The current unemployment rate isn't real

[pinqy]

The UE numbers are always cooked

How? And what is your evidence?

 

[SwimExpert]

i know the government is saying that unemlployment is at 5% but this number isn't a real gauge on how the country is doing as a whole.

Of course not. Unemployment has never been a gauge on how the country is doing as a whole. It only measures unemployment. There is more to a thriving country than employment levels.

I really don't know how the statistics will be affected

Ahh, so you're talking out of your ass. You don't actually know if your claims are true, and you admit you don't know if they're true. You just want to make them. Because...Iphone!

but it would be interesting to see how the stats will change once you remove a state like Texas from the data. I suspect t it would begin to shoot up quite dramatically.

Do you have any particular reason for wanting to exclude Texas from the data? Why this particular state as opposed to any other? Don't get me wrong, I think the US should cut Texas loose and let Mexico reclaim her. But there is no logical justification to claim that the math is false and requires the exclusion of Texas, as opposed to excluding any other state. But hey, I understand. You're too lazy and need things spoon fed to you. Either that, or you're just not educated enough to figure it out. So I'll help you out....

For the following problem, we will use data from the BLS, easily found here (US) and here (TX).

US workforce = 157,301,000
US employed = 149,364,000

Texas workforce = 13,070,600
Texas employed = 12,472,200


Now, subtract. If you're not sure what 'subtract' means, not to worry. You'll learn all about it next year in 1st grade. I'll do it for you in the meantime.

USwf - Texaswf = 144,230,400
USue - Texasue = 136,891,800


Now, we divide. Again, don't worry. You'll learn all about that in second grade. For now, I'll show you.
136891800 / 144230400 = 0.9491189097444089


Now, we subtract one more time. This time we subtract the previous answer from 1.

1 - 0.9491189097444089 = 0.0508810902555911


Finally, in order to convert this into a percentage we simply multiply by 100 and we'll have our answer.

0.0508810902555911 * 100 = 5.08810902555911


Of course, this is a long number, so we can round it off to 5.1 percent.

And you wonder why you can't get a job.

 

[paulitician]

The real numbers will come out once the corrupt MSM stops covering for Hussein. He's completely buried many future generations. The truth is, we're flucked. But that truth will only come out once Hussein's out.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Texas is part of the us . I'm not happy about it either .

If we dumped red states from our education stats the numbers would improve too.

Yeah, that is where we red states get our stupid liberals. Fortunately, they remain in the minority.

Where do you get all of yours since they are in the majority?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It would be noteworthy if that unemployment rate went above 10%. It would mean that this entire country hasn't seen any kind of economic recovery.

I depends on for whom...
NYC and Nassau County are exploding with High End Residential and Commercial Construction whilst wages are plummeting.

Republican union killing war on the working class has been very successful .

If only they could get rid of the teacher's unions, we'd get the kids back on track

How do you explain states where teachers have no unions? Shouldn't they be the cream of the crop? Why aren't they if your theory holds?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It would be noteworthy if that unemployment rate went above 10%. It would mean that this entire country hasn't seen any kind of economic recovery.

I depends on for whom...
NYC and Nassau County are exploding with High End Residential and Commercial Construction whilst wages are plummeting.

Republican union killing war on the working class has been very successful .

If only they could get rid of the teacher's unions, we'd get the kids back on track

How do you explain states where teachers have no unions? Shouldn't they be the cream of the crop? Why aren't they if your theory holds?

I didn't even know some states don't have teacher unions. My bitch with them is they fight to keep bad teachers in the system, they also fight for sexual predator teachers. There was (or is) a huge case going on in our area about that

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It would be noteworthy if that unemployment rate went above 10%. It would mean that this entire country hasn't seen any kind of economic recovery.

I depends on for whom...
NYC and Nassau County are exploding with High End Residential and Commercial Construction whilst wages are plummeting.

Republican union killing war on the working class has been very successful .

If only they could get rid of the teacher's unions, we'd get the kids back on track

How do you explain states where teachers have no unions? Shouldn't they be the cream of the crop? Why aren't they if your theory holds?

I didn't even know some states don't have teacher unions. My bitch with them is they fight to keep bad teachers in the system, they also fight for sexual predator teachers. There was (or is) a huge case going on in our area about that

Your problem is a combination of lack of information and lack of perspective. You didn't know that many states do not have teachers unions. Did you know that teachers are banned from striking in all but a few select major cities? That is why you rarely hear of teachers strikes outside of NYC, Philadelphia or Los Angeles.

Also, those unions that "fight" for bad teachers sexual predators are usually doing so because the state or local authorities are not abiding by the law when dealing with them. That is the union's job. If they do not do their job to defend teachers who are accused of misconduct, what is their purpose?

I once had a principal who accused me of being derelict in my teaching duties. My union rep sat in on the meeting where I totally refuted every accusation this principal was trying to use to fire me. My union rep never said a word, but it intimidated the hell of of my principal who simply did not like me because I was a former administrator and I was better at the game than he was. That is the only time my union has ever done anything for me, and all they did was show up. I left the school that year anyway and I am better for it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I depends on for whom...
NYC and Nassau County are exploding with High End Residential and Commercial Construction whilst wages are plummeting.

Republican union killing war on the working class has been very successful .

If only they could get rid of the teacher's unions, we'd get the kids back on track

How do you explain states where teachers have no unions? Shouldn't they be the cream of the crop? Why aren't they if your theory holds?

I didn't even know some states don't have teacher unions. My bitch with them is they fight to keep bad teachers in the system, they also fight for sexual predator teachers. There was (or is) a huge case going on in our area about that

Your problem is a combination of lack of information and lack of perspective. You didn't know that many states do not have teachers unions. Did you know that teachers are banned from striking in all but a few select major cities? That is why you rarely hear of teachers strikes outside of NYC, Philadelphia or Los Angeles.

Also, those unions that "fight" for bad teachers sexual predators are usually doing so because the state or local authorities are not abiding by the law when dealing with them. That is the union's job. If they do not do their job to defend teachers who are accused of misconduct, what is their purpose?

I once had a principal who accused me of being derelict in my teaching duties. My union rep sat in on the meeting where I totally refuted every accusation this principal was trying to use to fire me. My union rep never said a word, but it intimidated the hell of of my principal who simply did not like me because I was a former administrator and I was better at the game than he was. That is the only time my union has ever done anything for me, and all they did was show up. I left the school that year anyway and I am better for it.

Your problem is your lack of consistency on issues, I noticed it yesterday. Have a good day

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Republican union killing war on the working class has been very successful .

If only they could get rid of the teacher's unions, we'd get the kids back on track

How do you explain states where teachers have no unions? Shouldn't they be the cream of the crop? Why aren't they if your theory holds?

I didn't even know some states don't have teacher unions. My bitch with them is they fight to keep bad teachers in the system, they also fight for sexual predator teachers. There was (or is) a huge case going on in our area about that

Your problem is a combination of lack of information and lack of perspective. You didn't know that many states do not have teachers unions. Did you know that teachers are banned from striking in all but a few select major cities? That is why you rarely hear of teachers strikes outside of NYC, Philadelphia or Los Angeles.

Also, those unions that "fight" for bad teachers sexual predators are usually doing so because the state or local authorities are not abiding by the law when dealing with them. That is the union's job. If they do not do their job to defend teachers who are accused of misconduct, what is their purpose?

I once had a principal who accused me of being derelict in my teaching duties. My union rep sat in on the meeting where I totally refuted every accusation this principal was trying to use to fire me. My union rep never said a word, but it intimidated the hell of of my principal who simply did not like me because I was a former administrator and I was better at the game than he was. That is the only time my union has ever done anything for me, and all they did was show up. I left the school that year anyway and I am better for it.

Your problem is your lack of consistency on issues, I noticed it yesterday. Have a good day

How so? You certainly did not address it to my knowledge.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If only they could get rid of the teacher's unions, we'd get the kids back on track

How do you explain states where teachers have no unions? Shouldn't they be the cream of the crop? Why aren't they if your theory holds?

I didn't even know some states don't have teacher unions. My bitch with them is they fight to keep bad teachers in the system, they also fight for sexual predator teachers. There was (or is) a huge case going on in our area about that

Your problem is a combination of lack of information and lack of perspective. You didn't know that many states do not have teachers unions. Did you know that teachers are banned from striking in all but a few select major cities? That is why you rarely hear of teachers strikes outside of NYC, Philadelphia or Los Angeles.

Also, those unions that "fight" for bad teachers sexual predators are usually doing so because the state or local authorities are not abiding by the law when dealing with them. That is the union's job. If they do not do their job to defend teachers who are accused of misconduct, what is their purpose?

I once had a principal who accused me of being derelict in my teaching duties. My union rep sat in on the meeting where I totally refuted every accusation this principal was trying to use to fire me. My union rep never said a word, but it intimidated the hell of of my principal who simply did not like me because I was a former administrator and I was better at the game than he was. That is the only time my union has ever done anything for me, and all they did was show up. I left the school that year anyway and I am better for it.

Your problem is your lack of consistency on issues, I noticed it yesterday. Have a good day

How so? You certainly did not address it to my knowledge.

You change to suit the topic. Happens all the time and no big deal. I just don't bother with people that do that.

 

[Rustic]

i know the government is saying that unemlployment is at 5% but this number isn't a real gauge on how the country is doing as a whole. Once you remove a few states out of the statistics the average for the entire country changes. I really don't know how the statistics will be affected but it would be interesting to see how the stats will change once you remove a state like Texas from the data. I suspect t it would begin to shoot up quite dramatically.

Of course it is not the real number, it would not be politicially correct to go with real rate.
The federal government is devious in all ways...

 

[Skull Pilot]

The UE numbers are always cooked

How? And what is your evidence?

Why Jack Welch Has A Point About Unemployment Numbers

Why do you think this flawed methodology is used?

 

[edthecynic]

The UE numbers are always cooked

How? And what is your evidence?

Why Jack Welch Has A Point About Unemployment Numbers

Why do you think this flawed methodology is used?

Yeah, the discredited Jackass Welcher again !

Jack Welch has no clue about jobs numbers - CNN.com

Either Welch doesn't have any clue about how the unemployment data are collected, or he is just a liar.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The UE numbers are always cooked

How? And what is your evidence?

Why Jack Welch Has A Point About Unemployment Numbers

Why do you think this flawed methodology is used?

Yeah, the discredited Jackass Welcher again !

Jack Welch has no clue about jobs numbers - CNN.com

Either Welch doesn't have any clue about how the unemployment data are collected, or he is just a liar.

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

 

[edthecynic]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

 

[Skull Pilot]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

 

[pinqy]

The UE numbers are always cooked

How? And what is your evidence?

Why Jack Welch Has A Point About Unemployment Numbers

Why do you think this flawed methodology is used?

Let's see:

The Household Survey is used to calculate the various employment and unemployment indexes and rates. There are several of these indexes

They are not indexes. And index, such as those used for prices, is where an average is set to equal 100 at an arbitrary point in time and then subsequent averages show percent change since the base period. That's not done with labor force data. So that's the first clue the author is ignorant of the subject.

•Because the sample of households is small relative to the total number of households, the series is notoriously volatile. In August, for example, the raw data (Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA)) showed the number of jobs fell by 568,000. In September, that same number showed an increase of 775,000 jobs (NSA). The BLS reported this as 873,000 SA which is the number that the media got all excited about. Using the NSA data, over the two months, 207,000 jobs were created, or 103,500 per month on average. This leads to a very different conclusion from a single 873,000 data point.

Mostly true. But what he's missing is that for that very reason the employment data from the household survey are not the official employment numbers. The Establishment survey is the official jobs numbe and it covers 588,000 worksites and is benchmarked annually to a quartly census of businesses.

•In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force. A smaller denominator with the same number employed leads to a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate. Ask yourself how much sense this makes in today’s world where the average unemployment duration is 40 weeks and there have been several years where unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks.

Discouraged workers have never been included in the U-3 rate. It is also untrue that those unemployed longer than 52 weeks are dropped from the labor force. Discouraged are those who want a job, are available to start work, looked for work in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks, and stopped looking for work because they believed there were no jobs for them. Before 1994, it was simply those who said they wanted a job who had not looked in the last 4 weeks due to discouragement. But they were not part of the official rate. So the 1994 change which added the 12 month time limit and the availability requirement had no affect on the official rate.
[qutoe]•The definition of employment is biased. If one worked part-time in the last 30 days, even baby sitting for a few hours one time, one is counted as employed. There is no weighting for part-time work in the U-3 index.[/quote]
Not true. You are employed if you worked at least one hour for pay, or 15+ hours unpaid at a family business or farm DURING THE REFERENCE WEEK (which is the week that contains the 12th). And why would there be weighting for part time work?
[qutoe]•The biggest issue with the Household Survey is the seasonal adjustment (SA) process itself. Theoretically, for the year as a whole, the changes in employment by month should add up to the same number, i.e., the monthly SA and NSA changes should each add up to the same amount. [/quote] No they shouldn't. That's not the theory at all. There is absoulutely no reason why the changes should add up. There are regular seasonal fluctuations in employment and unemployment. Hiring always goes up in October/November for the holiday season, and in June/July when schools are out. Unemployment always goes up in January and August. Seasonal adjustment smooths out the trend to filter out those seasonal changes.

But, for the last few years, the BLS has adopted what they call a “Concurrent” SA process in which they recalculate the seasonal factors every month. The practical result of this method is that every month, all of the 12 seasonal factors change, which means that all of the year to date monthly SA data also changes. As a result, by December, the January number has changed 11 times, the February number 10 times, the March number 9 times, etc. Here’s the rub. The BLS will not publish the changed monthly data on the grounds that they don’t want to “confuse” the data users. Because they do this, the monthly change in the unemployment rate is not meaningful because the number it is being compared to has changed, but the BLS won’t tell us what it has changed to. The September 7.8% SA unemployment rate (U-3) as reported in early October is being compared to August’s 8.1% SA rate (reported in early September) despite the fact that August’s unemployment rate has likely changed due to the calculation of new seasonal factors. The BLS knows what the changed August number is, but they won’t publish it until January, 2013

Because the numbers change, and then change back, and then change again. It would be a mess. And the author is suggesting the adjustment should only be made once a year anyway so I'm not sure what his complaint is. If you publish the change once a year, it makes no difference if you've done all the calculations at once or continuously.

A better (though still flawed) indicator of labor market conditions is the U-6 measure. For both August and September, U-6 showed an unemployment rate of 14.7%. Unlike U-3, U-6 adds back to both the labor force and to the unemployed “discouraged’ and “marginally attached” workers, i.e., those who have stopped looking for work but still want a job, and accounts for part-time workers who want full time employment. The flaw is that U-6 removes the long-term discouraged worker after 52 weeks of unemployment. Nevertheless, it is still a much better indicator than U-3. John Williams estimates that if U-6 counted the long-term discouraged workers, the unemployment rate would be 22.8%.

First thing here is that he doesn't justify WHY you would want to included the marginally attached, which is a highly subjective measure. And if you're including part time workers then it's no longer a measure of unemployment. The U-6 is a good measure, BUT IT DOESN'T MEASURE THE SAME THING OR ANSWER THE SAME QUESTIONS AS THE U-3. The U-3 tells us what percent of people doing something about work are not successful: basicaly, how hard it is to get a job that month. The U-6 tells us how short we are of the maximum use of all possible (not just available) labor.

This post is long enough. I can address the rest of the article later if anyone asks me to.

 

[Kosh]

Despite far left propaganda!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As they say, the numbers do not lie!

 

[pinqy]

The article merely quoted Welch if you read it you'd see how the author delved into the methodology of the UE numbers

But you didn't read it

Actually I did read it which is how I know it is full of shit. How is it that you didn't know?

There were too many lies to go through each one, but he starts with the lie that 60,000 households of the ~120,000 total US households is too small.

Then he lies about discouraged workers not being counted after 52 weeks even if they continue to look for work, that he backs with another lie that that change was made in 1994. As long as they looked for work within the last 52 weeks they are still counted as discouraged no matter how long they have been unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

Funny how a guy who used to calculate the UE numbers says they're wrong

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Make It

Does he say they're wrong? Let's look at the actual quotes from Dr. Hall from the orignal NY Post article your HufPo article references:
"Right now [it’s] misleadingly low"
"This has been a very slow, very bad recovery, And I think the numbers have really struggled as a result. In fact, I’ve been very disappointed in the coverage of the numbers"

That's it. Everything else is Crudele. Those two quotes aren't saying the numbers are wrong, it's saying the numbers don't tell the full story about the labor market or the economic situation. Which is true, but no one claims they do tell the full story.

 

[CowboyTed]

Same formula we've used for decades.

Butthurt nutbags are funny.

Not true! The formula that took out people who "stopped" looking for a job (stopped looking for 1 month), the so called discouraged worker who left the workforce because they no longer need food, water, clothes, electricity or have to pay the mortgage, out of the unemployment rate (essentially artificially lowering the unemployment rate) was changed under the Clinton regime. W kept it for no other reason then changing it back who skyrocket the unemployment rate.

Get your facts right fucko!

Truth is by any measure... Unemployment rate is down taking U3 or U6...

Is the unemployment rate really just a ‘Big Lie’?

So please stop with the conspiracy theories... There are 6 official ways of judging unemployment. The one deemed most accurate is U3. The ones ye are trying to complain about is U6 (which counts people in part time employment who applied for a full time employment job).

As you see U6 is far more seasonal for that reason...

But trying to use this to beat Obama... You look foolish...