According to google.com, it's 9.5%. According to bls.gov, it's 10.2%. If I click on the "More info" link on the google.com link I get redirected to some FAQ on bls.gov. So they're using the same data and getting different numbers? If that's the case it seems like someone's doing a miscalculation.
According to google.com, it's 9.5%. According to bls.gov, it's 10.2%. If I click on the "More info" link on the google.com link I get redirected to some FAQ on bls.gov. So they're using the same data and getting different numbers? If that's the case it seems like someone's doing a miscalculation.The google.com data is as of September, 2009 (google is just reporing BLS data), which is clearly shown there. BLS' latest data came out this morning.
How do you know if either 9.5 or 10.2 is the real number?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOSE601 At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.
Last I checked, 508 * 1.84% = 9.35 jobs "saved".
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Nov. 6, 2009 @ 1:30p
Unemployment hits 26-yr record.
The stimulus programs seem to be working really well, creating or saving record numbers of jobs.
Well, my 15 year old copy of the New York Times has *completely* different data on unemployment, also supposedly from the bureau of labor statistics. Clearly, someone is hiding something.
DeGlass said: How do you know if either 9.5 or 10.2 is the real number?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOSE601 At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.
Last I checked, 508 * 1.84% = 9.35 jobs "saved".
There is signifigant debate about BLS' criteria.
If you worked 1 hr in the month, you are considered employed. If you gave up looking for a job, you aren't considered in the workforce, and if you're working part time when you really want/need a full time job, you are still considered employed. Real unemployment is always been considered higher then BLS' numbers, how much is subject to debate.
Obama4Prez
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 6, 2009 @ 1:58p
Xnarg said: Unemployment hits 26-yr record.
The stimulus programs seem to be working really well, creating or saving record numbers of jobs.
It sure is!!
Without the stimulus there would be >640k LESS jobs.
Wow, even govt figures are over 10% now... I would bet my bag that unemployment is much, much higher now than 1983.
The U6, is a much better indicator of unemployment than the official U3... The U6 is about 18%, which IMHO is more representative that the bogus 10% U3 figure.
And yet stocks keep climbing!... The only question in my mind is how far out to buy the put options.
The stimulus programs seem to be working really well, creating or saving record numbers of jobs.Actually it may be helping:Perhaps. But show me any recession in the US, from the "Panic of 1797" up through the present, where the pattern of job loss/gains does not follow this general bar chart, whether or not a purportedly fixative "stimulus program" followed that recession. The only possible exception to this would be the Great Depression itself.
And by the way, the only reliable market indices of the time show that the US did not climb back to pre-Depression levels until the mid-50's. That was after a little thing called World War 2, which was about 2/3 responsible for pulling us out versus the New Deal's 1/3.
Xnarg said: Yeah, the economy couldn't be changing because of natural forces, it surely must because someone hopped on one foot and threw money out the window.You mean the "animal spirit" that drives long term growth? It can get stuck in a short term panic.
IIRC you were a staunch supporter of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. What changed?
tester99
Member
posted: Nov. 6, 2009 @ 8:20p
They need to cut principal on loans, people with jobs will spend again.
There is no "moral" argument for this course of action, it needs to be done. The govt can share in the equity gain when it happens.
Someone put an inaccurate story about the BLS methodology change in the wikipost: Bill Clinton changed the government unemployment rate to use fake figures. For example if you are unemployed more than 6 months you are considered discouraged and not counter.
The original "real" unemployment rate is still collected. That is the U6 rate and is at 17.5%In fact, I am amazed how much inaccuracies one can squeeze into such a short statement.
For example, the claim after 6 months an unemployed person would be counted out, is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
BLS definition:
"Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey) Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."
When people put crap info on the wikiposts, it hurts everyone's best interest on FW.
The other issue is the U6 has always been tracked, and it wasn't the official rate before Clinton took office.
DeGlass said: How do you know if either 9.5 or 10.2 is the real number?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOSE601 At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.
Last I checked, 508 * 1.84% = 9.35 jobs "saved".Neither the 935 nor the 9.35 is in the BLS household survey, unless some of the employees were in the sample. Go to the BLS site, educate yourself on how the numbers are collected overthere.
For all the pain caused by the Great Recession, the job market still was not in as bad shape as it had been during the depths of the early 1980s recession — until now.
With the release of the jobs report on Friday, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment tracked by the Labor Department has reached its highest level in decades. If statistics went back so far, the measure would almost certainly be at its highest level since the Great Depression.
In all, more than one out of every six workers — 17.5 percent — were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982.
This includes the officially unemployed, who have looked for work in the last four weeks. It also includes discouraged workers, who have looked in the past year, as well as millions of part-time workers who want to be working full time.
The official jobless rate — 10.2 percent in October, up from 9.8 percent in September — remains lower than the early 1980s peak of 10.8 percent.
tester99
Member
posted: Nov. 7, 2009 @ 9:41a
The real problem is in weekly hours worked. It stands at 33, that will hinder future job growth, which in turn will hinder the housing market. Increases in temp workers will be seasonal and after the holidays I imagine that will fall. A do over for the average joe making his payments is needed.
JTFH said: Wow, even govt figures are over 10% now... I would bet my bag that unemployment is much, much higher now than 1983.
The U6, is a much better indicator of unemployment than the official U3... The U6 is about 18%, which IMHO is more representative that the bogus 10% U3 figure.
And yet stocks keep climbing!... The only question in my mind is how far out to buy the put options.What's your track record?
Honesty - is 1 in 6 Americans really out of work now? I find it hard to believe.
The stimulus programs seem to be working really well, creating or saving record numbers of jobs.Actually it may be helping:Perhaps. But show me any recession in the US, from the "Panic of 1797" up through the present, where the pattern of job loss/gains does not follow this general bar chart, whether or not a purportedly fixative "stimulus program" followed that recession. The only possible exception to this would be the Great Depression itself.
And by the way, the only reliable market indices of the time show that the US did not climb back to pre-Depression levels until the mid-50's. That was after a little thing called World War 2, which was about 2/3 responsible for pulling us out versus the New Deal's 1/3.The stock market didn't recover until the 1950s, but GDP, a broader measure of the nation's economic health, recovered by around 1940-41. Also if you look at a graph of GDP, the trend reverses pretty much at the start of the New Deal, and it's hard to believe it's just a coincidence that merely shows the economy recovering "naturally". As for the ups and downs of the economy, a graph from about 1900 shows the economy going into a long upward trend around 1961 that lasts at least through 1972, and no expansion had lasted that long previously. Was that natural, or was it a result of fiscal and monetary tools being employed differently?
Tops
Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 9:32a
Here's a really good graph on eumployment rates within different population groups:
larrymoencurly said: JTFH said: Wow, even govt figures are over 10% now... I would bet my bag that unemployment is much, much higher now than 1983.
The U6, is a much better indicator of unemployment than the official U3... The U6 is about 18%, which IMHO is more representative that the bogus 10% U3 figure.
And yet stocks keep climbing!... The only question in my mind is how far out to buy the put options.What's your track record?
Honesty - is 1 in 6 Americans really out of work now? I find it hard to believe.
No, the whole point is that U3 number doesn't capture the totality of the problems that we're in. If someone that is unemployed, falls off unemployment and had to take a part time McDonald's job while they are searching for another job to survive, that means that they are underemployed. This is reflected in the U6 number and not in the U3 number.
1 in 6 people ARE unemployed, underemployed, or fallen off the workforce due to jobs not being available because this is what is reflected in the U6 number.
tazzy531 said: larrymoencurly said: JTFH said: Wow, even govt figures are over 10% now... I would bet my bag that unemployment is much, much higher now than 1983.
The U6, is a much better indicator of unemployment than the official U3... The U6 is about 18%, which IMHO is more representative that the bogus 10% U3 figure.
And yet stocks keep climbing!... The only question in my mind is how far out to buy the put options.What's your track record?
Honesty - is 1 in 6 Americans really out of work now? I find it hard to believe.
No, the whole point is that U3 number doesn't capture the totality of the problems that we're in. If someone that is unemployed, falls off unemployment and had to take a part time McDonald's job while they are searching for another job to survive, that means that they are underemployed. This is reflected in the U6 number and not in the U3 number.
1 in 6 people ARE unemployed, underemployed, or fallen off the workforce due to jobs not being available because this is what is reflected in the U6 number. The problem is people take the U6 number and then compare it to GD unemployment to say it's as bad now like this. But the GD numbers would be U3 type numbers and not count underemployment, U6 was probably up around 40-50%.
The other mistake: during the 30's most women did not work. U3 measures both male and female unemployment. In the 30's most women didn't "work", and as a result weren't being counted in the work force. Using modern methods of calculating like assuming women are in the workforce, unemployment during the GD was thus much higher than the roughly 25% GD unemployment number you read about. The modern equivalent number would likely be up around 50-60% unemployment during the GD.
This is why there are no soup lines. Unemployment is still only about a quarter of what it was during the GD.
edit: When I said 50-60% GD unemployment I meant modern U3 equivalent. U6 would have been even higher.
hr8473
Thrifty Member
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 11:21a
kamalktk said:
This is why there are no soup lines. Unemployment is still only about a quarter of what it was during the GD.
There is no soup line yet simply because the government has been extending the unemployment benefits for several times. There is no way the government to keep extending the benefits forever.
RS4Rings
Back in Rehab
posted: Nov. 8, 2009 @ 11:34a
hr8473 said:
There is no soup line yet simply because the government has been extending the unemployment benefits for several times. There is no way the government to keep extending the benefits forever. One can hope though, Another 15 years to get me to SS would be nice.
tazzy531 said: larrymoencurly said: JTFH said: Wow, even govt figures are over 10% now... I would bet my bag that unemployment is much, much higher now than 1983.
The U6, is a much better indicator of unemployment than the official U3... The U6 is about 18%, which IMHO is more representative that the bogus 10% U3 figure.
And yet stocks keep climbing!... The only question in my mind is how far out to buy the put options.What's your track record?
Honesty - is 1 in 6 Americans really out of work now? I find it hard to believe. No, the whole point is that U3 number doesn't capture the totality of the problems that we're in. If someone that is unemployed, falls off unemployment and had to take a part time McDonald's job while they are searching for another job to survive, that means that they are underemployed. This is reflected in the U6 number and not in the U3 number.
1 in 6 people ARE unemployed, underemployed, or fallen off the workforce due to jobs not being available because this is what is reflected in the U6 number.I know that, but 1 out of 6 unemployment (excluding underemployment) doesn't seem credible, not even to my wife, who does work for a social organization that's familiar with the economy.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
