Is the unemployment rate really just a 'Big Lie'?

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,431
Reaction score
549
Gallup CEO Jim Clifton says we’re all being duped.

Jim Clifton, CEO of the polling service Gallup, wants to expose a conspiracy theory so vast that it will indict not just the government, but Wall Street and the media as well. These three entities have worked in concert to prop up the “Big Lie” that America’s unemployment rate is a mere 5.6%, as the Labor Department claims.

“Here’s something that many Americans — including some of the smartest and most educated among us — don’t know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is “down” to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

Clifton explains, accurately, that the Labor Department counts someone as employed even if they are working part time but want a full time job. It also considers people who have no job and haven’t looked for one in the past four weeks as “not in the labor force,” rather than unemployed. Clifton continues:

“There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

First, a little explainer on why the official unemployment rate, also called U3, is compiled the way it is. The Labor Department releases six different measures of unemployment, using different assumptions for each one. The U1 rate, for instance, only counts people who have been unemployed for less than six weeks, while the broadest measure, U6, counts as unemployed folks who are working part time but wish to be working full time. It also marks people who don’t have a job but have looked for one in the past year (rather than four weeks as with U3) as unemployed.

Why doesn’t the Labor Department just count all people without a job as unemployed? Because it wants to distinguish between the truly unemployed and those people who are, for instance, retired, or staying home to take care of the house or family while a spouse works. Counting these people as not part of the labor force is more accurate than saying that they are unemployed.

In other words, the Labor Department has to make some distinctions to present an accurate portrayal of the labor market. If you simply want to know what percentage of the population has a job versus those that don’t, there is a statistic for that too. It’s called the employment-to-population ratio. But that number tends to rise and fall for demographic and social reasons. It rose throughout the late 20th century, as women began to join the labor force in large numbers. And it is now trending downward, mostly because of the aging of the population.

But focusing on this number won’t tell us how strong the labor market is relative to, say, five years ago. That’s why we have to designate some people as in the labor market and others as not. Some argue that the U6, which counts the underemployed as unemployed is a better gauge of the the labor market’s health. And they have a leg to stand on. But if you’re trying to understand what percentage of the labor market doesn’t have a job, counting people with part-time jobs as unemployed would also be misleading.

Finally, for the unemployment rate to be a “Big Lie,” you’d have to believe that human beings have an innate understanding of what constitutes a good unemployment rate. Why is a 5.6% unemployment rate good, anyway? That still means that millions of Americans are out of work. We think it’s good because we lived through a period of 10% unemployment not that long ago. And by any measure, U6 or U3, the job market is better today than it was in 2009.

Sure, Wall Street and the White House might have an incentive to convince people that the economy is better than it actually is. (The media, on the other hand, is encouraged to play up bad news, which gets more attention.) But it’s an insult to the public’s intelligence to suggest that it could be tricked into thinking the economy is good just because the Labor Department says so.

Is the economy as good as it was the last time the unemployment rate was 5.6%? No, but Americans know this. That’s why the most recent State of the Union address was laser-focused on the issue of stagnant wages and the plight of the middle class.

The unemployment rate isn’t a “Big Lie.” It’s simply one statistic among many that we use to judge the health of the economy.

But the American people don’t need government statistics to tell them whether they are employed or if their economic fortunes are rising or falling. You’d think the CEO of a polling company would know that.

http://fortune.com/2015/02/04/unemployment-rate-gallup/?xid=yahoo_fortune
 
And what about people like me. I'm job hunting but can't apply for unemployment yet because I'm still getting paid by my last employer (displacement pay due to office closing). Have I been counted?
 
probably not LoveBlue. I know I'm not counted because my unemployment ran out. I might be counted now because of the SSDI? maybe. But still....

Many reasons why the unemployment rate isn't as it seems-- people fall off the unemployment benefits, just plain stop looking, become disabled or ill.
 
We learned all that in my macroeconomics class.
 
I wonder if you could get a more accurate figure if you count how many people had their unemployment expire due to maximum length instead of just stopping applying for them.
 
I dont see how they could achieve the accuracy on these numbers, the chances are they might be under-estimated at best case scenario.

Honestly, I am thinking that its cover up on real issues that Obamacare has caused. I have seen explosion of part time, same time hard dive on full time availablity. I am seeing this az corporations scrambled down in trying to save money on health coverage by Cutting down full time positions, expansion on part time positions. I had to admit that Steinhauer was right on this one as he predicted about 3 years ago.
 
I never buy the employment stats. The folks that "retired" often had to because they got cut from their last job and no one wanted to hire someone in their age bracket. Not an accurate definition of retirement, more forced in many cases. Then there's those that have just given up....

Laura
 
I'd forgotten about the 'forced retirement' group- I have a friend who worked as a programmer for 23 years at a major company. Her department went through a major 'overhaul' and they let go/laid off a large number of people-- including her. She was not yet 60. She's been 'retired' since for about a year and a half now and says it's been difficult to find anything as she knows her age is a whammy when looking. Her partner left her job years ago (disability related).

Then there's the group who never even BOTHERED to look. Know of one person who did work for a short time, was injured on the job... legitimately had a injury related 'disability' for a short time but after about a year she was pretty much milking the state system. Never bothered to try for 're education' or other programs. Even turned down jobs that she COULD do because she used her (non existent) disability as an excuse. Even tried for SSI- she was denied- every doctor she sees says she doesn't have a leg to stand on and there's nothing wrong with her.
 
Hear is a link that shows how the unemployment rate in the US is calculated each month. So many people think the government actually counts unemployment benefits, those looking for work, etc. Here is how they come up with the numbers.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
 
it always spun, even 'shortages of food' is BS.....all for rationalisation to get more profit......
 
I dont see how they could achieve the accuracy on these numbers, the chances are they might be under-estimated at best case scenario.

Honestly, I am thinking that its cover up on real issues that Obamacare has caused. I have seen explosion of part time, same time hard dive on full time availablity. I am seeing this az corporations scrambled down in trying to save money on health coverage by Cutting down full time positions, expansion on part time positions. I had to admit that Steinhauer was right on this one as he predicted about 3 years ago.

what? ridiculous. the numbers do not add up based on your claim. just your usual mere fear-mongering misinformation and disinformation.
 
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/10/obamas-numbers-october-2014-update/
Millions of Americans have gained health insurance because of Obamacare, and the number signing up for Medicaid keeps rising. But the exact number of newly insured won’t be known for some time.

Those signing up for private insurance in Obamacare marketplaces for 2015 will find 25 percent more insurance companies competing for their business.

Marketplace premiums for 2015 are averaging 0.8 percent lower than this year, according to preliminary data.

This year the economy is adding jobs rapidly and paychecks are rising faster than inflation at last. Real weekly earnings for workers, adjusted for inflation, averaged 0.7 percent higher in August than when Obama entered office.

And the total number of jobs in September was nearly 5.5 million higher than when Obama was first sworn in. Four times more jobs have been added under Obama than were gained in George W. Bush’s eight years in office.

Under Obama, U.S. crude oil production has increased by 70 percent, while oil imports have gone down by more than half.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/whats-the-real-jobless-rate/
As the Obama administration basked in the news that the unemployment rate in January dipped to a three-year low of 8.3 percent, Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich threw a wet blanket on the announcement. Romney said the “real unemployment rate” was actually 15 percent, and Gingrich said that when you include people who have simply given up on trying to find a job, the rate “jumps up to about 12 percent.”
Is the unemployment rate not the real unemployment rate?

Neither Romney nor Gingrich put things quite right. But they are referring to legitimate yardsticks of “alternative measures of labor underutilization” put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That’s a daunting title, but to have any chance of sorting though the unemployment spin — which we’re sure to be hearing an awful lot of this election season — you’ll need to familiarize yourself with an assortment of labor measurements labeled by the BLS as U-3 through U-6.

U-3 — This is what BLS calls the “official unemployment rate.” It represents unemployed workers who are actively searching for a new job. That’s the 8.3 percent rate that made headlines last week.

U-4 — This is the total unemployed plus “discouraged workers.” Discouraged workers are those who have given up looking for a job because they are convinced there aren’t any available for them. It was 8.9 percent in January.

U-5 — This is the total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus “other persons marginally attached to the labor force.” The marginally attached are people who are neither working nor looking for work, but indicate they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the last year. But they aren’t counted as unemployed, because they didn’t actively search for work in the last four weeks. That rate was 9.9 percent in January.

U-6 — This is the catch-all of the lot. It includes all of the above groups — total unemployed, discouraged workers and the marginally attached — plus part-time workers who say they would like to be working more, but for economic reasons could only find part-time work. It was 15.1 percent in January.

The U-3 figure is the most commonly accepted and reported figure for the nation’s unemployment rate. But all of the measures have value for those seeking to analyze labor trends. For example, it often happens that even as employment rises after a recession, the unemployment rate may stay the same or rise, as more people sitting on the sidelines decide to get back in the job market. The confusion sets in when politicians selectively cite from this menu of options, or distort them, to suit their political message.

We put together the graphic below to show U-3, U-4, U-5 and U-6 trends under President Barack Obama.

quibbling. that's all there is to it.
 
wondered the same Jiro.. The unemployment rate as it is has nothing to do with Obamacare and health insurance in general. The unemployment rate was higher and lower long before Obamacare came into the picture.

Can you explain that DHB? Why has the unemployment rate been higher in the past? Sure ain't Obamacare!

As a point--
1970 4.9
1972 5.6
1974 5.6%
1976 7.7
19781 6.1
1980 7.1
1982 9.7
1984 7.5
19861 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
19901 5.6%
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
19941 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
19971 4.9
19981 4.5
19991 4.2
20001 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
20031 6.0%
20041 5.5
20051 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6
2011 8.9
2012 8.1
2013 7.4

Read more: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2013 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html#ixzz3Qum9jW65

so... in 1982 and even 2009 before Obamacare was even signed into law...hmm. Can't blame those two on businesses scaling back and trying to 'save' on employee health insurance benefits.

Edit- Jiro has better info :)
 
Back
Top