Why don't they report U1-U6 unemplyment rates? 9.7%

[RichardE]

I understand the government does unemployment rates on a U1-U6 scale with U3 being the "official" one.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_nSTO-v...le-a-12-april-2008.png

So this is for April (5% U3) and so far the U6 for May was 9.7%. (U3 being 5.5%) So besides trying to paint the "best" picture for the public, is there a reason U6 is never disclosed publicly and they rely on U3?



Btw, here is the may one

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

U6 is measured under "Alternative measures of labor underutilization" and is defined as

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.


So I guess, ontop of this information is this question. When the people who recently lost there jobs are "cycled" through the U3 categories, will the U3 rate drop when the U6 rates rise? Giving the impression that unemployment is going down?

 

[StageLeft]

Now you're depressing me. I'm off to bed.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now you're depressing me. I'm off to bed.

Sorry Skoorb

I still think its a valid question though and am hoping maybe someone who works in finance or specifically this area could shed some light on it.

Btw, this means that currently 30million citizens (since they don't measure illegals) do not have a job.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now you're depressing me. I'm off to bed.

Sorry Skoorb

I still think its a valid question though and am hoping maybe someone who works in finance or specifically this area could shed some light on it.

Btw, this means that currently 30million citizens (since they don't measure illegals) do not have a job.

Just remember when times were good in the 90s, U6 was about the same as it was today. And these numbers have always been available, so nothing has been hidden.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now you're depressing me. I'm off to bed.

Sorry Skoorb

I still think its a valid question though and am hoping maybe someone who works in finance or specifically this area could shed some light on it.

Btw, this means that currently 30million citizens (since they don't measure illegals) do not have a job.

Just remember when times were good in the 90s, U6 was about the same as it was today. And these numbers have always been available, so nothing has been hidden.

oh I know. I'm just trying to find the rationalization of having the press push the U3 instead of the U6.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now you're depressing me. I'm off to bed.

Sorry Skoorb

I still think its a valid question though and am hoping maybe someone who works in finance or specifically this area could shed some light on it.

Btw, this means that currently 30million citizens (since they don't measure illegals) do not have a job.

Just remember when times were good in the 90s, U6 was about the same as it was today. And these numbers have always been available, so nothing has been hidden.

oh I know. I'm just trying to find the rationalization of having the press push the U3 instead of the U6.

Because the u3 is a more meaningful number. U3 is the number of people that are actively seeking work. U6 is people that want a job, but are not active in doing it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now you're depressing me. I'm off to bed.

Sorry Skoorb

I still think its a valid question though and am hoping maybe someone who works in finance or specifically this area could shed some light on it.

Btw, this means that currently 30million citizens (since they don't measure illegals) do not have a job.

Just remember when times were good in the 90s, U6 was about the same as it was today. And these numbers have always been available, so nothing has been hidden.

oh I know. I'm just trying to find the rationalization of having the press push the U3 instead of the U6.

Because the u3 is a more meaningful number. U3 is the number of people that are actively seeking work. U6 is people that want a job, but are not active in doing it.

I would think U6 would be more representative of "actual" unemployment though. Unless by unemployment they don't mean how many people do not have a job but rather something else. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but am honestly curious as to the big difference, or what the point of unemployment numbers are?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: RichardE
I would think U6 would be more representative of "actual" unemployment though. Unless by unemployment they don't mean how many people do not have a job but rather something else. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but am honestly curious as to the big difference, or what the point of unemployment numbers are?

It real simple. If a person wants a job, but is not looking for job. I dont see how they can be considered part of the workforce. If a person has a part time job, but wants a full time job, they are not unemployed ether.

The number that gets reported is the most relevant and probably most accurate.

 

[TipsyMcStagger]

I haven't actually read anything other than whats posted here (U-3 vs U-6), but it makes sense to use the U-3 if the U-6 also includes individuals "not actively seeking employment". If you want to measure the economy's strength by its ability to provide jobs, why would you include people who aren't looking actively for jobs?

 

[b0mbrman]

How do other countries measure it?

I would pick the most standard one for comparison's sake

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: charrison

It real simple. If a person wants a job, but is not looking for job. I dont see how they can be considered part of the workforce.

It would be nice if we could hear from some of the people who have become so discouraged that they aren't looking for work. Why is it necessarily illegitimate to count someone who's given up looking for work because they can't find anything worthwhile as being unemployed? A person could go through the motions of looking for work as a matter of principle but if they know with certainty that they wont' find worthwhile work then why continue spending time and effort on it when you're certain of the result? Two obvious examples are retirees and stay-at-home parents. They might want to work but since they absolutely don't have to work they might have given up after having concluded that the job market was dead to them. "I've sent out 1000 letters seeking work in my field to no avail. It's pretty obvious that I'm unemployable now since I've been out of the field for so long so why spend the time and the stamp mailing out letter #1001?"

If a person has a part time job, but wants a full time job, they are not unemployed ether.

Technically, no, but in actuality, probably yes. Someone who has a part time job for ten hours per week at $8/hour is unemployed for all intents and purposes.

The number that gets reported is the most relevant and probably most accurate.

The numbers are bogus and also fail to account for severe underemployment, involuntary retirees, and involuntary stay-at-home parents.

Furthermore, the unemployment number also completely fails to measure job quality. After all, if 96% of the populace works at poverty wage jobs while 1% is wealthy and siphons off the wealth generated by the 96% then you have an unemployment rate of 3%, which looks great on paper even though in reality 96% of the populace is impoverished.

Thus, it's possible to have a low unemployment number on paper while having an awful job market and a horrific economy at the same time. We really need a better statistic for measuring unemployment that would also take income into account.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now you're depressing me. I'm off to bed.

Sorry Skoorb

I still think its a valid question though and am hoping maybe someone who works in finance or specifically this area could shed some light on it.

Btw, this means that currently 30million citizens (since they don't measure illegals) do not have a job.

Just remember when times were good in the 90s, U6 was about the same as it was today. And these numbers have always been available, so nothing has been hidden.

oh I know. I'm just trying to find the rationalization of having the press push the U3 instead of the U6.

Because the u3 is a more meaningful number. U3 is the number of people that are actively seeking work. U6 is people that want a job, but are not active in doing it.

Claim they are actively seeking work. Anyone else out there know a few people in their lives who aren't seeking jack or shit but fall under U3?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Just remember when times were good in the 90s, U6 was about the same as it was today. And these numbers have always been available, so nothing has been hidden.

That's not accurate. Looking at 10 years of history (all I've found so far), the figures in 1998 - 2000 are significantly better than those since, running mostly in the 7.0 to 7.7% range (low of 6.8% in Oct '00, peaking at 8.0% - 8..4% in the first few months of 1998). That's a couple of points less than we're seeing today, a difference of roughly 20% or so. That is significant.

We are still a bit better than 2003 according to U6 data. U6 Unemployment was at or above 10% throughout 2006, peaking at 10.4% in October and finally edging back under 10% in December (9.8%). It remained above 9% for the next 1.5 years, then dropped into the eights through the end of 2007 (except for 7.9% in Dec '06), and rose back to 9.0% at the beginning of this year. The thing to watch over the next few months is whether this months 9.7% is an anomaly, or whether it is part of a trend back to 10+% as the economy falters again.

Interesting find. I'm surprised these figures never came up before, in all of our previous debates about the accuracy of the official Unemployment figures. It turns out the government does measure discouraged workers and some measures of underemployment. The numbers aren't pretty.



Edit: OK, found the data back to 1994. The "Booming 90's" started with a U6 of 11.8% (yikes!) in Jan '94. This dropped steadily over the rest of the decade: below 11% by May '94, around 10% in early '95 and plateauing there for the year, into the nines in 1996, below 9% in May '07, and finally breaking below 8% in April '08. From there the U6 continued to drop until it reached 6.8% in Oct, 2000.

 

[nergee]

34,000 construction jobs were lost, 26,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, 27,000 retail trade jobs were lost,
29,000 professional and business services jobs were lost, 8,000 service providing jobs were added.
Service jobs gained only because 17,000 useless government jobs were thought up......

These are obviously recession totals but we have gurus debating whether or not we are in one.

BTW, 9.7% is probably low......

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: nergee
34,000 construction jobs were lost, 26,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, 27,000 retail trade jobs were lost,
29,000 professional and business services jobs were lost, 8,000 service providing jobs were added.
Service jobs gained only because 17,000 useless government jobs were thought up......

These are obviously recession totals but we have gurus debating whether or not we are in one.

Because they are owned by the ones telling them to keep their mouths shut.

 

[BoomerD]

My county, (Stanislaus, Kahleeforneeya) has been at or near 10% for quite some time now, and some of the neighboring counties have been well above 10%.

Construction is WAAAAY down; not only residential, which is dead, but commercial and heavy industrial as well. Businesses that have done well for generations are folding left and right.

 

[herm0016]

i would think that the U1 numbers are important too. less than 2% have been unemployed for a long period of time, meaning most find another job within that 15 week period. To me this is a good metric of stability in the market. There should be some sort of measure of avg income of new vs. old employment to complete the table, to measure the "quality"? of the jobs people find.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: herm0016
i would think that the U1 numbers are important too. less than 2% have been unemployed for a long period of time, meaning most find another job within that 15 week period. To me this is a good metric of stability in the market. There should be some sort of measure of avg income of new vs. old employment to complete the table, to measure the "quality"? of the jobs people find.

Yeh, well, most people can't hold out for 15 weeks, and MickeyD's always has room for part-timers... heck, they and others would push every employee back to part time if they had enough applicants...

Bingo! You're no longer "unemployed"- think of the joy and relief it'd bring...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: charrison

It real simple. If a person wants a job, but is not looking for job. I dont see how they can be considered part of the workforce.

It would be nice if we could hear from some of the people who have become so discouraged that they aren't looking for work. Why is it necessarily illegitimate to count someone who's given up looking for work because they can't find anything worthwhile as being unemployed? A person could go through the motions of looking for work as a matter of principle but if they know with certainty that they wont' find worthwhile work then why continue spending time and effort on it when you're certain of the result? Two obvious examples are retirees and stay-at-home parents. They might want to work but since they absolutely don't have to work they might have given up after having concluded that the job market was dead to them. "I've sent out 1000 letters seeking work in my field to no avail. It's pretty obvious that I'm unemployable now since I've been out of the field for so long so why spend the time and the stamp mailing out letter #1001?"

If a person has a part time job, but wants a full time job, they are not unemployed ether.

Technically, no, but in actuality, probably yes. Someone who has a part time job for ten hours per week at $8/hour is unemployed for all intents and purposes.

The number that gets reported is the most relevant and probably most accurate.

The numbers are bogus and also fail to account for severe underemployment, involuntary retirees, and involuntary stay-at-home parents.

Furthermore, the unemployment number also completely fails to measure job quality. After all, if 96% of the populace works at poverty wage jobs while 1% is wealthy and siphons off the wealth generated by the 96% then you have an unemployment rate of 3%, which looks great on paper even though in reality 96% of the populace is impoverished.

Thus, it's possible to have a low unemployment number on paper while having an awful job market and a horrific economy at the same time. We really need a better statistic for measuring unemployment that would also take income into account.

WS >>> YOU <<< are a poster child of the success of brainwashing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now you're depressing me. I'm off to bed.

Sorry Skoorb

I still think its a valid question though and am hoping maybe someone who works in finance or specifically this area could shed some light on it.

Btw, this means that currently 30million citizens (since they don't measure illegals) do not have a job.

Just remember when times were good in the 90s, U6 was about the same as it was today. And these numbers have always been available, so nothing has been hidden.

oh I know. I'm just trying to find the rationalization of having the press push the U3 instead of the U6.

Because the u3 is a more meaningful number. U3 is the number of people that are actively seeking work. U6 is people that want a job, but are not active in doing it.

Claim they are actively seeking work. Anyone else out there know a few people in their lives who aren't seeking jack or shit but fall under U3?

I did 7 years ago took 18 months off

 

[soccerballtux]

If people aren't actively looking for a job then they shouldn't be counted, is my understanding.
Makes sense because this gets rid of "unskilled labor" folks from the unemployment figures. By this I mean if they are having trouble finding a job, and give up looking, then they must no longer be useful to the economy, and need to retool and go back to school and get educated more.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
WS >>> YOU <<< are a poster child of the success of brainwashing.

Yep, entitlement FTL. What's this nonsense about "worthwhile"?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RichardE

I would think U6 would be more representative of "actual" unemployment though. Unless by unemployment they don't mean how many people do not have a job but rather something else. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but am honestly curious as to the big difference, or what the point of unemployment numbers are?

'if you could find a job would you have one'

everyone answers yes to that except the retired. so it's not a very good measure.