Anyone believe the current unemployment statistics--- ???

[defendandprotect]

Poll question: Anyone believe the current unemployment statistics--- ???

I think they're reporting something still in the 5% range . . . ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. It is inaccurate because of the way they count them

if you "give up", you no longer count. You never file, you never counted and so on...

So the short of it... can't trust them. In some regions we might be approaching the 25% in fact

[lurky]

3. Agreed. And even with the bias you describe,

I still think they have to fake the numbers. Ever notice how these jobs reports get quietly "adjusted" a few months after they are released? As in, "Oops, I guess we didn't have huge job growth last year! Oh well..."

[defendandprotect]

4. The reason I included that is because I've lost track of how they changed

things . . .
there was a bunch of stuff that used to be counted ---
like the military --- are they still in there?

but I couldn't specifically say what the changes were ---

Unemployment was also changed --- drastically!!

I think unemployment is HUGE ---

I'm really anxious to see if anyone comes in with some strong backing for a particular
larger figure . . .

thanks ---

[FogerRox]

10. Sorry, U3 is spot on, thats the number of unemployemnt checks that go out each week.

U6 has been over 13% for over 2 yrs. Nadin, you have to know what to look for.

[Ghost Dog]

14. Are U3, U6 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Do you have a handy link?

The thing is, the number of people calculated to be in the labor force (actively looking for work? / claiming benefit?) varies, and may be manipulated?

See story and data here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x35591

[FogerRox]

31. "Bureau of Labor Statistics?", Right, that would be my guess

Link? um,ah, I think it was in the NYT about 2 years ago, that U6 was 13%.

and may be manipulated?

Of course. But I ask myself what does this feel like, 10%, 12%, 15% ? , I talk to many others in my field , and ask them how they feel, many of them think its plausible that the U6 numbers are fairly decent, after all the press doesnt usually print this stuff on the frontpage, the press is quoting the 4.5% or 4.8% that U3 is. And those are good numbers, just the same as CLinton had. SO everyone is happy about that, and watches TV. :-_)

>


Donkey kicks McCains rump.

[Selatius]

33. U-6 is missing people, still. There have been a lot of people screwing it up on purpose.

The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/54

[FogerRox]

40. "12.5%".. That seems right.

[Digit]

2. Because it doesn't count those who have run out their unemployment benefits

which is a humongous number.

[defendandprotect]

5. Right ... I'm presuming that's the bulk of the inaccuracies . . .

First, they started to not renew the extentions ---
then extensions became a dirty word ---
then, POOF! --- unemployment insurance became a sometimes thing --- !!!

[FogerRox]

11. Its not inaccuarte, U3 is the measure of how many unemployment checks go out, thats all it is

U6 has been over 13% for a couple of yrs.

[w8liftinglady]

6. judging by my community-i think they're

way understated

[FogerRox]

7. U3 stats are quite good

Thats the number of people collecting unemployment checks. Why do you have a problem with that ?

If you look at U6, you will see its been above 13% for at least 2 years.

[defendandprotect]

17. Because it only NOW reflects the short term unemployed . . .

NOT the long term unemployed ---

NOR the underemployed --

those with part time jobs who want full time ---

those who had to trade down on salaries --

those who haven't been able to get a job at all --

[FogerRox]

28. it is specifically only those currently collecting unemployment checks.

No one else.

U6 is historically a better indicator of real chronic long term unemployment. I think 13%, even 15% is more realistic. It sure feels like 15%....

[EndElectoral]

8. It doesn't reflect non-eligible like self-employed. A better indicator- # employed overall.

[Breeze54]

We've been telling you they're lying for years!!!!

Yes,,, they're lying!!!

Some asshat from the Admin. on PBS tonight said:

"If people are still looking for jobs, they're counted in the unemployed."

NOT TRUE!!!!

As soon as anyone stops collecting benefits, they fall OFF the unemployment radar!

They're NOT counted!! :grr:

The numbers are WAY UP!!!

[defendandprotect]

18. Right -- that was probably the comment that caused me to start

this thread --- wasn't it a BBC program on PBS???

Anyway, the one I objected to was a BBC host who didn't challenge the 5% figure!!!!

While BBC seemed very concerned with our bankrupted Treasury!!

[pengillian101]

29. Why care what BBC reports? Or PBS?

this thread --- wasn't it a BBC program on PBS???

Anyway, the one I objected to was a BBC host who didn't challenge the 5% figure!!!!

While BBC seemed very concerned with our bankrupted Treasury!!

[defendandprotect]

32. I see very little TV "news" --- I happened to be going by as those

comments were being made ---

BBC is certainly not what it used to be -- though a few notches above regular American news at this point, IMO ---

And, PBS was gone --- long, long, long ago ----

Also in commenting about the BBC concern with our Treasury ---
I was trying to contrast that with the almost total lack of interest in our budgets/
bankrupted Treasury that has been shown by those asking debate questions!!!

PS: Just want to add that naturally our perhaps collapsing economy will, of course, have
an international effect --- i.e., the natural BBC concern.

[pengillian101]

35. Thanks for replying - n/t

[EndElectoral]

9. It doesn't reflect non-eligible like self-employed. A better indicator- # employed overall fulltime

[FogerRox]

12. the OP is talking about U3, try U6, those are the better numbers

[kenny blankenship]

13. In the same period the economy shed 63,000+ jobs, the unemployment rate supposedly dropped

from 4.9% to 4.8%
"Unemployed, and Skewing the Picture" by David Leonhart, NYTimes 3/5/2008

The published govt. unemployment number is virtually meaningless and might as well be made up out of thin air. Actually it is a meaningless number in more ways that one. Yes, it's inaccurate as hell. But it has not been in the interests -or habits- of the governing elites to seek accurate data on employment collected by the govt. for almost 30 years now. The number is meaningless to them whether the figure is accurate or not.

WHY would they revise and improve their unemployment statistics gathering? It has no bearing on policy anymore. The Reagan Revolution made national macroeconomic performance the exclusive purview of private banks and industry. You don't look at unemployment stats to formulate economic policy anymore. The role of the govt today is just to make sure the rich are getting richer. If that condition is satisfied then --according to the theory guiding this country's parties--all's well. All the government cares about concerning the unemployment statistic is that some way exists to massage the numbers so that they come out to less than 5%. They are in no real danger so long as a figure less than 10% is accepted by the public as a plausible lie --and that's the media's job, to see that it sticks. If they can claim under 5% unemployment, well then my God! the American worker is surely living in the best of all possible worlds and had ought to thank his lucky stars to have such beneficent employers and rulers. Just don't look out your window or the illusion vanishes.

[defendandprotect]

19. Is there any government agency under Bush which is allowed to tell the truth--?? !!

[OnionPatch]

15. I just read somewhere today

that the low number is because so many people gave up and dropped out of the labor force. I wish I could find the article, it was a mainstream news site---I was shocked they were so honest.

Edited: Found the link to the article. About midway down the page they talk about the unemployment rate. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080307/business/us_economy

[elleng]

16. Anyone believe

ANY 'statistic' provided by this administration????

[cynatnite]

20. Well, it helps to understand how they get their numbers...

Check these out...

How the government measures unemployment(discusses those unemployed whose benefits have run out)

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

Current Population Survey (also used in figuring unemployment rate)

http://www.census.gov/cps/

They don't ignore those folks who aren't getting benefits or have run out of benefits as many believe. Read up on it to see how they've been doing it for quite a while now.

[Breeze54]

21. Stop your RW BS, will you!

Gheeze!! :grr:

You are either a RW plant or just really gullible and stupid.

[AngryAmish]

24. The method of counting the unemployed is more or less the same for the past several administrations

The BLS is filled with career people, not political people. If you examine the stats and understand what they measure (the unemployment rate does not measure everyone who does not have a job) then you can get numbers that are true as far as it goes.

They do measure the people who have given up. However, that number is not reported because reporters do not generally understand economics.

Bottom line: Do I believe that the unemployment number reflects how many people are out of work? No. Do I believe that it measures the people that are defined as unemployed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Yes.

[sendero]

22. Like the CPI statistics..

... which are TOTALLY cooked so much that there is no defense for the number at all, there are plenty of games that are played with the UE numbers.

For example, say you are a bricklayer, and all housing construction abruptly stops (sound familiar?). You look for work for a time, but at some point you stop because THERE ARE NO JOBS TO BE HAD LAYING BRICKS.

Presto-bullshito, you are not counted as unemployed.

[ThomWV]

23. The 16% number is probably high, but not all that high.

First off the number is determined by survey. They call homes and ask, just like any other poll. It has a margin of error, and of course a lot depends on exactly how the question is asked, but within the margin of error its probably a pretty good number. The question you have to ask then is, how many of the unemployed are living in homes with hard wire phones?

Are the homeless unemployed? How about the huge number of immigrants up from the south? How about the cell-phone-only community? There are just far too many people who are missed by the survey for it to reasonably account for their employment status by fudge factors and I think that is where you'll find the difference between what is reported and what is actually out there.

My guess? Probably something more along the lines of twice what they report, maybe 10%.

[riverdale]

25. How does one go about applying for unemployment benefits?

I'm about to lose my job.

[MadHound]

26. If you believe the official unemployment numbers you are a fool

They've been cooking the books on unemployment(and other things) ever since the Reagan years. Who they count as unemployed, who they don't, it's all just a big game to make the economy and government look as good as possible.

[ileus]

27. No job loss in my area....Oh that's because there's no jobs, the way it's always been.

[blues90]

30. to put it bluntly , everything is a damn lie

[donheld]

34. Who are the 4 fools who believe Bush?

:scared:

[OhioChick]

36. Hell No. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Even the New York Times ran an article a couple of days ago, admitting

that the REAL rate is more like 12%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x342988

They fudge the figures by not counting discouraged workers or people who are working even ONE hour per week.

[Greyhound]

38. Total Bullshit. They "official" figures report nothing except what our masters want them

to report. Good example that can be worked out in this very thread, the economy "shed" 60,000+ jobs last month and 30,000 the month before, while 600,000+ more people dropped off the radar completely, as if they no longer exist.

If you've been following this, even if only during the post-coup years, you've seen how the numbers have been repeatedly fudged to hide the death spiral we've been in since the late 80s. The idea that the next election is going to produce anything different is laughable (gallows humor).

[B Calm]

39. It don't count for the workers working partial weeks. I worked

five days in the past two weeks.

[Joanne98]

41. Elaine Chao is cooking the books.