Here is a BLS paper describing undercounting of long-term discouraged umemployed:

[phantom power]

You've probably seen claims that if we counted long-term discouraged unemployed in the same way we did prior to 1994, our underemployment rate would be 22%. Here is a Bureau of Labor Statistics paper describing the change:

The new indicators U-4 through U-6 are markedly different fromtheir counterparts in the original range of alternative unemployment measures. U-4 is the number of unemployed persons plus person classified as discouraged workers. In order to be calssified as discouraged in the redesigned survey, persons must explicitly want and be available for work and have searched for work in the prior year, even though they are not currently looking for a job because they feel their search would be in vain. The inclusion of U-4 coincides with the views of those who support a definition of unemployment that incorprates labor market discouragement.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

So, I believe the argument is that anybody who gave up looking for work more than 12 months ago is not counted in modern unemployment numbers. If I'm understanding the logic, if one adds those people back in to U-6 numbers, you get un/under-employment in excess of 20%:

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.



http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

[dmallind]

1. How, exactly, ARE you in the labor force after 12 months of not trying?

Not ONE application or phone call in a year? What's the difference betweeen that and not looking for work at all? If you're not looking for work at all, how can you be in the labor force any more than, say, Ann Romney is? Discouraged I understand. Pessimistic I understand. Giving up entirely while still claiming you want to work?

Sure sure I'll get a lot of frothing at the mouthers telling me I'm blaming the victims and related shite. Feel free, but also please try to me how you can reconcile wanting to work and not trying to get work for over a year. Yes I know jobs are not plentiful on every corner. Yes I know applicants massively outnumber openings. Yes I know it's hard and depressing. Not long ago I went through fairly long term unemployment myself. All those things applied then and all still do. But giving up looking for so much as a week (hell I counted applications per day not the other way round), let alone a year, never entered my mind once.

[phantom power]

3. Here's the thing...

Those several million people certainly could all go out and continue submitting resumes and going to job fairs, in the name of proving to you or anybody else that they still want a job. But they'd still be unemployed. How do I know this? Because our economy currently can't absorb even the people who are already still actively looking. So throwing another few million into the resume stacks isn't going to get those people employed.

What does that mean? It implies that the 20% - plus figure is the better measure. Unless your claim is that those people don't really want a job. Which sounds a lot like the Republican argument that we have high unemployment because people are lazy.

[matthews]

8. I'LL tell you exactly how that works. I am an older person looking for work...

I've been looking since October 29, 2012. I was a bookkeeper for a major international food service company in a teaching hospital. The hospital got sold and the deal was final 10/26. My last day of packing boxes was 10/29. I have worked for DECADES. I have always been able to find work. I have a degree as a Paralegal that I got with honors. I have had phone calls, I have had interviews. I have sat across a desk from a 25-year old male who I could probably run around the block three times before he even figured what direction we went. Three times.

I have had to go to seminars for the Job Service because I was collecting unemployment. (I'm not collecting now.) I have sat in small auditoriums loaded with people, especially my age, and to break it down even further, especially women, talking our situation over.
During breaks we sat and talked about how few jobs we get sent on, or get an opportunity to interview for. Men would join in our discussions as well. And talk how damn little they're paying. And how men, if they take temp jobs, get the worst jobs for an average of 9.00 an hour. I, in fact, have a little red spiral notebook where I write down the dates and all the pertinent information for anyplace I apply to. So, yes, I can tell you that you farking CAN be out of the labor market for month, 6 months, a year, even longer.

So please, forgive us all for being such worthless slackers and for not living up to your expectations. We BEGGGGGGGG your pardon.

[FogerRox]

2. U6 peaked at 17.2%

IIRC about 28 million people, and we know U6 doesnt count everyone, and U6 is now 14.5% about 23 million, we know those 5 million people didnt find jobs.....

I think 20% is reasonable.

And the civilian workforce grows about 1.5 million a year.....

[phantom power]

4. The last couple years on that plot are interesting

For most of the plot, the three curves essentially track each other at a constant offset. But starting at 2010, the U3 and U6 curves start to decline, while the blue 'SGS' curve remains plateaued. I wonder what is going on there. It would seem to imply that increasing numbers of people are moving into the "longterm discouraged" category.

[FogerRox]

5. Nothing to wonder about.

Some might call it the fook it category

Prior to the New Deal tax policy and GLass Steagall II, (1800-1938) there was a economic down turn on average every 4.3 years, 28 of 31 lasted from 1 to 5 years, shedding 20-30% of jobs, peak to trough -15% to -33%

From 1938 to 1988 there 3 recessions that were worse than negative 1%. 1947-1958-1982. All 3 saw significant job creation in recovery.

3 recessions since 1988- 1990-2000-2008 saw jobless recoverys, 2008 saw peak to trough -4.3%, shedding 20% of jobs, and has lasted going on 4 yrs.

It may be the pattern has re established itself.

[phantom power]

6. I guess that would be consistent with the ongoing rejection of Keynesian econ and the New Deal

[FogerRox]

7. We would agree, Did you see the Eliz Warren video

she says a "Depression every 20 years"?

Thats what shes talking about. New Deal and GLass Steagal II made for a stable economy. It had nothing to do with tax fairness, or stealing from the rich and giving to the working class. The Middle and working classes earned everything they "had".