Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is The Government Misrepresenting Unemployment By 32%?

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
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 04:09 AM
Original message
Is The Government Misrepresenting Unemployment By 32%?
Edited on Sat Jan-02-10 04:11 AM by AllentownJake
There is an old saying, "when in doubt follow the money." These days investors have lots of doubt about pretty much everything (if not so much money). And with data from the government increasingly bearing the Quality Control stamp of approval of the Beijing Communist Party, there is much doubt in store courtesy of an administration which will stop at nothing in its competition with China as to who can blow the biggest asset bubble the fastest, data integrity be damned. Undoubtedly, of all government released data, the most important is, and continues to be, anything relating to unemployment. This is precisely where the government's propaganda armada is focused. Yet in matters of (un)employment, the ultimate authority is, luckily, the Treasury, and not the Fed. "Luckily," because when it comes to making money "difficult to follow" Tim Geithner's office still has much to learn. Which is why when we looked at the Daily Treasury Statement data we were very surprised: because it indicates that the government could be underrepresenting employment data by up to 32%!

The suddenly very prominent topic of Unemployment Insurance, whether it pertains to Initial Claims or to Emergency Unemployment, has one very useful characteristic: it is based on "money", specifically money outflows from the US treasury which goes to fund the weekly "paychecks" of those that have not been in the workforce for well over a year. And as pointed out earlier, money can be followed. The US Treasury presents a daily in and outflow of all money sources in the Daily Treasury Statement prepared by the Financial Management Service. And in the plethora of data presented here, probably the most relevant and useful data series is the Withdrawals quantified in the form of Unemployment Insurance Benefits.




What becomes obvious is that a correlation which used to be almost 1.000 has diverged massively, and now the relative outlays surpass what the government highlights are the number of people actually collecting benefits by 32%! This implies two things: either the average unemployment monthly paycheck has surged, which is not the case, or there is some gray unemployment area which is not disclosed by the government, and which accounts for a shadow unemployed insurance economy. Because while the DOL indicates there are about 9.5 million total unemployed, for the correlation to return to its near 1.0 trendline the number of unemployed on benefits has to be 14 million. At least this is what the actual cash outlays by the Treasury suggest: the government spent a record $14.7 billion on Unemployment Insurance Benefits as of December 30, a 24% jump sequentially from the $11.8 billion in November. Yet the DOL has disclosed a mere 1.7% increase in those to whom insurance benefits are paid: from 9.4 million to just under 9.6 million. To put the $14.7 billion number in perspective, in December the Federal Government paid a total of $14 billion ($700 million less) in Federal Salaries! A cynic could be temped to say that effectively the number of people employed by the government is double what is disclosed. A yet bigger cynic could claim that America is now the biggest socialist state in the world. Both cynics would not necessarily be wrong.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/government-misrepresenting-unemployment-32
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R Thanks for posting..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Very interesting.
The link is well worth checking.

I've noticed that the continuing long term unemployed numbers are NOT declining (though the short term unemployed are). Yet the total civilian workforce is declining.

Note that the initial divergence between what is paid in unemployment benefits and what the BLS reports as unemployed began in November 08 - on bushes watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. k&r for labor. Thanks for posting. n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Isn't the way the government counts unemployment
is by the numbers who go sign up for unemployment? The reason I ask that is because many people are unemployed who've never had a job that payed unemployment, I know in my work history I'd say probably half of the jobs I've had had no unemployment benifits, those people are on their own and not even being counted. I'd say that the number that you provide is closer to the real deal than the numbers they officially cite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinqy Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. No, it's not
The official definition of Unemployed is
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following
criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were
available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find
employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference
week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be
looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data
derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility
for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.


But in any case, the article is only talking about INSURED Unemployed, not total Unemployed. And it doesn't look like they're using the right numbers anyway. The article claims that Treasury figure for money spent on unemployment insurance is 32% higher than the DOL number for people receiving unemployment insurance would indicate. While the charts are odd (how do you measure money payments and number of people on the same axis?) the simple explanation is that they're going off of the official Seasonally adjusted numbers. Of course that's not going to match up with actual expenditures because it's not the "real" number but statistically manipulated to show the real trend.

Employment and unemployment have regular spikes up and down based on the time of year. This distorts the actual trend. So seasonal adjustment is applied to smooth out the curve and show the trend. So the reason it doesn't match expenditures is because it's not supposed to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I am curious
I have had some pretty lousy jobs during my lifetime. I have had jobs that paid minimum wage where the paycheck would occasionally bounce. I have had employers that were arrested for embezzeling the FICA and Income Tax witholding that they were taking from my checks. I have worked as a "contractor" and had to cover my own self-employment tax.

However, I have never worked a legitimate job that "had no unemployment benefits". So I am curious, what sort of work is this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Many people float in and out of low-paying jobs..never staying long enough to qualify
Edited on Sat Jan-02-10 12:01 PM by SoCalDem
and there are also evil bosses who do not fire people or lay them off.. they just mess with the employees' minds & schedules & tasks, so they get so irritated they quit.. If you quit, you don't get benefits... and if you get fired for "cause" you don't qualify.. Someone with a hot temper, who gets tweaked enough at work, is more likely to "blow up" at work, and end up fired for that..and then no benefits..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Been there.
Doing minimum wage jobs to pay my way through college, I ran into virtually every sort of evil boss.

Yes, there are ways to not qualify. It generally takes 21 weeks of work sometime in the last 4 quarters to qualify, and being fired "for cause" can be a disqualifier. I once challenged my disqualification to an admin hearing and got my benefits awarded. I was fired because I organized several of my co-workers to file a complaint with the wage and hour division and then one day was a couple of minutes late to my shift. This boss also had a nasty habit of firing any waitress that did not sleep with him within the first month of employment. This jerk then stated at hearing, under oath, that I had never been employed by his company, apparently because he was also embezzeling my tax withholding. I provided W-2's and paycheck stubs to the contrary. I won and so did several of my friends. The even bigger bonus was meeting my former boss at the employment service a few weeks later looking for work.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Home Base was notorious.. My son found out the hard way
They had a 90-day routine.. no benefits or additional hours until that mark had passed..and guess what.. the new-hires (him included) usually got their walking papers around Day-88... just shy of the qualification for anything..
It was his first real job, and he was stoked.. everyone liked him, and he liked the job, and was so happy when the 90-day thing approached because his immediate supervisor led him to believe that he would be promoted into a different department, and would soon be getting 30 hours a week.. and then.. buh-byee..along with 4 other young guys they had hired at the same time.. and a day or two later.. they hired a whole new batch..:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. Lots of ways of making income don't qualify.
Try being self-employed, whether with a storefront (say, a shopkeeper, or a CPA) or not (contract employee).

Temporary workers often don't qualify.

I've been both.

When I was a teaching assistant and research assistant I wasn't covered. Not sure why. But at the end of the year I wasn't eligible for unemployment benefits.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. No, they start with a WAG
WAG = wild ass guess

Then they season it with "heuristics", and keep massaging the numbers until something politically palatable comes out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. There are several measures of unemployment
The U3 number, the one the media likes to cite consists of people who are not employed in any capacity, were working before, and are looking for employment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinqy Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Almost....
The U-3 does not require previous employment...it includes entrants and re-entrants to the labor force. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm">Table 8 of the Employment Situation Report shows the reasons for Unemployment. Currently it's:
Temporary layoff: 1,548,000
Permanent job losers and people who finished temporary jobs: 8,540,000
Job leavers: 928,000
Reentrants: 3,214,000
New entrants: 1,266,000


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galileoreloaded Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. Jake, you duped me!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Apologies
Didn't see it when I posted

:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galileoreloaded Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. No worries. Thought it was funny actually. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
12. That Evil Rahmsputin is cookin' the books!11 Unemployment is WORSE than the Great Depression!!111
Edited on Sat Jan-02-10 11:49 AM by jpak
Damn him!!111

Damn him to H -E - Double Hockey Sticks!11111























:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. +1
Outstanding snark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. Unemployment benefits have been extended how many times now?
That would lead to a cumulative affect in unemployment benefits. This is a disingenuous post, at best. Who is misleading who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. That was the point of the OP
That the numbers the government says are unemployed is lower than the actual people receiving benefits.

Reading for comprehension is obviously a skill you missed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. Interesting. nt
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 Sun May 05th 2024, 01:25 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