U.S. jobless rate dips to 5 percent, lowest in nearly 4 years.

[Roon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

[ET Awful]

1. And how do they square that with June having the highest number of

announced job cuts in 17 months?

Oh yeah, they're still leaving off people who are no longer eligible for benefits or aren't looking for jobs due to none existing, etc.

[papau]

28. Drop in UE rate due to long term UE's being dropped

Can media ignore DOL stat UE rate drop being due to long term UE's dropping out? How many ways can the media ignore DOL saying UE rate drop is due to long term UE's being dropped?


The DOL http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Friday, July 8, 2005 THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JUNE 2005

"Nonfarm employment increased by 146,000 in June, and the unemployment rate continued to trend down, reaching 5.0 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today" is pushing stocks higher today and indeed the job growth on its face without analysis is good news - Employers added 146,000 jobs last month, and upward revisions to employment gains in April and May totaled 62,000, yielding an overall job increase of 208,000.

But even ignoring the effect of the pretend and never benchmarked "birth/death adjustment" in those job growth numbers, how does the media justify ignoring:

1. Over the past four months, the economy has added an average of 166,000 jobs per month while during the expansion of the 1990s, from 1993 through 1999, the economy added an average of 251,000 jobs each month.

2. Average weekly hours held steady at 33.7 hours per week in June, after falling from 33.8 in April.

3. When you drop long out of work folks from the calculation you get the share of unemployed workers who have been out of work and searching for a job for at least six months falling, from 20.1 to 17.8 percent, just like we did in this report. Indeed the average number of weeks that workers spend unemployed showing a large drop, from 18.8 to 17.1 weeks, is more proof that the DOL dropped the long unemployed out of their calculations

4. Meanwhile wage growth is less than inflation at 2.8% annualized rate of growth vs, inflation of 4.4%. Since when does this happen in a tightening labor market?

5. And the best summary of our "tightening labor market" - the labor force participation rate - fell by 0.1 percentage points last month.

Where the hell is our media?

[Coyote_Bandit]

2. Of Course It's Getting Lower

folks like me are no longer counted. Laid-off and now jobless for two and a half years.

[napi21]

3. There's always the "Kids are off for the summer" too.

What low paying jobs that did exist have been taken by the kids for the summer.

[Spirochete]

42. How does that change things?

Kids that are in school don't count as the unemployed anyway, do they? It would not make the number of unemployed less. Rather, wouldn't it make it go up, if anything - seeing as how the kids may be taking jobs that real unemployed people might have taken otherwise?

[rooboy]

4. Hmmm... now let's see...

One partner has a good paying job, other partner is looking for a good paying job. Unemployment rate:50%.

Partner 1 loses good paying job, and takes a part time position flipping burgers for 5 bucks an hour. Other partner gives up looking for job in chosen field and takes a 12 hours per week telemarketing job for commission only. Unemployment rate:0%.

How do I know this? Just 48 hours ago they announced that Australia's unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in nearly 20 years, yet nobody has a buck to spare.

Yep... things are looking REAL good. :sarcasm:

[jojo54]

5. This is how Bu*hco wants it.

BELIEVE IN ME........BELIEVE IN ME...........

....yeah right, believe in this, ya frucking monster.

[Roland99]

6. Unemployment rate has now become a meaningless statistic

[liberal N proud]

7. That is the number of people who are actually drawing unemployment

What is the real jobless rate?
These buttheads quit counting people when they lost their unemployment back in the Regan years and it helps to make the picture a little less dismal.

Count all the people who can't find work.

Then I would like to see the number on people who had good paying jobs and now work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart.
They never talk about the recession of wages either.

These numbers mean shit.

[TahitiNut]

10. That's a MYTH! PLEASE read up on the basics before perpetuating ...

... one of the more baseless, inane characterizations of the reported unemployment rate we see. This hogwash gets repeated ad infinitum by people who apparently haven't done the most basic of reading about this figure and bears no relation to reality.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I really get tired of seeing this stated repeatedly. It's akin to seeing people say the mooon is made of green cheese.

While the correlation to reality of the reported unemployment rate is quite questionable, it's certainly not helpful to repeat falsehoods.

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.

For Krissakes, READ!! http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. Being able to read is not the issue. The question is instead,....

...who benefits by claiming a low unemployment rate?

Knowing what we know about the NeoCon Junta, do you trust them to NOT manipulate the numbers to cast themselves in the best possible light?

Reading the paragraph entitled, "Who is not in the labor force?", one can easily come to the conclusion that the system can be EASILY manipulated:

"The remainder--those who have no job and are not looking for one--are counted as "not in the labor force."

Couldn't that "remainder" also include those no longer receiving unemployment benefits?

...snip...

A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include: 1. Do you currently want a job, either full or part time? 2. What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the LAST 4 WEEKS? 3. Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months? 4. LAST WEEK, could you have started a job if one had been offered?

...snip...

These questions form the basis for estimating the number of persons who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be "marginally attached" to it. These are persons without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment.

But, by the CPS definition, they are "not unemployed". Then what are they, exactly? Couldn't this group ALSO include those that have exhausted their unemployment benefits?

...snip...

"Discouraged workers" are a subset of the marginally attached. "Discouraged workers" report they are not currently looking for work for at least one of 4 reasons: 1) they believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area, 2) they had previously been unable to find work, 3) they lack the necessary schooling, training, skills or experience, or 4) employers think they are too young or too old, or they face some other type of discrimination."

And this group of workers is ALSO considered to be "not unemployed". They want work and can't find it for a variety of reasons, but they're still considered to be "not unemployed"?? Any chance that at least some of these folks exhausted their unemplyment benefits at some point in time?

[badger1080]

18. Might as welll just cut and paste this.

How is the unemployment rate related to unemployment insurance claims?

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households. A person's unemployment status is established by responses to a series of questions on whether they have a job or are on layoff, whether they want a job and are available to work, and what they have done to look for work in the preceding 4 weeks. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed persons as a percent of the labor force (employed and unemployed persons). See "Who is counted as unemployed?" for more information.

They want work and can't find it for a variety of reasons, but they're still considered to be "not unemployed"?? Any chance that at least some of these folks exhausted their unemplyment benefits at some point in time?It's not that they can't find it, it's that they have quite looking. They may have exhausted their UE benefits, but that seems like more motivation to search for a job.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. "...a monthly survey of over 60,000 households..."

Doesn't this survey automatically discount the homeless? If there are 2,000,000 homeless, and 10% of them are employed homeless, are the 1,800,000 not counted?

How do they compensate? How can they adjust the figures for people who have no fixed address? Polls of the homeless shelters, which can account for less than 50% of the homeless?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

34. that's a sample (60,000 households)and I don't think it is accurate

Especially with Bush, this administration has every effort made to undercount people.

They don't admit global warming is happening, they have messed with EPA standards....

[TahitiNut]

41. Statistically, it's VERY accurate for the more comprehensive numbers.

While one might validly argue with the categorization criteria and weakly quibble with the methodology, the sample size is more than adequate for VERY accurate numbers at the more comprehensive levels.

Nonetheless, (and this is VERY important), small month-to-month variances and the preliminary (revised in each of the two following months) nature of the numbers is nothing to hang ANYONE's hat on ... either for prideful boasting or for condemnation. In the longer term, the numbers, together, paint a picture of abominable decimation of the working class. There are fewer people working, and for LESS, in the private sector today than before the Unctuous Toad stole into the Offal Orifice.

[Blue_Roses]

36. good grief

"But what about the two following cases? George Lewis is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, George does help with the regular chores around his father's farm about 20 hours each week.

Lisa Fox spends most of her time taking care of her home and children, but, all day Friday and Saturday, she helps in her husband's computer software store.

Under the Government's definition of employment, both George and Lisa are considered employed. They fall into a group called "unpaid family workers," which includes any person who worked 15 hours or more in a week without pay in a family-operated enterprise. Such persons contribute significantly to our productive effort and are an important part of our labor supply, particularly in agriculture and retail trade. However, unpaid family workers who work fewer than 15 hours per week are counted as "not in the labor force."

They're counting 16 year-old's in this??? It's no wonder the unemployment rate is down. Flipping burgers might be a good job for a teenager, but you can't support a family on that pay. Geeze.:eyes:

and their criteria for being "employed" sucks:

To summarize: Employed persons consist of:

# All persons who did any work for pay or profit during the survey week.
# All persons who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a family-operated enterprise.
# All persons who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, bad weather, industrial dispute, or various personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off.

[badger1080]

11. Wrong

"That is the number of people who are actually drawing unemployment"

What is the real jobless rate?
These buttheads quit counting people when they lost their unemployment back in the Regan years and it helps to make the picture a little less dismal.

That's not true. Unemployment bennies have nothing to do with the unemployment rate. I promise.

[malachi]

8. Job growth tepid, jobless rate drops

WTF? Could someone please translate this bullshit to English for me? The rate dropped .1% because 1000 people were either working or LOOING FOR WORK? Gimme a fuckin' break. The UR is 100% crap, totally meaningless, except to those that happen to be out of work.

June's tepid employment growth came in below analyst expectations for 188,500 new jobs in the month. But the decline in the unemployment rate to 5.0 percent was a nice surprise, since Wall Street had expected it to hold at 5.1 percent. The drop was mostly due to a paltry 1,000 increase in the work force, which includes those looking for work as well as those who have jobs.


http://money.iwon.com/ht/nw/bus/20050708/hl_bus-n08346443.html?PG=home&SEC=news

[Deja Q]

9. How many people gave up looking? How are the jobless tabulated?

If it's solely on people who go off 'unemployment' then it's a load of bunk.

[speedingbullet]

12. Good Question

I seem to remember that the Gov't changed the rules on this during Jr's first term. They quit counting the people who had given up. This has the effect of making his numbers look better. Sorry that I can't remember any specifics.

[badger1080]

13. They've never counted people who give up looking

That hasn't changed. Its the right thing to do. Otherwise every parent who's a stay at home would be counted as unemployed. At some point the BLS started trying to estimate the number of people who leave the labor force because they've given up, but they started this a while ago.

[badger1080]

16. bls link

BLS link
Check out the links under people are asking on the right.

Discouraged workers
Here our the number of discouraged workers. Big jump this month compared to last month, but similar level as earlier in the year.

[papau]

29. Drop in UE rate due to long term UE's being dropped

Can media ignore DOL stat UE rate drop being due to long term UE's dropping out? How many ways can the media ignore DOL saying UE rate drop is due to long term UE's being dropped?


The DOL http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Friday, July 8, 2005 THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JUNE 2005

"Nonfarm employment increased by 146,000 in June, and the unemployment rate continued to trend down, reaching 5.0 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today" is pushing stocks higher today and indeed the job growth on its face without analysis is good news - Employers added 146,000 jobs last month, and upward revisions to employment gains in April and May totaled 62,000, yielding an overall job increase of 208,000.

But even ignoring the effect of the pretend and never benchmarked "birth/death adjustment" in those job growth numbers, how does the media justify ignoring:

1. Over the past four months, the economy has added an average of 166,000 jobs per month while during the expansion of the 1990s, from 1993 through 1999, the economy added an average of 251,000 jobs each month.

2. Average weekly hours held steady at 33.7 hours per week in June, after falling from 33.8 in April.

3. When you drop long out of work folks from the calculation you get the share of unemployed workers who have been out of work and searching for a job for at least six months falling, from 20.1 to 17.8 percent, just like we did in this report. Indeed the average number of weeks that workers spend unemployed showing a large drop, from 18.8 to 17.1 weeks, is more proof that the DOL dropped the long unemployed out of their calculations

4. Meanwhile wage growth is less than inflation at 2.8% annualized rate of growth vs, inflation of 4.4%. Since when does this happen in a tightening labor market?

5. And the best summary of our "tightening labor market" - the labor force participation rate - fell by 0.1 percentage points last month.

Where the hell is our media?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. No, it's NOT "the right thing to do". See my post #15.

[hughee99]

37. So someone who isn't looking for a job

should be considered someone who can't find a job? Why should someone who isn't looking to work, for whatever reason, be considered unemployed? Should the purpose of the unemployement statistics be to inform everyone of how may people aren't working, or how many people can't find jobs? If someone isn't working, and they don't want to work, it doesn't bother me that they don't have a job.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. I guess you've chosen to ignore the people that have been laid-off....

...from jobs that have been outsouced. Where do you suppose the bulk of those people find work, especially if they're over fifty years old? These are people that want work, and simply can't find it.

And yes, "unemployement statistics should be used to inform everyone of how may people aren't working, or how many people can't find jobs"?

Unemployed is unemployed, no matter how the government wants to categorize it.

[hughee99]

49. So people who have been laid-off

aren't looking for jobs? I said that if someone is not looking for a job, and does not want a job then I am not concerned about them not having a job (like stay-at-home parents). Obviously if they want to work, and can't find a job, they would NOT fall into this category, unless they want to work but aren't looking for a job.

It seems to me that the government is trying (and not doing a very good job of it) to represent the number of people who don't have jobs AND want to work. Now while they are screwing it up pretty good, that seems to be what the unemployment numbers are SUPPOSED TO represent.

Anyone without a job should not be considered "unemployed" by this standard, since everyone does not want to or need to have a job.

Under the standard of "anyone who does not have a job is unemployed" then you would have to consider full-time students, stay-at-home parents, prisioners, some lottery-winners or independently wealthy, and other people who do not want to work. Since it is not reasonable to expect these people to take a job if one is created, then they should not be considered part of the group of people who are looking for jobs but can't find them.

[mbperrin]

19. The government finds it tough to count individual citizens, but WaLMart

can tell you how many bobby pins they sold last year.

Yes, it's "hard" to count the unemployed when it's part of your job to make sure people are employed. MUCH easier to do a "survey" than to do the job. Know ANYBODY who was EVER in this survey? Know ANYBODY who knows ANYBODY who was EVER in this survey? Ask around. I guarantee you don't.

[Richard Steele]

25. That occurred to me as well. If they have surveyed 60,000 households...

...every month for 40 years, why have I never heard of this?

[NuttyFluffers]

48. huh, that's right... let's see a little math on that....

every month 60,000 are asked, for 40 years...

12 x 60,000 x 40 = 28.8 million

hmm, and assuming no one was ever asked twice it'd still be a low enough number to just barely go over 10% of today's population. well, i guess it can be that i never come across anyone with 6 degrees of separation of this survey. personally experienced nielson ratings, 6 degree of separation of famous people galore, etc. but this survey my circle just never experienced. huh, funny that.

oh well, i guess it can be this large and next to no one i, you, and others we know have heard or experienced. weird. big country i guess.

[Chi]

14. So what is the tally on net created jobs at this point?

It's pretty bad when the only good thing an administration can note, is how much better they are doing, compared to the mess they created 4 years ago.

When Clinton left office the big argument was 'what to do with the surplus', my my my what a great job Bush has done with that surplus.

Employed -- 141,404,000
Unemployed -- 7,599,000
Not in Labor force -- 76,671,000 (nice big fudge pool)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

"the vast majority of my tax breaks go to those at the bottom"
'the average retired person gets $20,000 a year in dividend income'

let's not forget the track record of lies.

(Edited to add info)

[Coyote_Bandit]

21. Unemployment stats are significantly understated

How?

They do not included new high school and college grads who have not previously been in the workforce.

They do not include stay at home parents who have been out of the work force for a period of time and wish to return.

As noted in the discussion above, they do not include "discouraged workers."

They do not account for workers who have part-time positions yet desire full-time work.

They do not account for workers who are underemployed - like an attorney I know who drives a UPS truck and another who works the cosmetic counter at a department store.

And, they do not accurately account for workers who are no longer drawing unemployment benefits yet continue to look for work. Many of us are assumed to be "discouraged workers" and are not counted. Indeed, I would be surprised to learn that any of us are counted. After all, there is always work available and if one remains unemployed that is their fault. At least that seems to be the common assumption here in crazy red f*cking JOklahoma. And that logic, my dear, makes folks like me uncounted "discouraged workers" rather than unemployed.

[badger1080]

27. "Unemployment stats are significantly understated"

They do not included new high school and college grads who have not previously been in the workforce.
If they've been out of school for atleast a month and looking for work they are counted.

They do not include stay at home parents who have been out of the work force for a period of time and wish to return.
Yes, they do.

They do not account for workers who have part-time positions yet desire full-time work.
The BLS used to, I'm sure they still do, have different unemployment rate numbers. One of which accounted for this, but I can't seem to find those numbers on their website anymore. They also had one that accounted for discouraged workers. Of course the were called like UR5 and UR6 and were never the unemployment rates you would see quoted in newspapers. It would be nice if I could find those stats again.

[Coyote_Bandit]

31. Disagree all you want

The stats are understated. Before being laid-off I worked as an investment portfolio manager. I had sole responsibility for investing an excess of $800 million held in various kinds of accounts. Within my industry it is commonly understood that the unemployment rate is understated - and has been for quite a long time. It is nothing new and was just as true when Clinton was president as it is now. Perhaps it is not understated according to the legal lingo and and regulations you cite - but nonetheless the unemployment rate that is reported is understated.

If you refuse to acknowledge that based on any of the categories of unemployed and underemployed folks then you must acknowledge it based on nothing less than timing. There is a brief delay between the time someone is laid-off and the time they are considered unemployed. A waiting period if you will. Also, by your own acknowledgment, there is a delay between the time some folks (i.e., those returning to the workforce and new previously unemployed graduates) start looking for work and the time they are actually considered unemployed. And since most of those new grads live at home with Mommy and Daddy what is the likelihood that they will be surveyed?

The stats that are most commonly alluded to simply do not account for underemployed and part-time workers who wish to work full-time. To say that there are different measures of unemployment is a bit disingenuous. Sure there are. But those are not the numbers that are reported by mainstream media nor the ones that are commonly discussed outside of financial and academic fields.

Perhaps the real issue is why we fail to include discouraged workers in the unemployment stats most commonly cited. Doing so would give a far more accurate depiction of our workforce. Discouraged workers are, after all, folks who desire to work and be contributing members of society in some way. And who once did just that.

There is also some debate regarding the manner in which self-employed workers are accounted for in those unemployment stats. A worker who is laid-off and unable to secure new employment may choose to become an entrepreneur because they have no other alternatives available (or limited alternatives as the case may be). It matters not whether that person earns money or whether that business survives. It is considered job creation. And that can be very deceiving when that person is unable to be self-supporting and the business fails.

There are also issues regarding seasonal workers and those who work multiple jobs. How do you accurately account for seasonal workers especially when many are undocumented workers? And just exactly how do you account for someone who holds three part-time minimum wage jobs and is then laid off from one of those jobs?

The surveys you reference are also skewed by the fact that a disproportionate number of low wage and unemployed workers do not have phone service or may, in fact, be homeless. These folks are simply never contacted or counted in those surveys. These same surveys most likely exclude those who have only cell phone service.

Incidentally, I notice you are new to DU. Welcome. I also notice that defending the validity of the unemployment stats seems to be something you approach with some passion. May I ask why? Really, it is nothing more than a number long known to be something less than an accurate reflection of reality.

[Blue_Roses]

38. Awesome post!

I'm going to bookmark this. :D

[Coyote_Bandit]

40. Thanks!

Nice to know somebody reads my ramblings here - sometimes I think I am the most successful thread killer on DU.

:evilgrin:

[nolabels]

22. More misleading stats

That is not even any kind of valid number. The percentage of people who are looking for work who recently lost a job tells just about nothing

[arwalden]

24. But They Only Include The People Receiving Unemployment Benefits, Right??

Isn't it true that these figures do NOT include the people who are STILL unemployed but whose benefits have expired?

Can anyone confirm my understanding of how they arrive at these numbers? (Or can you correct me if I'm wrong?)

[badger1080]

26. NO, unemployment rates have nothing to do with Unemployment Benefits nt

nt

[barb162]

32. most if not all states only include you as unemployed if you are

receiving the benefits. There are other FED surveys that try to get a more accurate count, but I suspect the Bushies use the state supplied figures (as they will be lower unemployed counts). The FED will use sampling.

[Chi]

30. 'Not in Labor Force' category went from 3% to a 9.5% increase

From Jan 1995 to Jan 1999, the 'not in Labor force' category grew from 65,715,000 to 67,715,000.
Thats a 2,000,000 difference, or a 3.04% increase.


From Jan 2001 to Jan 2005 the 'not in Labor force' category grew from 70,303,000 to 76,949,000.
That's a 6,646,000 difference, or a 9.45% increase.

Why are so many more (by percentage) people currently in that category.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=ln

[ismnotwasm]

33. Okay, I'm ignorant here

But regardless of the actual rates, where are the jobs? Are they living wage jobs, temp jobs, fast food? Is there a link? I'll read it, I promise.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

35. More BS and spin

My husband has been either downsized or let go due to buyouts three times since 2002. The latest was this spring. And our country is "doing well." Whatever. He's taking his time to look, and not bothering to draw unemployment - he's merely considering it a "sabbatical." <VBG>

If Bush wants the real truth, he needs to come to where I live (in Red State Hell, aka Kansas) and talk to all of the aerospace people who just got their pink slips...some of them weeks or months before they were scheduled to retire. And there's been all the talk of closing bases, which will ultimately screw over the civilian population too. He sure is doing a lot to create jobs...for outsourcers, and his hawk friends.

[are_we_united_yet]

39. I thought I saw more restroom personnel at the interstate rest stops

[CityDem]

43. How many new jobs as burger flippers

Great -- we added about 140K new burger flippers at $5 per hour. Bushco economics at work.

[BlueIris]

46. Okay, I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread, so here goes:

it's been a LONG time since my college econ classes, so I'm having trouble remembering the answer to this question--what are the three major types of unemployment? One is cyclical employment, and the other two are--?? Come on, DU MBAs, CPAs, CEOs, company presidents and economics professors. Explain it to Iris one more time? I know you're out there. Save me the Google through the "red-slanted" pages.

[fleabert]

47. they aren't counting me, because I don't get unemployment payments

honest count my ass.

[BlueIris]

51. I don't either. Never have; never will. nt.

[Flammable Materials]

50. "Choco Rations Up 25 Grams per Week" ... doubleplusgood, eh? n/t