• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who should be officially classified "Unemployed" and why?

And you are saying that since 2008/2009 Americans have been better off?

So, now pull the other leg. You just out of kindergarten ... ?

A higher E-to-P ratio is better than a lower one - now you give me concrete evidence why it isn't so.

I want examples, and non-refutable evidence ...

In better days, one worker per household could earn enough to take care of the whole family. I think most people would return to that arrangement in a heartbeat.

I'm a bit disappointed that the thread hasn't seen fit to examine ttwtt's idea more thoroughly. The numbers and ratios we are using now don't reflect how hard a household has to work to raise a family above the poverty line. So many families these days are two-income households, putting in 80+ hours of work/week combined. I think that says more about the economy than any combination of unemployment rate + emp-pop ratio does.
 
And you are saying that since 2008/2009 Americans have been better off?
Yes. Clearly the economy is much improved since then.

A higher E-to-P ratio is better than a lower one - now you give me concrete evidence why it isn't so.

I want examples, and non-refutable evidence ...
Ok. June 1953, Emp-pop ratio =57.1%, UE rate = 2.5% Meaning 57.1% of the population was working and 2.5% of those doing something about work were unsuccessful.
December 1983, Emp-pop ratio = 57.1% UE rate = 10.5% Meaning 57.1% of the population was working and 10.5% of those doing something about work were unsuccessful. If you are correct, then the economic situation is the same.
July 2002 Emp-pop ratio = 62% UE rate = 6.3% In this case a larger percent of the population working (mostly due to greater female participation), but a larger percent unsuccessful in finding work.

The Emp-pop ratio tells us what percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population is working. There are many non-economic factors for people not working. As women started to break from tradition and work more, the emp-pop ratio went up. Under the current aging population, the emp-pop ratio is expected to drop some as a larger percent of the population is retired. Disabled and students also affect the ratio.

Therefore, the emp-pop ratio does not necessarily reflect the economic situation...it is heavily influenced by demographics.
 
Yes, 'tis sad, 'tis sad - but oh so true.

And Germany is not the only country. France has an increasing obesity rate as well. The only question that remains is, "Why do the Eurasian countries show much lower rates (by about at least half) than the lowest European/American countries"?

OECD Obesity rates amongst adults (2012):
View attachment 67200133

Yes, yes, - the US is way down at the very bottom, meaning the most obese of the lot ...

They have long been wealthiest and started being liberal much earlier. The USA has twenty years on the others.
 
Me: In each state you need not "register" yourself for unemployment?

Well, sure. But that has nothing to do with the Unemployment Rate.

How else can a valid calculation of the "Unemployment Rate" then be made ... ?
 
In better days, one worker per household could earn enough to take care of the whole family. I think most people would return to that arrangement in a heartbeat.

Perhaps, but history moves on.

In fifty years, someone on this forum will look back at 2020 as "better days", unless America gets its finger out (of you know what) and understand that Income Disparity is a cancer upon working Americans.

It must be corrected, and only will the renunciation of 30% flat-rate taxation above $105K per year achieve that objective. Rates should go back up before LBJ stoopidly started tinkering with them - when they were at 90%.

Historical Marginal Tax Rate - Highest & Lowest Wage Earners.jpg
 




How else can a valid calculation of the "Unemployment Rate" then be made ... ?

How can you have a valid calculation if you only include people receiving UI benefits??

Every month, Census interviews 60,000 households and asks a huge range of questions on labor force activity. The survey is a representative of the U.S. and not some random dialing sample. The survey has been run since 1942.
 
Well, sure. But that has nothing to do with the Unemployment Rate.

I give up. You make comments without justifying them.

Moving right along ...
 
How can you have a valid calculation if you only include people receiving UI benefits??

Because the "U" in "UI" (unemployment insurance) stands for ... uh, "unemployment"?
 
Perhaps, but history moves on.

In fifty years, someone on this forum will look back at 2020 as "better days", unless America gets its finger out (of you know what) and understand that Income Disparity is a cancer upon working Americans.

It must be corrected, and only will the renunciation of 30% flat-rate taxation above $105K per year achieve that objective. Rates should go back up before LBJ stoopidly started tinkering with them - when they were at 90%.

Tax rates really aren't the problem. Income disparity starts with, of course, income. Taxation after the fact doesn't change that. I'm all for increasing taxes on the rich, but for other reasons.
 
I give up. You make comments without justifying them.

Moving right along ...

Huh? The unemployment rate is not and has never been based on registering as unemployed or eligibility or receipt of UI benefits. What do I need to "justify?"
 
Because the "U" in "UI" (unemployment insurance) stands for ... uh, "unemployment"?

But not everyone is eligible for UI beneifts, so it's not a good measure. As already posted, the definition of Unemployed is:
All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time 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.

For the week ending 12 March (the reference week for the current population survey) there were 2,538,076 people receiving UI benefits (from all programs). BLS and Census calculated 8,116,000 unemployed. So you would eliminate 5.7 million people as not valid because they're not receiving benefits?
 
So, you are resorting to 'standard phrases' now?
No, I think he's resorting to asking you provide rationale for your belief the definition should be altered. Claiming the definition should be altered because YOU think so is completely subjective and is thus not a valid argument. I know for a fact he's asked you many times for why and you never respond.

I've seen in multiple threads where you have been asked to provide a logical and thoughtful explanation for why the definition should be changed. The closest I've seen you come is "because I think so" or "because Merriam-Webster says so", neither of which are valid arguments, since your opinion is subjective and Merriam-Webster isn't defining it for the purpose the BLS is.

So he's asking you (and anyone else) to provide a logical, thought-out reason for changing the definition. Do you have one?

BTW, the answer to the OP is irrelevant because it is very obvious to me that the BLS will alter the makeup of the term 'unemployment rate' as much as they can to make the unemployment rate seem as positive as possible.
They've changed it twice. How exactly do the facts fit your narrative?
To assume no corruption whatsoever is naive in the extremis.
Can you provide definitive proof the numbers are corrupt? Better yet, can you even provide concrete evidence? You don't even have to prove anything, just provide a couple pieces of concrete evidence besides, "c'mon, you know".

Can you do it?
They merely stipulate that a statistic is to include/exclude whatever statistics are required to leave the desired result. All legal.
Source?

Surely pinqy will disagree with this (he has before)
Likely because it's not true and you've never once provided a single piece of concrete evidence to support it. He's even stipulated it's possible that a particular individual might have an agenda, but the overall operation does not have a single piece of concrete evidence to suggest corruption.

but he claims to have worked for the BLS- so there is obviously a huge conflict of interest there on this subject
I don't work for the BLS and I trust his word far more than I will ever trust yours on this subject. Likely because he provides actual evidence for his positions, evidence beyond "ya'know".

Try the Federal Reserve and the two leading anti-establishment candidates in this election - Donald Trump
Wait, wait, wait...you claim pinqy, who worked in the BLS and is always willing to back up his post with actual facts, is not a trustworthy source on this topic and then you try to use DONALD TRUMP as a source? You serious, Clark?

Anyways, please provide your logical reason for why. I'm also very interested.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and so?

You are knit-picking ...
 
Huh? The unemployment rate is not and has never been based on registering as unemployed or eligibility or receipt of UI benefits. What do I need to "justify?"

It is "indicative of movement" in the employment picture. That is ALL that is necessary for policy making. (Presuming that the rate was actually employed in policy-making, which is a stretch of the imagination in most countries.)

So, you are correcting me (and you have every right to do so) because one need not show up at an Unemployment Office in the US and register to collect UI? That's not what I am reading here, Unemployment benefits. Excerpt:
Unemployment benefits are generally given only to those registering as unemployed, and often on conditions ensuring that they seek work and do not currently have a job.

And here, Application Process. Excerpt:
To begin a claim, the unemployed worker must apply for benefits through a state unemployment agency. In certain instances, the employer initiates the process.

The above does not apply in the US and yet WikiPedia states that it does ... ?

And, indeed, if the above IS true but the BLS finagles the number to include other unemployment-subsets not-registered, please explain the why, how and wherefore. Either one is working (regardless of the number of hours worked or even the days/weeks not worked) or one is "not working" and therefore not eligible for UI.

Have I got that wrong ... ?
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
Huh? The unemployment rate is not and has never been based on registering as unemployed or eligibility or receipt of UI benefits. What do I need to "justify?"
It is "indicative of movement" in the employment picture. That is ALL that is necessary for policy making. (Presuming that the rate was actually employed in policy-making, which is a stretch of the imagination in most countries.)
I have no idea how your reply is a response to my quote.

So, you are correcting me (and you have every right to do so) because one need not show up at an Unemployment Office in the US and register to collect UI?
No, I said nothing of the sort.

And, indeed, if the above IS true but the BLS finagles the number to include other unemployment-subsets not-registered, please explain the why, how and wherefore. Either one is working (regardless of the number of hours worked or even the days/weeks not worked) or one is "not working" and therefore not eligible for UI.
Every month, Census visits or calls 60,000 households. Next week is the week they go out in April. Excluded are people under 15, active duty military, prisoners, people in institutions such as nursing homes or mental health care. They will ask if, this week, the respondents owned a business/farm, worked for pay, or worked 15+ hours unpaid in a family business/farm. If they did not work, they're asked if they have a job but were just out due to vacation, strike, illness/injury, or weather.
If any of those are "Yes," the person is classified as Employed.

If "No," they are asked what they did to get a job in the last 4 weeks, and if they could have started work this week if offered a job. If they did nothing (or only passive search like reading the want ads or picking up but not filling out an application) or were not available for work, they are classified as "Not in the Labor Force." If they did look for work and could have started, they are classified as "Unemployed."

Notice there was no mention of UI benefits? Notice that registration is not a factor? Because it doesn't matter. If you are available and looking for work, you are unemployed, and it doesn't matter if you receive or don't receive benefits. A 16 year old looking for his first job is Unemployed.

Is that clear enough? I'm not sure where the confusion was.
 
Is that clear enough? I'm not sure where the confusion was.
I believe the "confusion" usually lies with the fact that many times the statistics don't support what people want to believe. Whether they are good or bad, someone will find the numbers don't support what they want to be true. In my experiences, that seems to be the biggest factor behind how people view the process.
 
Is that clear enough? I'm not sure where the confusion was.

I live in France. It is obviously done differently over here. Largely because everybody in Europe has an identity card and all governmental assistance is obtained by means of that card.

If the Census Bureau wants to do it the way you have indicated ... then fine. But I don't think it is adequate. It's just sampling, and not additioning.

In Europe, when unemployed, the Bureau of Employment monitors the rehiring process:
*All unemployed (receiving unemployment-benefits) respond regularly to an inquiry (either personally or by email) regarding their employment status. (If cheating, that is, receiving UI-payments though they are employed, their UI is terminated and they face a fine.)
*Visits are imposed and the unemployed must attend, where employment perspectives are discussed with interlocutors who assit and advise - regarding CVs (Résumés), interview techniques, etc. You must also show your personal activity as regards looking for a job. And the unemployed have access to a national job-opening database updated by employers seeking work.
*You may refuse a job-offer made by means of the Employment Bureau's auspices only twice. The third-refusal and your benefits stop.
*Further vocational training is also discussed where thought necessary, because it is offered free, gratis and for nothing.
*Different countries do the above differently - but all employ the person's identity-card in order to assure the process benefits only those who pay taxes in the country concerned

I think you will find that the above approach is more "hands-on" than stateside. But, at the same time, the EU has at present an unemployment rate much higher than the US. (For which, the EU remains forever indebted to the Great Recession imported from the US.)

The two processes are evidently very different ...
 
Every month we have the claims of the "real unemployment rate," and even Trump and Sanders have questioned the official definitions.

Whenever people claim that the discouraged, or marginally attached, or part time workers or whoever should be I always ask WHY?...hoping for an intelligent argument. But I never get one....just assertions and claims of "they're really unemployed." Or even dictionary defintions, which are worse than useless because they would include children and dead people and just not useful in any way.

So....who should be classified as Unemployed and why is that definition more useful than the current? Questions that must be considered are "Why do we want to know this information?" "What use will knowing it be put?" "Is this definition the most useful for our purposes?'

As a review...the definition before 1967 was:
Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be
residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.​

From 1967-1993:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days

From 1994-Present:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time 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.

the department of labor already tracks all of this.
the biggest number that most people have an issue with is the U3 number.

the numbers that give a better reflection are the U5 and U6 numbers.
 
the department of labor already tracks all of this.
the biggest number that most people have an issue with is the U3 number.

the numbers that give a better reflection are the U5 and U6 numbers.
A better reflection of what? I think that's what people sometimes forget, that each of these numbers have a unique purpose, a purpose not tied to any political discourse.
 
A better reflection of what? I think that's what people sometimes forget, that each of these numbers have a unique purpose, a purpose not tied to any political discourse.

the U3 numbers ignore certain worker statuses and doesn't count them.
The U5 number includes people that have dropped out of the workforce or those that have quit looking for a job.
the U6 number includes those people plus part-time workers that are working part time for economic reasons, and
it also includes marginally attached workers.

the real unemployment rate is somewhere between the U5 and the U6 number.
the U3 number is purely a political number that is used that is why the formula was changed.
it use to be a bit more robust in reporting.
 
I live in France. It is obviously done differently over here. Largely because everybody in Europe has an identity card and all governmental assistance is obtained by means of that card.

If the Census Bureau wants to do it the way you have indicated ... then fine. But I don't think it is adequate. It's just sampling, and not additioning.

In Europe, when unemployed, the Bureau of Employment monitors the rehiring process:
*All unemployed (receiving unemployment-benefits) respond regularly to an inquiry (either personally or by email) regarding their employment status. (If cheating, that is, receiving UI-payments though they are employed, their UI is terminated and they face a fine.)
*Visits are imposed and the unemployed must attend, where employment perspectives are discussed with interlocutors who assit and advise - regarding CVs (Résumés), interview techniques, etc. You must also show your personal activity as regards looking for a job. And the unemployed have access to a national job-opening database updated by employers seeking work.
*You may refuse a job-offer made by means of the Employment Bureau's auspices only twice. The third-refusal and your benefits stop.
*Further vocational training is also discussed where thought necessary, because it is offered free, gratis and for nothing.
*Different countries do the above differently - but all employ the person's identity-card in order to assure the process benefits only those who pay taxes in the country concerned

I think you will find that the above approach is more "hands-on" than stateside. But, at the same time, the EU has at present an unemployment rate much higher than the US. (For which, the EU remains forever indebted to the Great Recession imported from the US.)

The two processes are evidently very different ...

Oh, mes excuses, I didn't notice you were from France. France used to go solely by unemployment insurance, as did Germany and some other EU countries. But these are countries with more generous benefits and government job-placement services. We don't have government job placement in the U.S. and unemployment benefits are more limited as to who is eligible. So while adequate for much of Europe, it would not be feasible in the U.S. or Canada.

However, the Eurostat guidelines for measuring unemployment follow the ILO guidelines, and those call for a household survey. So INSEE has conducted a quarterly survey for at least the last 10 years, using similar methods and defintions as the U.S. Insee - Indicateur - Chômage au sens du BIT et indicateurs sur le marché du travail (résultats de l'enquête emploi) On the right of the page is a link to the methodology.

Le Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi, de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social publishes the data for registered job seekers, (Dares Indicateurs) though they do reconcile that data with the Labor Force Survey (if my French reading comprehension is working).
 
the U3 numbers ignore certain worker statuses and doesn't count them.
All 6 measures do that.
The U5 number includes people that have dropped out of the workforce or those that have quit looking for a job.
The U5 is unemployed plus the marginally attached (wants a job, available for work, looked in last 12 months but not last 4 weeks) as a percent of the Labor Force plus the marginally attached.
the U6 number includes those people plus part-time workers that are working part time for economic reasons, and
it also includes marginally attached workers.
Close enough.

the real unemployment rate is somewhere between the U5 and the U6 number.
What does that mean? What makes something the "real" unemployment rate?
the U3 number is purely a political number that is used that is why the formula was changed.
it use to be a bit more robust in reporting.
The formula has always been Unemployed/Labor Force. I gave the 3 definitions; please explain why the previous ones were "more robust."

The U-3 is not a political number...it's the one that best shows the state of the labor market.
 
The U5 is unemployed plus the marginally attached (wants a job, available for work, looked in last 12 months but not last 4 weeks) as a percent of the Labor Force plus the marginally attached.
Close enough.

What does that mean? What makes something the "real" unemployment rate?

The formula has always been Unemployed/Labor Force. I gave the 3 definitions; please explain why the previous ones were "more robust."

The U-3 is not a political number...it's the one that best shows the state of the labor market.

no it doesn't as a person can work for 1 hour and show that they were employed.
how does that honestly show the labor market?
hmm?

it doesn't.
 
The problem with the topic as stated is that it functions to divert attention from the fact that the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) statistics as obtained from their present gathering method are woefully inaccurate.

Granted, it would be difficult to improve tremendously on this method without employing higher tech.

Nevertheless, relying on the monthly BLS figures to accurately, even close to accurately, present the conditions they imply is a serious mistake.

As to the topic, the problem with the BLS definition as stated in the OP is that the public at large simply doesn't and won't ever likely know that the term "unemployed" as used by the BLS doesn't mean what they think it means.

Another problem is that the media usually simply just announces the simplistic U1 unemployment rate in a bullet-like tweet without diving down into the other Us, what those other Us mean, and, of course, presenting the woeful inaccuracy of the information itself.

The people thus are greatly misinformed.

Still another problem with the OP definition of "unemployed" is that it makes assumptions with regard to acceptable behavior to demonstrate a desire to work. These assumptions fall far short of matching said desire in the real world.

It's bad enough that people are out of work when they don't want to be, but when they're told they don't count because they didn't demonstrate sufficient government-stipulated criteria to be counted as existing in unemployed status, it adds insult to injury.

Better would be to have two classifications of unemployed: 1) unemployed, able to work, and accepting of work at this time if it was offered, and 2) unemployed, able to work, but would not accept work at this time if it was offered (for whatever reason).

The government can still keep its current definition of, essentially, unemployed and looking for work according to government standards, and can also keep their other categorizations of why an unemployed person wouldn't accept offered work at this time.

But when providing the media with the U1 unemployment rate, it would be based on #1 I just presented.

This would more accurately reflect the state of the matter to the public.

It would then be interesting to see how #1 rate above differs from the current OP definition rate. That might be telling.

Of course, a deeper analysis would likely refine the improvements I've just suggested, until something truly meaningful in the matter would be presented each month.

And .. just so others know .. Pinqy works for the BLS, or used to work for them (I don't recall which), and I've found that he still quite idealizes the BLS such that he exhibits contempt for those who pose intelligent arguments against BLS aspects.
 
Back
Top Bottom