U.S. jobless claims near 42-year low as labor market tightens

[Conservative]

We don't have to pay down all $18 trillion now. I can see no reason to. There is literally no reason to be concerned except inflation, which i already showed you is just fine.

Do you not realize that republicans already know this ? That's why President Reagan cut taxes and increased spending, and it actually helped the economy.

We don't if the size of the govt. is cut but it isn't being cut.

Here we go again with Reagan. Do you know what the Reagan budget was when he started and when he left office? How about the size of the economy when he entered office and when he left? How about employment?

Tell me, given the choice of implementing a policy that created 17 million jobs, doubled GDP, created a peace dividend with a cost of 1.7 trillion or still a debt of 50% of GDP would you do it?

Ask yourself about the Obama performance using the same metrics?

 

[Conservative]

Never mind the fact that John Q. Citizen doesn't know what the U6 rate was in 1969, or 1983, etc.... Likely not to know what it was in 2005 :lol: which is why he is asking for it to be official.

There was no U-6 rate in 1969, 1982 or even 1990

 

[Conservative]

I think it's pretty clear that President Bush 2's policies precipitated the housing crisis.

Clear to whom, those with BDS? You think the Democrats weren't involved? Stop being partisan and be honest for a change. Yes, Bush had a part in it but so did Clinton and the Democrats in Congress. Who benefited from the Crisis politically, Republicans or Democrats??

 

[Kushinator]

There was no U-6 rate in 1969, 1982 or even 1990

That is my point. People have a limited reference period.

 

[Conservative]

That is my point. People have a limited reference period.

Please explain to me where the increase in discouraged workers came from that topped out at 1.3 million? That is the point and if you think 9.9% u-6 after adding 7.6 trillion to the debt is a success then that makes you part of the problem

 

[Captain Adverse]

How would that not make them marginally attached? Marginally attached are those who say they want to work, could start work if offered, and have looked for work sometime in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks. It doesn't matter why they stopped looking. If they stopped looking because they believe they would be unsuccessful, they would be classified as the subset of marginally attached called Discouraged workers.

Simply because after the period you cite (12 months less 4 weeks) they will answer the questions by saying they are not looking.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So you're upset that the conservative media abused statistics to give you a false pessimism about employment ?

I don't blame you.

The "conservative" media? How about just "the media" since both sides publish the same figures.

 

[Kushinator]

Please explain to me where the increase in discouraged workers came from that topped out at 1.3 million?

You again are attacking a straw man. I never made any reference to DW topping 1.3 million. If you have a point, then make it.

That is the point and if you think 9.9% u-6 after adding 7.6 trillion to the debt is a success then that makes you part of the problem

I never said anything about success, so again, you are just attacking a straw man (that's all you do!).

I made a point that the average U6 rate is higher than what it is now.

 

[Conservative]

You again are attacking a straw man. I never made any reference to DW topping 1.3 million. If you have a point, then make it.



I never said anything about success, so again, you are just attacking a straw man (that's all you do!).

I made a point that the average U6 rate is higher than what it is now.

I have made it, a 1.3 million discouraged worker number distorts the official unemployment rate more than a 600,000 discourage worker number

As for the U-6 rate being higher then than now, that is your opinion

 

[JasperL]

First, I admit I made a mistake in my misreading of the 4 week seeking work figures NOT being used. I was trying to respond too quickly and cited a section of the definitions incorrectly.

To be fair, you made some serious accusations. Quoting you in bold:

"If one is NOT WORKING, but seeking work and still NOT EMPLOYED; then are the reported figures for unemployment showing a RISE in employment which DO NOT COUNT YOU AS UNEMPLOYED truly accurate?"

Anyone actively seeking work is counted as unemployed. You didn't misquote something, you clearly misunderstood how the figures are compiled and what they represent.

"Sure, one can go in and read all the gobblety-goop to find the "explanations" for this and that non-used data. All that proves is but one example of how the government is using the information as I have stated; propaganda to make things seems better than they really are."

We don't know what data are 'non-used.' And you've accused the government of propaganda (aka intentional deception/lying) but there has been no recent change to the definitions of U-1 through U-6, and I'm not sure how we make apples and apples comparisons of 2015 to 1998 except how it's being done today.

Are you misunderstanding my position intentionally? It does not matter if the government tracks figures in the areas listed (which I never denied btw), what matters are the figures USED when publishing the Unemployment Rate. As clearly stated, those are the U-3 figures:

It appears your problem is with designating U-3 as the 'Official' unemployment rate and that the popular press focuses on that number. OK, that's fine, but that's a problem with the press and not with the figures, which have been consistently prepared since long before Obama took office and the beginning of the Great Recession.

If your premise is that U-3 understates the problems in the labor market, I agree, but calling the figures "propaganda" and accusing the government of lying to you is a really lousy way to make a legitimate point. And if you make those kinds of serious allegations, you damn sure ought to have your facts nailed down about what the figures mean, how they're measured, etc. and you didn't.

The U-3 figures concern people in the labor force which is divided between the employed and the unemployed. Then there is the group "not in the labor force."

They are not counted. Also the figures for these statistics come from a "Household Survey."

Well, "they" is a bit unclear, but should my 78 year old mom be counted in the workforce? How about my sister in law, a happily "unemployed" stay at home mom? I think you agree they shouldn't be, but the problem is how to objectively measure who should and shouldn't be counted, and the only way I can see is to ask them simple questions - have you looked for work? What did you do? When was the last time?

If you want to accuse the government of propaganda, at the least you have to identify a better to identify and measure the people you want included in the "unemployment" rate.

And I have no idea what your point is on the Household survey. Yes, that's true they use a survey, because calling 100 million households each month is impossible.

It is clear that the government decides what constitutes acceptable data, and what they won't use, i.e. what makes up the non-labor group which typically lumps together students, retirees and homemakers, and the marginally attached.

Well, they do identify various groups, but homemakers and retirees are in fact in different categories than the marginally attached, so as stated that's an incorrect statement.

And of course they decide what is "acceptable" data, and if you don't agree, the burden is on you to suggest an alternative. And when you sit down and actually try to write out a series of survey questions, you will if you're honest figure out that it's damn difficult to improve the process.

Now there is a chart here which tracks U1 through U6

Unemployment rate 5.7 percent in January 2015; U-6 measure was 11.3 percent : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

It shows that Total Unemployed plus persons Marginally Attached, plus Employed Part-time for Economic Reasons has maintained at at-least 7 points higher than the reported U3 Unemployment rate.

Why not publish THAT more realistic figure in the news?

Well, the government does publish it as you can see by linking to the BLS.gov produced graph. If your complaint is with the MSM, take it up with them, but don't accuse the government of lying to you or engaging in propaganda by publishing....exactly what you demand they publish.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The BLS publishes the data. Every month. The summary includes LFPR, marginally attached, involuntary part time is right there.

THIS is what they send out:

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2015
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 211,000 in November, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in construction, professional and technical services, and healthcare. Mining and information lost jobs.

Employment Situation Summary

Then they list paragraphs of the Household Survey Data. Starting with this paragraph:

In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.0 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 7.9 million, was essentially unchanged. Over the past 12 months, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons are down by 0.8 percentage point and 1.1 million, respectively.

Employment Situation Summary

Yes, the U1, U2, U4, U5, and U6 data is available on the BLS website, but the News releases always use the U3 information. As the BLS states they do.

Your constant harping on "it's all there somewhere, just go look and you would know" only applies to the people who have the time, understanding, and capacity to do the research themselves. Most people are too busy with their own lives.

But they DO react to things that are published which disturb them and are hyped by the media. They can also sense when the information doesn't seem quite right, especially if they are among those who have recently been laid off and can't find work.

I wanted to add the U6 total but could not find it. However going by prior , the unemployment rate quoted in the original article would be 5 to 6 points higher. People would grumble.

 

[Kushinator]

I have made it, a 1.3 million discouraged worker number distorts the official unemployment rate more than a 600,000 discourage worker number

But when i show the U4 rate, it behaves even better than the u3 rate. The U4 rate will always be higher than the U3 rate.

As for the U-6 rate being higher then than now, that is your opinion

No opinion, i just showed you through the graph. The U6 rate (Nov 2015) has crossed its historic average. This is simply a matter of fact, and political inconvenience to you.

The bold is why people call you a liar. You have been provided data to confirm this, and still you reject it.

This is why you fail.

 

[pinqy]

Able to work, formerly employed, now unemployed because of economic reasons. These people are unemployed and should be counted as such regardless of the Administration.

Let's say I own a business and I'm thinking of expanding, but I need to know if there are enough available workers. I will need at least 50 people to expand. Last month 100 people took applications. 40 filled them out and sent them to me. Should I expand or not?
Now..expand that to the national level and economists trying to see if there is enough available labor or too much available labor. Can a discouraged worker be hired? No. So why should they be classified alongside those who can be?

When Obama took office there were over 700,000 discouraged workers, two years later AFTER the stimulus there were 1.3 million discouraged workers. where did they come from?.

Same place the original 700,000 came from, and the same place the 1.3 million non-discouraged marginally attached came from. So there were 2.6 million people who wanted a job, could start work if offered, and had looked for work in the past year but not past month but you only think half of them should be considered unemployed and only half of them had any affect on the UE rate. Why?

 

[Conservative]

But when i show the U4 rate, it behaves even better than the u3 rate. The U4 rate will always be higher than the U3 rate.



No opinion, i just showed you through the graph. The U6 rate (Nov 2015) has crossed its historic average. This is simply a matter of fact, and political inconvenience to you.

The bold is why people call you a liar. You have been provided data to confirm this, and still you reject it.

This is why you fail.

No sorry but it is you diverting from the question, what affected does 1.3 million discouraged workers have on the official unemployment rate vs. 600,000?

Calling me a liar is what you and others do because you don't like being challenged. the U-6 rate is always going to higher than the U-4 rate and since there wasn't a U-6 rate prior to 1994 you are the one making things up and spouting an uneducated opinion

 

[Conservative]

Let's say I own a business and I'm thinking of expanding, but I need to know if there are enough available workers. I will need at least 50 people to expand. Last month 100 people took applications. 40 filled them out and sent them to me. Should I expand or not?
Now..expand that to the national level and economists trying to see if there is enough available labor or too much available labor. Can a discouraged worker be hired? No. So why should they be classified alongside those who can be?


Same place the original 700,000 came from, and the same place the 1.3 million non-discouraged marginally attached came from. So there were 2.6 million people who wanted a job, could start work if offered, and had looked for work in the past year but not past month but you only think half of them should be considered unemployed and only half of them had any affect on the UE rate. Why?

Your choice but you confuse personal choice decisions with the actual number of people available. If someone is discouraged because of the economy that is their choice not to take a job and thus choice should never be a basis for calculating unemployment numbers. You want to believe what a survey tells you but ignores the part about people believing there aren't jobs when there are.

You are right, the 1.3 million came from the same place as the 700,000, many of which were unemployed and lost their jobs and lost their unemployment benefits because of length. It is easy to say I am not looking for work because of the economic conditions which is an excuse and that excuse should be ignored when calculating the official rate

 

[JasperL]

There was no U-6 rate in 1969, 1982 or even 1990

That's true, and one reason why U-3 which has been essentially the same number for a very long time is still designated the "official" rate, to allow apples to apples comparisons across a long period of time.

 

[pinqy]

There was no U-6 rate in 1969, 1982 or even 1990

Well, there was in 1982 and 1990, but it wasn't the same as the current U-6, it was unemployed looking for full time jobs plus one half of unemployed looking for part time work plus one half of those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force minus half the part time labor force.

 

[Conservative]

That's true, and one reason why U-3 which has been essentially the same number for a very long time is still designated the "official" rate, to allow apples to apples comparisons across a long period of time.

The U-3 rate is affected by the number of discouraged workers and comparing apples to apples can only be done by using the same definitions which changed in 1994. You cannot compare the U-6 numbers today with anything prior to 1994 because no comparison existed as well the definitions were different

 

[pinqy]

Simply because after the period you cite (12 months less 4 weeks) they will answer the questions by saying they are not looking.

Huh? If they were looking then they wouldn't be discouraged or marginally attached. Not looking is what makes them discouraged and marginally attached.

 

[JasperL]

Wow, what a statement. You continue to show why there can never be compromise with a liberal as you cannot accept that you are wrong on any issue. The number of discouraged workers distort the official unemployment rate. Obama took office with 700 plus thousand discouraged workers and after implementing the stimulus and two years later that was 1.3 million, where did they come from? Doesn't that distort the official unemployment rate? Isn't the U-6 a better measurement and a better picture in judging performance? Do you think 9.9% after spending 842 billion and adding 7.6 trillion to the debt is a success?

If you think U-6 is a better measure, then you can use U-6! Pretty much any serious analysis of the labor market uses a wide range of indicators, including hours worked per week, median wages, the JOLT survey, U-3 and broader measures like U-6 and more.

But if you want to compare "unemployment" in 2015 to "unemployment" in 1980, you're pretty much going to have to use U-3.... Different data is used for different purposes, which is one reason why the government publishes a wide range of useful data, to serve all those wide ranging uses of labor market data.

 

[Conservative]

If you think U-6 is a better measure, then you can use U-6! Pretty much any serious analysis of the labor market uses a wide range of indicators, including hours worked per week, median wages, the JOLT survey, U-3 and broader measures like U-6 and more.

But if you want to compare "unemployment" in 2015 to "unemployment" in 1980, you're pretty much going to have to use U-3.... Different data is used for different purposes, which is one reason why the government publishes a wide range of useful data, to serve all those wide ranging uses of labor market data.

I have always stated that using any survey which allows people to choose whether or not to work is inaccurate and distorts the official numbers. I am not touting the rate only pointing out the fact that it is a measurement that isn't to be touted as a success without getting inside the numbers.

 

[pinqy]

No sorry but it is you diverting from the question, what affected does 1.3 million discouraged workers have on the official unemployment rate vs. 600,000?

The answer is none. All it boils down to is that your'e saying that if more people were classified as unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher. Of course. But you never give a rationale for why the definition should be what you want (which by the way does not match the defitnition of discouraged)

 

[JasperL]

The U-3 rate is affected by the number of discouraged workers and comparing apples to apples can only be done by using the same definitions which changed in 1994. You cannot compare the U-6 numbers today with anything prior to 1994 because no comparison existed as well the definitions were different

I agreed with you on U-6, and me saying, "That's true" is your clue, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

The definition of what is now called U-3 did not change in 1994. Before the most recent change it was designated as U-5, but used the same definition.

 

[pinqy]

The U-3 rate is affected by the number of discouraged workers and comparing apples to apples can only be done by using the same definitions which changed in 1994. You cannot compare the U-6 numbers today with anything prior to 1994 because no comparison existed as well the definitions were different

Discouraged have NEVER been included. Before 1967, it was possible, at the interviewers discretion, to include some people who might fit the current definition of discouraged as unemployed, but it didn't happen often and not consistantly.

 

[Captain Adverse]

To be fair, you made some serious accusations. Well, the government does publish it as you can see by linking to the BLS.gov produced graph. If your complaint is with the MSM, take it up with them, but don't accuse the government of lying to you or engaging in propaganda by publishing....exactly what you demand they publish.

Excuse me?

Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot say, or believe and cannot believe?

I do believe what they publish is propaganda. I don't believe they are getting accurate data.

And it's hard to provide counter-"facts" when the only "believable" data available is that provided by the Government. I could provide this alternate:

The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for November 2015 is 22.9%.

Alternate Unemployment Charts

But I found that Googling and I have no idea how they arrived at that figure because I don't intend to buy a paid subscription.

I could cite all the articles that put the "real" unemployment rate at 13.8% for November 2015, but like I suggested they are using the U6.

'Real' Unemployment: 13.8%

Why the Real Unemployment Rate is Double the ‘Official’ Unemployment Rate

Regardless, I get a sense we're not getting the real story. Even if it is only due to the fact that I see more and more part-time retail, temporary contract, food service, and seasonal work expanding; and full-time (non-government) long-term work shrinking.