The truth behind the unemployment rate %

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Firebot
Fact: If you haven't sent out resumes in the last month at the time you are asked, guess what, you are not considered unemployed according to current US employment rates.

Fact: If you have been unemployed for months, but during the week you are interviewed you . You are now considered employed. Even if you were unpaid and spent a few days volunteering at the Salvation Army, you are now considered employed

What moron came up with this method of converting unemployed persons to employed? This shit doesn't even begin to make sense. Not sending out a resume in more than 1 month or going to one interview magically converts you to employed? WTF?!?

My second point, is that we're in the worst economy since Carter. That seems a tad more realistic than saying, "....since the great depression." But still, worst economy since Carter is pretty F'd up regardless.

 

[Shortass]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Firebot
Fact: If you haven't sent out resumes in the last month at the time you are asked, guess what, you are not considered unemployed according to current US employment rates.

Fact: If you have been unemployed for months, but during the week you are interviewed you . You are now considered employed. Even if you were unpaid and spent a few days volunteering at the Salvation Army, you are now considered employed

What moron came up with this method of converting unemployed persons to employed? This shit doesn't even begin to make sense. Not sending out a resume in more than 1 month or going to one interview magically converts you to employed? WTF?!?

It makes a lot of sense actually. By artificially deflating the unemployment numbers it makes us look good, naturally. Darn those Canadians with their excessive unemployment - socialism at its finest, folks! That's what they get for not submitting to the perfection of the utterly free market!

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Firebot
Fact: If you haven't sent out resumes in the last month at the time you are asked, guess what, you are not considered unemployed according to current US employment rates.

Fact: If you have been unemployed for months, but during the week you are interviewed you . You are now considered employed. Even if you were unpaid and spent a few days volunteering at the Salvation Army, you are now considered employed

What moron came up with this method of converting unemployed persons to employed? This shit doesn't even begin to make sense. Not sending out a resume in more than 1 month or going to one interview magically converts you to employed? WTF?!?

My second point, is that we're in the worst economy since Carter. That seems a tad more realistic than saying, "....since the great depression." But still, worst economy since Carter is pretty F'd up regardless.

Warren Buffett says this is the most "severe economic" since World War II. I would take his word for it.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
All this talk about the unemployment rate doesn't mean anything-- if the current unemployment rate weren't an accurate representation, and we truly were doing as badly as in the early 1980s, then we would be going through some severe deflation.

The fact that we are not experiencing any deflation yet is proof that the unemployment statistics are accurate and tell us what we need to know-- that it's really not that bad.

The US federal government is dumping hundreds of billions of unfunded money into the economy, and still there is no real sign of an inflationary effect - there's your deflation right there.

On the contrary, that credit has been sitting in the pockets of the big banks. It hasn't circulated; that's why there hasn't been inflation; not for the reason you give.

 

[ericlp]

Well, the problem with bots... They can't figure out that in 1982 we had a lot less people then we have today. So, take that into consideration then yes--- It's much worse.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


I never really understood including the bottom 5% or so either. In my eyes, only 6% or so of people who WANT jobs and aren't in some type of transitory flux (frictional job losses) are the ones who can't find them.

A philosophy major who can't find a job, or can't find a full time job, isn't "unemployment" to me, it's telling them that they chose a poor major and are paying for their bad decision.

It's really quite easy.

Does person want job? yes
Does person have job? no

Person is unemployed. I get the 5% thing, I took macro in college too. But when we're talking about hundreds of millions of people, you cant go case by case. Just give me a %

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
On the contrary, that credit has been sitting in the pockets of the big banks. It hasn't circulated; that's why there hasn't been inflation; not for the reason you give.

I'm not so sure that much money has had no effect on lending; however, we'll find out soon enough.

If the new stimulus package, based on direct spending, fails to spur inflation, that should pretty much tells us that we're actually seeing deflation.

 

[Genx87]

Fact: If you have been unemployed for months, but during the week you are interviewed you . You are now considered employed. Even if you were unpaid and spent a few days volunteering at the Salvation Army, you are now considered employed

This is incorrect. The article clearly says you must volunteer 15 hours for a family business.
And interviewing for a job doesnt make you employed.

That said I dont see the issue with this. If you havent looked for a job in 4 weeks you arent part of the labor pool. Why would you be? You arent looking for a job!

As well the European Union conducts their unemployment survey very similar to ours. I cant vouch for Canada but suspect they are similar as well. The only major difference I saw with the EU was they start counting people at aged 15 instead of 16.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Firebot
Fact: If you haven't sent out resumes in the last month at the time you are asked, guess what, you are not considered unemployed according to current US employment rates.

Fact: If you have been unemployed for months, but during the week you are interviewed you . You are now considered employed. Even if you were unpaid and spent a few days volunteering at the Salvation Army, you are now considered employed

What moron came up with this method of converting unemployed persons to employed? This shit doesn't even begin to make sense. Not sending out a resume in more than 1 month or going to one interview magically converts you to employed? WTF?!?

My second point, is that we're in the worst economy since Carter. That seems a tad more realistic than saying, "....since the great depression." But still, worst economy since Carter is pretty F'd up regardless.

Warren Buffett says this is the most "severe economic" since World War II. I would take his word for it.

Okay, well I'm just trying to ensure that the Bush cheerleaders are happy with the selection of the era from which we haven't seen this kind of economic shittery. WWII it is then!

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Firebot
Fact: If you haven't sent out resumes in the last month at the time you are asked, guess what, you are not considered unemployed according to current US employment rates.

Fact: If you have been unemployed for months, but during the week you are interviewed you . You are now considered employed. Even if you were unpaid and spent a few days volunteering at the Salvation Army, you are now considered employed

What moron came up with this method of converting unemployed persons to employed? This shit doesn't even begin to make sense. Not sending out a resume in more than 1 month or going to one interview magically converts you to employed? WTF?!?

My second point, is that we're in the worst economy since Carter. That seems a tad more realistic than saying, "....since the great depression." But still, worst economy since Carter is pretty F'd up regardless.

Warren Buffett says this is the most "severe economic" since World War II. I would take his word for it.

Okay, well I'm just trying to ensure that the Bush cheerleaders are happy with the selection of the era from which we haven't seen this kind of economic shittery. WWII it is then!

it may become so but it is not right now. There may be effects that will show up later that drive unemployment into the low teens and set off a deflationary spiral like the Great Depression.

More anecdotal stories about the economy:

I was in Best Buy this weekend, had recieved a gift card for my birthday so wanted to pick up a DVD or music cd. Had a hard time finding a parking spot. Inside, it was as busy as I had seen during the Christmas season.

BTW, I am in Michigan with 10% unemployment but "only" 8% or so where I live.

I've said it before, when people stop buying iPods or whatever luxury item they fancy and go back to only being able to buy bare necessities, then we can talk about comparing today to the GD.

 

[Genx87]

This certainly had the potential to be a great depression. Luckily we learned from the GD and kept our banks liquidity from drying up and imploding the economy.

This looks bad and is bad. Worst we have seen in decades. But I still dont know if it is as bad as even 1980. Where we had double digit unemployment to go with double digit inflation and double digit fed rates.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: dphantom
it may become so but it is not right now. There may be effects that will show up later that drive unemployment into the low teens and set off a deflationary spiral like the Great Depression.

You know that the GD occurred a decade prior to our entry into WWII, right? 1942 vs 1929.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom
it may become so but it is not right now. There may be effects that will show up later that drive unemployment into the low teens and set off a deflationary spiral like the Great Depression.

You know that the GD occurred a decade prior to our entry into WWII, right? 1942 vs 1929.

Um, yes. Misread the post. My bad. Still doesn't change my opinion at this point in time. I lived through the 70's/early 80's in the job market and remember very clearly how bad it was. We may get there, but are not there yet. Buffet of course has access to more info, but still a guess for him as well albiet potentially more knowledgeable. I prefer to wait and see, not guess.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom
it may become so but it is not right now. There may be effects that will show up later that drive unemployment into the low teens and set off a deflationary spiral like the Great Depression.

You know that the GD occurred a decade prior to our entry into WWII, right? 1942 vs 1929.

Um, yes. Misread the post. My bad. Still doesn't change my opinion at this point in time. I lived through the 70's/early 80's in the job market and remember very clearly how bad it was. We may get there, but are not there yet. Buffet of course has access to more info, but still a guess for him as well albiet potentially more knowledgeable. I prefer to wait and see, not guess.

Really your anecdotal evidence is useless. My Dad was a fresh out of college grad in the mid seventies with trouble finding work--he eventually landed a job at Sears before he got a better job in finance. Now I am fresh out of college and would be lucky to find anything, I'd kill for that Sears job but with all of the layoffs in retail there is lots of competition. Recently I interviewed for a valet job--the manager told me she had got 18 applications in an hour on Craigslist, and she took the listing down and interviewed 8 people for it. The position was open because a PhD who had held it had finally found a different job.

My anecdotal evidence is also useless. My point is it depends on your circumstances. If I had got a job two years ago in bankruptcy law, my income would be holding steady and as far as I'm concerned there would be no recession. Because I am graduating now, I see there is definitely a severe shortage of jobs.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Fact: If you have been unemployed for months, but during the week you are interviewed you . You are now considered employed. Even if you were unpaid and spent a few days volunteering at the Salvation Army, you are now considered employed

This is incorrect. The article clearly says you must volunteer 15 hours for a family business.
And interviewing for a job doesnt make you employed.

Technically the article says nothing about unpaid labour work that I could see other then if for a family business, so I can't confirm if it's correct or not. I should have put in a family business example over Salvation Army though. I was forced to work to help my dad do some unpaid carpentry several years ago when times were really tough at home and I was searching for a job at the time. I sure as heck wouldn't have considered myself employed though. The US definition would say I was.

That said I dont see the issue with this. If you havent looked for a job in 4 weeks you arent part of the labor pool. Why would you be? You arent looking for a job!

The issue is that the 1982 unemployment numbers did include many of these individuals as unemployed under different criteria. That's the point I'm making in that the 1982 unemployment numbers keep getting brought up to somehow prove the current economic downturn is much softer then 1982's, yet if the current unemployment numbers weren't embellished so much the numbers would be scarily comparable. The current downturn can be debated to be softer, but using differently calculated unemployment numbers skews the debate.

As well the European Union conducts their unemployment survey very similar to ours. I cant vouch for Canada but suspect they are similar as well. The only major difference I saw with the EU was they start counting people at aged 15 instead of 16.

The EU and Canada include passive job searching as a criteria to be unemployed. Canada actually surpassed the US's official unemployment rate in September for the first time in 26 years, and if adjusted to use US guidelines, Canada would be at 5.2% unemployment.

 

[Genx87]

Technically the article says nothing about unpaid labour work that I could see other then if for a family business, so I can't confirm if it's correct or not. I should have put in a family business example over Salvation Army though. I was forced to work to help my dad do some unpaid carpentry several years ago when times were really tough at home and I was searching for a job at the time. I sure as heck wouldn't have considered myself employed though. The US definition would say I was.

And you think your example is a norm? If so, how many people do you estimate would this affect? And what reason would you give for saying they werent employed? If you are volunteering or in your case forced to work for a family member over 15 hours a week how would you have time to be employed by somebody else? The only thing I think they could do is possibly allow one to be dropped all together if this is what they are doing for over 4 weeks. But that is probably up for debate as well.

The issue is that the 1982 unemployment numbers did include many of these individuals as unemployed under different criteria. That's the point I'm making in that the 1982 unemployment numbers keep getting brought up to somehow prove the current economic downturn is much softer then 1982's, yet if the current unemployment numbers weren't embellished so much the numbers would be scarily comparable. The current downturn can be debated to be softer, but using differently calculated unemployment numbers skews the debate.

Can you point us directly to what changed in 1994? And with it how much it added or subtracted from the rate?

That said do you think it is beneficial to include people who werent looking for a job in the data?

The EU and Canada include passive job searching as a criteria to be unemployed. Canada actually surpassed the US's official unemployment rate in September for the first time in 26 years, and if adjusted to use US guidelines, Canada would be at 5.2% unemployment.

What do you call getting 1 interview or sending out a resume every 4 weeks?