Actual U.S. Unemployment: 15.8%

[kentuck]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/05/actual_us_unemployment_158.html

<snip>
This morning's news that U.S. unemployment has hit 13.7 million, pushing the rate to 8.9 percent, tells only half the story of this recession.

The total number of Americans who are not working full-time but ought to be is actually about 22 million, or 15.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Who are those other 8.3 million Americans? Call them the unofficially unemployed.

..........more

[PSPS]

1. It's even worse than that

If you add back in "discouraged workers" which were defined out of the computation during the Clinton Administration, the true unemployment rate is about 20%, far worse that the U-6 of 15.8%. The U-3 figure of 9% is a charade -- one of many in our potemkin economy.

[kentuck]

2. In the article, they include "discouraged workers"

However, the number does seem rather small.

[pinqy]

21. Clinton didnt' define out discouraged workers....

...that occurred under Johnson, in 1967. And even then, it was a case by case basis. The U-6 is not in any way comparable to previous measures.

[PSPS]

22. Yes, he did.

It was Clinton who decided to exclude from unemployment statistics "discouraged workers" which includes, among other things, people who are out of work but haven't been looking for 4 weeks or more. Hence, the term "discouraged."

You can educate yourself here:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/close-look-at-accelerating-rate-of.html

[pinqy]

24. No, he didn't

The defintion for discouraged workers changed slightly in 1994 (adding a requirement to have looked for work in the last 12 months), but discouraged workers, who had never been systematically covered, were not counted at all after 1967. Educate yourself...First, someone else's blog asserting something is not an actual cite...it's just another claim. Look at the actual information and official definitions.

Following are links to the BLS publication "Employment and Earnings" from selected years...
July 1960 Near the end, in Explanatory notes, 2-e (59 on the pdf) gives the definition of Unemployed as

Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this later category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.

The bolded part is what we now call "discouraged workers," plus the temporarily ill.

January 1970 Page 144 of the publication, 141 of the pdf, The definition is now

Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

Note the new requirement of having looked in the previous 4 weeks, and the exclusion of people who gave up looking.

In 1976 alternative measures were introduced, with U-5 as the official rate and U-7 including discouraged workers. The alternative measures were redefined in 1994Monthly Labor Review October 1995

If you want to look for yourself through previous editions of employment and earnings, go HERE Current definitions can be found at www.bls.gov

And please learn to do your own research, not take someone's blog as Gospel. The only change in definition of Unemployed under Clinton was that people waiting to start a new job still had to have looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.

[izquierdista]

3. I haven't had a job for 5 years

All in all, the security of a regular paycheck is nice, but it doesn't beat being your own boss and being able to do what you want, when you want.

[kentuck]

4. Some people learn to make a living..

listening to the Allman Brothers Band and dealing a little on the side... :-)

[nichomachus]

5. But there no longer is

the "security of a regular paycheck." That is an illusion of a bygone era. Any worker in the US can be out on his ass by sundown. It doesn't matter how long you've been with the company, how "valuable" you are, or how much extra training you've had.

And for those who don't know -- if your company goes belly up or decides to no longer offer health care to employees, you don't get COBRA either.

[kentuck]

6. True.

America needs to rebuild itself.

[nilram]

10. excellent. I'm working on that.

How do you bring the cash in that you need?

[izquierdista]

12. Think assets, not income

Eight simple rules:
1) Use credit sparingly.
2) Don't buy depreciating assets (make it used for furniture, appliances, and cars).
3) Edible landscaping -- grow your own food.
4) Go to libraries, not bookstores.
5) Go to hulu, not the movie theater.
6) Cut down your wardrobe to all that will fit in one bug suitcase.
7) Don't be a collecter, be a downsizer.
8) Learn to cook so you don't have to eat out. (restaurants are a luxury, not a necessity)

[Yavin4]

13. I've Been Trying To Educate People Here About Assets vs. Income

I've done everything on your list, and I would add one more crucial one. Pay as low a rent/mortgage as humanly possible. Downsize your house. Live with roommates. Re-finance. Do whatever you need to do to pay as low a rent/mortgage as possible.

[nilram]

18. thanks

thanks, izquierdista, I'll post those on my wall.

Something I remember during periods of unemployment, like now, is to "practice contentment." I forget it too quickly when I'm employed.

[Wednesdays]

7. K&R

:kick:

[RC]

8. The true number are finally coming out.

They're even higher than I thought they were.

[tritsofme]

9. The U6 tables have been published for years. Its not the "real" or "actual"

UE rate, it is an alternate measure of tracking the labor force.

U3 is the official unemployment rate for a number of reasons, but the bigger and scarier the number the better for many people it seems

[nilram]

11. from what I've read, the computation of U6 is more comparable

to how unemployment was computed in the 1920s, that's why I find it more interesting than U3.

[Zynx]

19. That's something that has been repeated a lot. I've not seen much evidence that it is true.

I think U4 is more comparable. U6 counts underemployment and that was never even really a concern back in the 1920s and 1930s. They counted people who worked 10 hours a month as employed in the old statistics.

[pinqy]

20. Except unemployment wasn't computed in the 1920's

There were some attempts, most notably the 1930 census and a 1936 postcard census, but no real calculations until 1940. "Marginally attached" wasn't even a concept until 1994, and part-time workers have never been counted as unemployed (because they have jobs).

Before 1967 some discouraged workers were counted, but that was up to the individual interviewer as to how to classify someone...definitions were kind of fuzzy before then.

[suede1]

14. k & R

[Yavin4]

15. The U3 Number Is A Political Number. The U6 Number Is An Economic One.

If the govt used the U6 number, then the public would demand expansion of social services like healthcare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.

[suede1]

16. Yes, those numbers look terrible. You're right, something would be done then.

[Old Hob]

17. Don't tell Wall street but I don't think this recession is over.

[KillCapitalism]

23. Where is this 15.8% unemployment they speak of?

I'd like to know, because that would actually be a low rate given how bad things are right now.

There are cities out there like Detroit, MI, Modesto, CA, Providence, RI, and St. Louis, MO that probably have REAL unemployment rates pushing 25-30%.