the survey itself is skewed. Secondly, a significant percentage of the poor(and thus more apt to be unemployed) also don't have phones, again, skewing of the numbers. Third, no consideration is taken into account for why a person isn't seeking work, like a long illness, taking care of children, etc. More skewing of the numbers. And many, many other inaccuracies that, designed to or not, lead to a suppression of the true unemployed figures.

In addition, umemployment numbers are frequently used as a political football in order to prop up a president's sagging poll numbers. The most famous case in recent history is Reagan, who back in the mid-eighties mandated that all military personell were to be counted as part of the civilian work force, in order that he could grow about how he's bringing employment to America, when in reality all he was doing was cooking the books.

And the sheer audacity of calling somebody working ten hours a week "employed" is staggering. But again, this allows suppression of the true numbers of unemployed.

Thus we see that the unemployment statistics are a con job, like many of the other "official" numbers coming out of Washington. Sad to say, these multitudes of cooked numbers are being used to set policy. Thus, with skewed numbers, we're getting skewed policy. Just one more reason this country is in decline.

[bush_is_wacko]

19. Thank you! Some of us still need the simple version to weed through all

the crap! This makes sense to me and it is indeed a very inaccurate way to determine "unemployed."

I am not working due to an illness. I was not employed full time before I got REAL sick because I was sick. In my mind I have been unemployed for about a year and 3 months but I am not even represented as being unemployed since I have never been polled and even if I were I would have to answer yes to working over 10 hours a week initially and now I'm not looking so I would have to answer no to that question as well. My friend is looking, so I guess technically she counts as being unemployed but her phone has been cut off so she can't even be polled! That makes PERFECT sense!

[kineneb]

22. ten hours/week is not "employment"

since it really won't pay for anything. I would think of that sort of as a paid hobby.

I work at stuff at home more than that, plus weekends, but I won't count in the poll, because I don't get a paycheck for my efforts...(never mind that by teaching private music lessons "under the table," I can make more in one hour than I would make in 4 of the "employed" hours, with no commute).

[MadHound]

24. I know that, you know that, but those wacky folks at the BLS

Sure do love to cook their books in order to make their boss look better. Hell, it's gotten to the point with many people that forty hours a week isn't sufficient.