The January unemployment rate will be underreported

[pinqy]

Starting on Sunday/Monday until the end of that week, workers from the Census Bureau will interview around 60,000 households asking about their labor force activity for this week (6-12 January).
Anyone who did not work this week and who has looked for work since 15 December will be classified as unemployed. There is an exception: those on temporary lay-off who expect to return to work are classified as unemployed whether they looked for work or not.

And there’s the problem: all government workers affected by the shutdown should be classified as unemployed, but if they tell the interviewer they are employed (because in their mind they don’t see it as a lay-off) the interviewer is not allowed to change it to the correct answer or tell the respondent s/he is wrong.

Which means the unemployment number will be lower than it should be.

 

[Rexedgar]

“Figures don’t lie, liars figure”—to lazy to google author

 

[tres borrachos]

Starting on Sunday/Monday until the end of that week, workers from the Census Bureau will interview around 60,000 households asking about their labor force activity for this week (6-12 January).
Anyone who did not work this week and who has looked for work since 15 December will be classified as unemployed. There is an exception: those on temporary lay-off who expect to return to work are classified as unemployed whether they looked for work or not.

And there’s the problem: all government workers affected by the shutdown should be classified as unemployed, but if they tell the interviewer they are employed (because in their mind they don’t see it as a lay-off) the interviewer is not allowed to change it to the correct answer or tell the respondent s/he is wrong.

Which means the unemployment number will be lower than it should be.

Whose decision was this and what did that person do this for?

 

[pinqy]

Whose decision was this and what did that person do this for?

I’m not sure what decision you mean. Are you asking why those on temporary lay-off are considered unemployed even if they’re not looking for work, or why the data collectors can’t guide the respondent to the right answer?
Temporary lay-off as unemployed has been part of the definition since 1967 at least....probably 1948, but I haven’t double checked.
As for data collectors not correcting respondents, that’s basic ethics and avoiding the data collectors introducing bias.

Or were you thinking this was some specific decision made for the current situation? It wasn’t.

 

[tres borrachos]

I’m not sure what decision you mean. Are you asking why those on temporary lay-off are considered unemployed even if they’re not looking for work, or why the data collectors can’t guide the respondent to the right answer?
Temporary lay-off as unemployed has been part of the definition since 1967 at least....probably 1948, but I haven’t double checked.
As for data collectors not correcting respondents, that’s basic ethics and avoiding the data collectors introducing bias.

Or were you thinking this was some specific decision made for the current situation? It wasn’t.

The decision to consider the "furloughed" federal workers as being employed.

 

[pinqy]

The decision to consider the "furloughed" federal workers as being employed.

There was no decision. They just meet the definition of unemployed: they are on temporary lay-off.