Showing posts with label Table A15. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Table A15. Show all posts

Saturday, December 15, 2012

More Phony Employment Numbers

The fact that the U3 is the official unemployment figure used by the govt and press is bad enough since it's not even the most accurate number on Table A15 (where the figures are presented, see the U6 rate for a more accurate, yet still incomplete rate), but it's how they are able to consider so many people as "having stopped looking because they are discouraged" and don't count them as unemployed even though they need a job as badly as people who haven't stopped looking. I know people unemployed 4 yrs with no hope, yet they still look.--jef



December 8, 2012 |  paul craig roberts


Statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) calls the government’s latest jobs and unemployment reports “nonsense numbers.”

There are a number of ongoing problems with the released numbers. For example, the concurrent-seasonal factor adjustments are unstable. The birth-death model adds non-existent jobs each month that are then taken out in the annual downward benchmark revisions. Williams calculates that the job overstatement through November averages 45,000 monthly. In other words, employment gains during 2012 have been overstated by about 500,000 jobs. Another problem is that each month’s jobs number is boosted by downside revision of the previous month’s jobs number. Williams reports that the 146,000 new jobs reported for November “was after a significant downside revision to October’s reporting. Net of prior-period revisions, November’s seasonally-adjusted monthly gain was 97,000.”
Even if we believe the government that 146,000 new jobs materialized during November, that is the amount necessary to stay even with population growth and therefore could not be responsible for reducing the unemployment rate from 7.9% to 7.7%. The reduction is due to how the unemployed are counted.

The 7.7% rate is known as the “headline rate.” It is the rate you hear in the news. Its official designation is U.3.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another official unemployment rate known as U.6.

The difference is that U.3 does not include discouraged workers who are not currently actively seeking a job. (A discouraged worker is a person who has given up looking for a job because there are no jobs to be found.) The U.6 measure includes workers who have been discouraged for less than one year. The U.6 rate of unemployment is 14.4%, about double the headline rate.
The U.6 rate does not include long-term discouraged workers, those who have been discouraged for more than one year. John Williams estimates this rate and reports the actual rate of unemployment (known as SGS) in November to be 22.9%.



In other words, the headline rate of unemployment is one-third the actual rate.
The drop in the November headline rate of unemployment from 7.9 to 7.7 is due to a 20.4% increase in the number of short-term discouraged workers in November. In other words, unemployed people rolled out of the U.3 measure into the U.6 measure.

Similarly, a number of short-term discouraged workers roll out of the U.6 measure into John Williams’ measure that includes all of the unemployed. Williams reports that “with the continual rollover, the flow of headline workers continues into the short-term discouraged workers (U.6), and from U.6 into long term discouraged worker status (a ShadowStats.com measure), at what has been an accelerating pace. The aggregate November data show an increasing rate of individuals dropping out of the headline (U.3) labor force.” In other words, the headline rate of unemployment can drop even though the unemployed are having a harder time finding jobs.

The U.S. government simply lowers the unemployment rate by not counting all of the unemployed. We owe this innovation to the Clinton administration. In 1994 the Clinton administration redefined “discouraged workers” and limited this group to those who are discouraged for less than one year. Those discouraged for more than one year are no longer considered to be in the labor force and ceased to be counted as unemployed.

If the U.S. government will mislead the public about unemployment, it will also mislead about Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Palestine, Russia, China, and 9/11. The government fits its story to its agenda.

A government that wants to cut the social safety net doesn’t want you to know that the unemployment rate is 22.9%. A government that wants to cut the social safety net when between one-fifth and one-fourth of the work force is out of work looks hard-hearted, mean-spirited, and foolish. But if the government reports only one-third of the unemployed and presents that rate as falling, then the government can present its cuts as prudent to avoid falling over a “fiscal cliff.”

If the “free and democratic” Americans cannot even find out what the unemployment rate is, how do they expect to find out about anything?

Monday, October 15, 2012

Trump calls jobs report phoney: says Unemployment is really ’21 percent’

God, I hate siding with these idiots, but on this one point, they are correct. It's the math formula they use, it's not anything corrupt, and it's certainly not a conspiracy on the BLS' part to fudge the numbers to make the president look good. It's the way they discount "discouraged workers". You are considered a "discouraged worker" if you haven't interviewed in a month (which the BLS calls"actively seeking employment--when anybody still looking for work can tell you that often times you'll go for a month without an interview). You can be working your butt off looking for work, but without seeing anybody or receiving any benefits, you aren't considered unemployed

There is a category for marginally attached to the workforce, and that rate is 14.7%. When you factor in the "discouraged unemployed" (those who are considered discouraged even though they continue to look, AND those who are genuinely discouraged), those who once had a professional career but who now work part-time for minimum wage (underemployed), and people who were forced to take early retirement rather than a layoff, then the idiot Trump is correct:  the real unemployment rate is about 21%.

Here is the Bureau of Labor and Statistics Table A15:.


The U3 total on the far right is the household survey that excludes practically everyone--the marginally attached, the under employed, early retirees---at 7.8%, it's the media number they use every month when they report unemployment: THE figure----but as you can see just below that figure, there are higher numbers. What are they for? They are more accurate (yet still incomplete) rates of unemployment based on data you can see at the linked PDF below.(Click on the chart to take you directly to the Table A15 page so you can be sure I haven't photoshopped the graph to make my point) You can see the U6 is at 14.7%--double the U3. And like I said, that's a much more accurate rate of unemployment but even it's not complete.

It's also interesting that the U3 went down, but the U6 stayed the same.

Here is a PDF put out by the BLS explaining how the data is compiled. Please download it and see for yourself.

Trust me, ever since I learned there were several different rates of unemployment, I've been obsessed with letting people know that unemployment is ALWAYS worse that the figure reported on the news. The proof is in the BLS's own information. They started using this formula in 1994, so these aren't comparable numbers to the great depression since the formula are different.

Keep in mind, based on the BLS birth/death rate model, we have to create 150,000 new jobs each month (some say 200K, others say 100K, so I go for the mean, which is what most economists do too) just to keep up with the number of new employees entering the job market each and every month. So, the total number of jobs created each month have to total more than 150K, or else it's a net jobs loss for the month. Is that clear? Any total less than 150K, means not enough jobs were created to keep up with the new employees entering the market, much less the increasing number of long-term unemployed, recently unemployed, and under employed seeking better jobs. To significantly lower unemployment, they would have to create more than 200,000 jobs every month, and the effects in the job market would not improve in a month. It would take at least a quarter for the results to show.

So, on just this one issue, the Republicans are correct, except that no one is pointing out the difference in the U3 to the U6 and so forth. I haven't heard ANYONE talking about the schedule at all. SO Republicans think the Democrats are fudging the numbers, and the Democrats call the Republicans conspiracy theorists, when they are both whacked because they don't understand how they compute the figures when it's all right there on the site.

Understand, Donald Trump is a DOUCHEBAG MORON. But obviously, he has someone on his staff who understands how they compute the numbers, but is withholding the fact that it's how they've been doing it since Clinton was president--both Republicans and Democrats. Though, prior to 1994, the U3 was NOT the unemployment rate used when reporting to the media and the public. It was a rate that was used in the larger formula to compute an overall unemployment rate, rather than the U3 BEING the overall unemployment rate, which as you can clearly see, it's not the overall unemployment rate. It's the "keep us complacent" number. Because if we started looking at the U6 instead of the U3, people would freak out.

Here is a chart that computes the data the way they did prior to 1994. You see the U3 schedule represented along with the U6. The 3rd rate is what actual unemployment is, and as you can see, it's about 21%--which is higher than all but 3 years during the great depression.



####


Trump calls jobs report phoney: says Unemployment is really ’21 percent’
By David Edwards
Monday, October 15, 2012 
Adding one more conspiracy theory to his resume on Monday, Donald Trump suggested that President Barack Obama’s team had concocted a “phony” 7.8 percent unemployment number and that the real unemployment rate could be as high as 21 percent. (He's correct about the rate, not that the data was concocted or phony; at worst, it's just incomplete--if Trump weren't such an idiot, he could point to Table A15--jef)

Earlier this month Former, GE CEO Jack Welch spawned a “jobs truthers” front after he tweeted that an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent was “unbelievable,” and added that the “Chicago guys” in Obama’s campaign headquarters “will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers.”

Trump told the hosts of Fox & Friends on Monday that Welch got it right.

“They’re not real numbers because the 7.8 [percent] — as Jack Welch said and he took a lot of heat for saying it, but he’s right — I guarantee you’re going to have a correction right after the election,” the billionaire reality star explained. “The 7.8 is not a real number. The real number is 15 percent (the U6--jef), 16 percent, people even say 21 percent.(the SGS stats above--jef)

“So, it’s a phony number,” he added. “I don’t know how they allow it to get out there, but I guarantee you, as you’re sitting there after the election, that number is going to be corrected substantially upward. And everybody knows it.” (It's not phony, it's incomplete.--jef)

Trump also had some advice for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney prior to Tuesday night’s second debate with Obama.

“I don’t think he has to prepare too much,” Trump explained. “He’s a smart guy. He’s a good leader. He has it. He gets it for this country. He really gets it. And I will say this, if Obama has a performance like he had a couple of weeks ago, I don’t believe it’s possible for him to win the election.”

“Who knows? Did he become more intelligent in the last two weeks? You tell me.”

###

So, see, this whole issue is easily put to rest by some simple fact checking that no one seems to be aware of. Romney is going to say whatever he can to get elected. Obama shouldn't even have to worry about the election, except that he hasn't done a very good job at all, especially for working class people, which is the ONLY reason Romney isn't double digits behind Obama.