If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Citing our inability to get highly accurate figures in the past; Labor Dept. redefines what "employment" means. Unemployment set to drop tp 0% as standards drop to "has pulse, can mumble some broken English"   (money.cnn.com) divider line 60
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

611 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Feb 2007 at 9:41 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-02-02 09:05:18 AM
did I miss the part in the article where it talks about redefining employment??

looks to me that they are benchmarking payroll numbers (which is not the same as the unemployment rate) based on more complete data

this isn'tnoocommon
 
2007-02-02 09:08:47 AM
Stars_At_Night: this isn'tnoocommon

Quiet, you! And just as I was going to send you PJ Stock for a Valentine's Day gift. Sheesh.
 
2007-02-02 09:10:02 AM
Stars_At_Night: looks to me that they are benchmarking payroll numbers (which is not the same as the unemployment rate) based on more complete data

Yeah, but if submitter actually paid attention to the article's content, he/she would be unable to make an idiotic (but trollerific) headline.

this isn'tnoocommon

Very few things are.
 
2007-02-02 09:54:56 AM
The government has never had an accurate measure for unemployment.
In the past two decades we have seen more and more people working in jobs that don't provide a sufficient living wage. Those people are considered employed, even though they are not making enough money. Are people who have not found jobs, and had their unemployment insurance run out, still counted as unemployed?
We may be creating new jobs, but these are mostly lower paying service jobs, while we are losing all of our factory jobs to China.
 
2007-02-02 09:59:15 AM
SuburbanCowboy: Are people who have not found jobs, and had their unemployment insurance run out, still counted as unemployed?

you are dumb

unemployment figures have NOTHING to do with unemployment insurance
 
2007-02-02 10:00:27 AM
SuburbanCowboy: we are losing all of our factory jobs to China.

You know, there was some jackass on CNBC the other day saying "The US is producing more now, in manufacturing, (in dollars) than we ever did in our history! The economy is great!"

I wonder if genius there factored in at least some form of inflation in his numbers and divided that by hours worked, divided by wages, and got a quality of life on that figure.
 
2007-02-02 10:01:41 AM
Stars_At_Night: unemployment figures have NOTHING to do with unemployment insurance

Though, it has everything to do with how BLS counts labor statistics as those who drop off unemployment rolls are left off the books.

You knew that, right?
 
2007-02-02 10:02:02 AM
These are for the monthly jobs created/lost figures, not the monthly unemployment figures.

Makes sense to me.
 
2007-02-02 10:04:25 AM
NewportBarGuy: it has everything to do with how BLS counts labor statistics as those who drop off unemployment rolls are left off the books.

umm.. no

your status as unemployed has nothing to do with whether you are receiving unemployment benefits
 
2007-02-02 10:04:26 AM
Stars_At_Night: unemployment figures have NOTHING to do with unemployment insurance

You're dumb:

Note: from March 1, 2005 unemployment statistics were be derived from three sources, the Current Population Survey, a statewide survey of businesses known as the Current Employment Statistics Survey, and state unemployment insurance claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Measuring_unemployment (pops)

Unemployment insurance rolls are one of the three sources of statistics for the unemployment rate.
 
2007-02-02 10:05:34 AM
And NewportBarGuy, don't you go giving away decent fighters...unless you're giving them to the Bruins! ;)
 
2007-02-02 10:08:02 AM
Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work

What do the unemployment insurance figures measure?

Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a byproduct of unemployment insurance (UI) programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims which serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures
 
2007-02-02 10:12:00 AM
that is from here
 
2007-02-02 10:13:27 AM
Sometimes, these things just sort themselves out ;)
 
2007-02-02 10:22:27 AM
they sure do

Where do the statistics come from?

Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country
 
2007-02-02 10:24:11 AM
Also from that link:
Is there a measure of underemployment?

Because of the difficulty of developing an objective set of criteria which could be readily used in a monthly household survey, no official government statistics are available on the total number of persons who might be viewed as underemployed. Even if many or most could be identified, it would still be difficult to quantify the loss to the economy of such underemployment.


I am certain the number of underemployed has risen steadily over the past few years. Call this the Wal-Martification of America.
 
2007-02-02 10:25:39 AM
We may be creating new jobs, but these are mostly lower paying service jobs, while we are losing all of our factory jobs to China

Does this mean that people like me could have been included the calculation for "new jobs created" when I took a 2nd job in september to pay off bills?
 
2007-02-02 10:31:18 AM
Stars_At_Night: Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country

Ok...so I'm still waiting for you to explain:

you are dumb

unemployment figures have NOTHING to do with unemployment insurance


Seems that you've done a great job at explaining the opposite, though :D
 
2007-02-02 10:35:19 AM
IXI Jim IXI: Seems that you've done a great job at explaining the opposite, though

Oh Snap!

images.needcoffee.com
 
2007-02-02 10:38:23 AM
IXI Jim IXI: Seems that you've done a great job at explaining the opposite,

the methodology seems to be saying that they don't use UI like people think they do and instead they use the CPS

but whatever dude

it's not like I would know anything about this
 
2007-02-02 10:42:43 AM
Stars_At_Night: the methodology seems to be saying that they don't use UI like people think they do and instead they use the CPS

For those who are just joining us...

Stars_At_Night called SuburbanCowboy dumb for asking if people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance are still considered unemployed. He finished this by saying
unemployment figures have NOTHING to do with unemployment insurance


Stars_At_Night then proceeded to post proof that unemployment figures are, in part, collected as a byproduct of the unemployment insurance process.

I now return you to your regularily scheduled programming.
 
2007-02-02 10:43:33 AM
Oh...and he's a she, and has something for PJ Stock ;)
 
2007-02-02 10:44:57 AM
Stars_At_Night: it's not like I would know anything about this

So you are saying that you work for a firm that calculates unemployment figures and are getting a kick out of these replies??
 
2007-02-02 10:47:05 AM
yes you interpreted what I was saying 100% correctly
 
2007-02-02 10:49:03 AM
Stars_At_Night: yes you interpreted what I was saying 100% correctly

Well, following your interpretation of what Cowboy said, I'll just call it par for the course ;)
 
2007-02-02 10:53:09 AM
From the BLS website:

How is the unemployment rate related to unemployment insurance claims?

While not related to the national unemployment rate, Unemployment Insurance claims data do serve as inputs into the calculation of state and local area unemployment estimates.
 
2007-02-02 10:56:16 AM
This has nothing to do with redefining employment. This is standard procedure, it's just the CES benchmark announcement. It's just a larger than usual revision. Employment is not being redefined, what we see here is an adjustment to a model so it can better estimate employment.
 
2007-02-02 10:58:01 AM
babysitting one night a week for 10 bucks now counts as employment?
 
2007-02-02 10:59:24 AM
oh I get it. If you're not currently drawing unemployment benefits you're considered employed. I see what you did there.
 
2007-02-02 11:02:16 AM
IXI Jim IXI: And NewportBarGuy, don't you go giving away decent fighters...unless you're giving them to the Bruins! ;)

BLOW ME!!! After the Thronton trade I can't even follow the farking sport. Goddamn Evil Jacobs and his asshattery.

Stars_At_Night: your status as unemployed has nothing to do with whether you are receiving unemployment benefits

*quizzical dog*

First time jobless claims (when you see net increase and decrease) are based on numbers received from employers and the respective states. When someone uses up their benefits they are dropped from the rolls and are no longer counted as employed or unemployed. They just disappear. This, generally helps the unemployment percentage trend downward.

Kind of like that guy you passed today with the empty coffee cup and the track marks asking for change. He is neither employed or unemployed... He just smells like urine.
 
2007-02-02 11:04:48 AM
anal brazil men - apparently we were arguing semantics
 
2007-02-02 11:08:29 AM
Guys, look.

The fact of the matter is there is no accurate way of measuring unemployment.

We can make up numbers and revise them and refine them all we want - but we're ultimately just pulling them out of our asses.

What you have to look at are larger economic questions. Sales growth. Savings rates. Households above\below the poverty line.

If average poverty is shrinking, savings are going up, and sales are booming, then clearly, the answer to "how many people are employed?" is simply: "Enough."

If the opposite is true, then the answer is "not enough."

And that's what the government should be looking at. Not making up numbers to make itself look better.
 
2007-02-02 11:12:32 AM
NewportBarGuy - it matters for jobless claims

it does not factor into the unemployment rate

When someone uses up their benefits they are dropped from the rolls and are no longer counted as employed or unemployed. They just disappear

that is incorrect

their status is based on whether they are available to work and are currently looking for a job

if they stop looking for a job or are unavailable (due to being in school or whatever) then they are considered out of the labor force

and there are measures of discouraged workers, involuntary part time workers, and people working multiple jobs if you are interested

that guy you passed today with the empty coffee cup and the track marks asking for change. He is neither employed or unemployed.

he is considered "out of the labor force" - his status again has nothing to do with his unemployment insurance

if you counted everyone who wasn't working at all whether they were trying to work or not you would have to include college students, stay at home parents, etc etc
 
2007-02-02 11:12:55 AM
NewportBarGuy: BLOW ME!!! After the Thronton trade I can't even follow the farking sport. Goddamn Evil Jacobs and his asshattery.

Well, I'm more of a P-Bruins fan...so personally, I'm much more pissed at them losing Colton Orr to waivers...

Stars_At_Night: anal brazil men - apparently we were arguing semantics

Just goes to show, before you're going to call someone dumb, make sure you can get your OWN points across ;)
 
2007-02-02 11:13:46 AM
WizardX: Not making up numbers to make itself look better.

But... I was promised a pony!

It is amazing that these wildly inaccurate numbers hold so much sway with the arbiters of The Street.

Good response, I agree with all of it. We need to look at more realistic indicators. Especially real wages (indexed to inflation).
 
2007-02-02 11:16:07 AM
NewportBarGuy: It is amazing that these wildly inaccurate numbers hold so much sway with the arbiters of The Street

most of the numbers are not statistically "wildly inaccurate"

and anyone who knows anything about the economic statistics does not pay attention to or make decisions based on the highly volatile statistics because.. well they are highly volatile
 
2007-02-02 11:16:34 AM
Why do I get a feeling a conversation like this probably went down while "revising" the payroll count:

Bob: "So, it's really hard to track new businesses. I'm sure they're not all accounted for here."
Bill: "What do you figure...about 40% are missing?"
Bob: "Sounds about right, Bill. So let's tack on...oh, let's round it off at 230,000 jobs to this count. Sound good Bill?"
Bill: "Sounds good, Bob"
 
2007-02-02 11:19:11 AM
Stars_At_Night:
This
their status is based on whether they are available to work and are currently looking for a job

and this
it does not factor into the unemployment rate

are incongruent

and there are measures of discouraged workers, involuntary part time workers, and people working multiple jobs if you are interested

They have not been counting all categories of these workers and you know it. It's been outdated for decades.

if you counted everyone who wasn't working at all whether they were trying to work or not you would have to include college students, stay at home parents, etc etc

Yes, does that not provide a more accurate picture of the "labor force"?

Who we include and exclude has made a mockery of the employment numbers since inception.

Able bodied people not holding gainful employment = unemployed. Anything else is disingenous.
 
2007-02-02 11:21:06 AM
Able bodied people not holding gainful employment = unemployed. Anything else is disingenous.

What about people choosing not to work? Like one parent taking a year off to raise the toddler while the other pulls extra duty? Or professors taking a sabbatacal to work on their novel?
 
2007-02-02 11:22:21 AM
Stars_At_Night: and anyone who knows anything about the economic statistics does not pay attention to or make decisions based on the highly volatile statistics because.. well they are highly volatile

But it doesn't stop the president from releasing them to the news so he can try for an ego-stroke :D
 
2007-02-02 11:27:26 AM
someone can be collecting UI and not currently looking for a job and they are unemployed

someone can not be collecting UI and be currently looking for a job and they are considered unemployed

NewportBarGuy: Yes, does that not provide a more accurate picture of the "labor force"?

if someone does not want or is not able to take a job are they really part of the labor force??

They have not been counting all categories of these workers and you know it. It's been outdated for decades.

I don't know how this part of the survey is designed but it's a recently added measure so "outdated for decades" may not be so accurate
 
2007-02-02 11:28:55 AM
IXI Jim IXI: But it doesn't stop the president from releasing them to the news so he can try for an ego-stroke

the president has nothing to do with the data releases

favorable or unfavorable they are released based on a schedule set years in advance
 
2007-02-02 11:30:30 AM
Stars_At_Night: someone can be collecting UI and not currently looking for a job and they are unemployed

damn it

they are NOT UNEMPLOYED - they are out of the labor force
 
2007-02-02 11:34:16 AM
Stars_At_Night: if someone does not want or is not able to take a job are they really part of the labor force??

That is the inherent problem with these numbers. Unless you are a psychologist and holding their hand making sure they are actively out there pursuing interviews, who the fark knows??

If they are getting UI and hitting the interview circuit for 2-3 interviews per week, I'd say that is part of the workforce, just temporarily displaced.

If they are making LiteBrite Al-Qaeda bombs, threatening the city of Boston, and eating Top Ramen, they should be dropped from the rolls.
 
2007-02-02 11:35:23 AM
FTA: "and some economists say it shows not only that the economy is doing much better than previously believed"

Suck it!
 
2007-02-02 11:36:55 AM
FlashLV: FTA: "and some economists say it shows not only that the economy is doing much better than previously believed"

Suck it!


Shaddup. You're the one who said yesterday that it'd be...what was it, ominous if we changed the way the figures were calculated. ;)
 
2007-02-02 11:37:30 AM
NewportBarGuy: If they are making LiteBrite Al-Qaeda bombs, threatening the city of Boston, and eating Top Ramen, they should be dropped from the rolls.

But only on tuesdays, and every other full moon.
 
2007-02-02 11:42:50 AM
NewportBarGuy: Unless you are a psychologist and holding their hand making sure they are actively out there pursuing interviews, who the fark knows??

yeah self reporting has its issues but anything else would be too expensive to be worth it

It's why it's statistics and not a set in stone absolute number. Too many people probably think of it as the later instead of the former though even though it is statistically solid.

If they are getting UI and hitting the interview circuit for 2-3 interviews per week, I'd say that is part of the workforce

that person is by definition considered unemployed but not because of their UI - because they are available and actively looking for a new job
 
2007-02-02 11:48:16 AM
Stars_At_Night: Too many people probably think of it as the later instead of the former though even though it is statistically solid.

A'cause they be retahded... I'm not picking a fight on the stats, just where the pool of numbers is drawn from. I'm actually glad they are re-doing these numbers, for what, the first time in a half century?

We need to face the fact that BLS needs more funding if we want more accurate numbers. Also, we need to accept how important these numbers are to our overall economy and how they bear on legislative decisions.

We both know that'll never happen, though. Data and number just ain't sexy enough.

Get out there and do some dances for the Senate Finance Committee. Take one for the team!
 
2007-02-02 11:53:35 AM
NewportBarGuy: BLS needs more funding

farkin' a dude

without Greenspan throwing his weight the statistical agencies are taking a hit in the funding for sure (btw I originally typed farking instead of funding)
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report