Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jonathan Tasini: Unemployment Is 15 Percent

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:49 PM
Original message
Jonathan Tasini: Unemployment Is 15 Percent
from the Working Life blog:



Unemployment Is 15 Percent
by Jonathan Tasini

Friday 03 of April, 2009


When you think about having a job, the logical person would consider that a situation where you were making enough money to pay your bills, and maybe save a bit. Anything less is not real employment. And by that measure, our unemployment figure is more than 15 percent.

So, each month, the media does a pathetic job in reporting unemployment figures--and today is no different. The New York Times:

The American economy shed another 663,000 jobs in March, the government reported Friday, bringing the toll of job losses during the recession to more than 5 million.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the national unemployment rate climbed to 8.5 percent from 8.1 percent in February, its highest levels in a quarter-century, as employers raced to cut their payroll costs. It was the 15th consecutive month of job losses.


How does the lazy-ass reporter arrive at that figure? Well, he simply rewrites the first paragraph of the Department of Labor's press release:

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline sharply in March (-663,000), and the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Since the recession began in December 2007, 5.1 million jobs have been lost, with almost two-thirds (3.3 million) of the decrease occurring in the last 5 months. In March, job losses were large and widespread across the major industry sectors.
.............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.workinglife.org/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=12983




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Only if your bills consist of a small basic apartment and basic food and clothing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. Even the official unemployment figures are inaccurate
Since they don't count anyone who's exhausted unemployment insurance. What do they call them, "discouraged workers"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Common misconception. The unemployment rate is calculated through the Current Population Survey
which is a scientific survey of 60,000 households.

If your unemployment benefits are exhausted, and you are still actively seeking work, you would be counted as unemployed under U3, the official unemployment rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's actually worse than that.
The media-quoted figure is the "U3" which defines out most of the unemployed to make the figure sound better. Even the BLS's own U6, which includes workers that have given up looking or work at menial part-time jobs because they want but can't find full-time employment, is almost 16%.

If you also add back in those defined out of the "discouraged worker" class by the Clinton administration, the rate is about 20%.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinqy Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Another misconception
Discouraged workers were not "defined out" under Clinton. It was under Johnson, in 1967. And they were defined out because it's too subjective and distorts the actual activity of the labor market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. By that definition, it is higher than that
more like 20
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC