the authors of the jobs report that came out Friday -- said the unemployment rate was low by "about 3 percentage points" -- that error translates into about 4.7 million additional unemployed, or 5 million with rounding.
So it's not anything that is in dispute, when the organization that is responsible for producing the report says its low by about 3 percentage points. If "some" say that it was off by 5 million or 4.7 million and 3 percentage points, that's great, they should, because the BLS admits it and tells us right in the original report (except they only tell us "about 3 percentage points", and leave it to us to do the math.)
If "some others" don't say it's off, they are simply ignorant.
(And all this is aside from the discussion about how 25.72 million -- the corrected number of unemployed in the May report -- again something left to us to do the correction -- is only a little higher than the 21.49 million continuing claims for unemployment insurance benefits in their latest report of that, Thursday, 6/4/20)
This is from the report that came out Friday 830 AM ET -- at the same time as the original (and only) report's release (just to dispel another common myth -- it was not some correction they made later. Another myth: they corrected it. No they did not, the only "correction" they made was to tell us the unemployment rate was wrong by about 3 percentage points. They never actually provided a corrected figure. In fact, they explicitely said they didn't correct it).
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
_____________________________________________________________________
|
|
| Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on May 2020 Establishment and Household Survey Data
|
|
| Data collection for both surveys was affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
| In the establishment survey, approximately one-fifth of the data is collected at four
| regional data collection centers. Although these centers were closed, about three-
| quarters of the interviewers at these centers worked remotely to collect data by
| telephone. Additionally, BLS encouraged businesses to report electronically. The
| collection rate for the establishment survey in May was 69 percent, slightly lower
| than collection rates prior to the pandemic. The household survey is generally
| collected through in-person and telephone interviews, but personal interviews were
| not conducted for the safety of interviewers and respondents. The household survey
| response rate, at 67 percent, was about 15 percentage points lower than in months
| prior to the pandemic.
|
| In the establishment survey, workers who are paid by their employer for all or any
| part of the pay period including the 12th of the month are counted as employed, even
| if they were not actually at their jobs. Workers who are temporarily or permanently
| absent from their jobs and are not being paid are not counted as employed, even if
| they are continuing to receive benefits.
|
| The estimation methods used in the establishment survey were the same for May as they
| were for April. However, after further research, BLS extended the modifications that
| were made to the April birth-death model back to March, which accounted for a portion
| of the revision to March data. For more information, see
| www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-may-2020.pdf.
|
| In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed, unemployed, or not
| in the labor force based on their answers to a series of questions about their
| activities during the survey reference week (May 10th through May 16th). Workers who
| indicate they were not working during the entire survey reference week and expect to
| be recalled to their jobs should be classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. In
| May, a large number of persons were classified as unemployed on temporary layoff.
|
| However, there was also a large number of workers who were classified as employed but
| absent from work. As was the case in March and April, household survey interviewers
| were instructed to classify employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-
| related business closures as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, it is apparent
| that not all such workers were so classified. BLS and the Census Bureau are
| investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are taking
| additional steps to address the issue.
|
| If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to "other
| reasons" (over and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical May) had
| been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate
| would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported (on a not seasonally
| adjusted basis). However, according to usual practice, the data from the household
| survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are
| taken to reclassify survey responses.
|
| More information is available at
| www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-may-2020.pdf.
||_____________________________________________________________________
So the official unemployment rate, which in their report is 13.3%, is low by "about 3 percentage points" meaning that it should be "about" 16.3%. But it was left up to the reader to do the math. And to seasonally adjust the "about 3 percentage points". Nice.
What's more, it happened in March ("almost 1 percentage point" ) and April ("almost 5 percentage points" )
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13560715
and what's more, it's not just one or two numbers that are wrong (and uncorrected in the report or on their website or anywhere else). Its a whole slew of subdemographics of the unemployment rate and the unemployed numbers --
black unemployment, white, male, female, the different age groups, U-4, U-5, U-6, And their demographic subgroups, states and other geographic entities. And the Employed numbers and subdemographics.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13560826
= new reply since forum marked as read
