Who should be officially classified "Unemployed" and why?

[Slyfox696]

Everyone who doesn't currently have a job is age 16+ who is legally able to work (is a citizen, resident or has a work visa), is not retired, disabled or institutionalized. That should be the official unemployed.

Because what I said is a true representation of unemployment. everyone of age who can work who is not working.

Under your definition, my mom's husband would have been unemployed for many many years throughout his life, even though he chose to not work because he was so successful as a salesman, he could afford to take years off and do nothing but live in Florida and play golf. Why should my mother's husband, who has written checks to the IRS which includes six figures before the decimal point, who chose to not work because he was so well off be considered unemployed? How is that an accurate reflection of the labor market?

Your definition is sorely lacking.

Yes I can see what you are saying. most know there are multiple unemployment figures.

Exactly. So the information you're wanting included in the U3 is already being included in other numbers, so why should it also be included in the U-3? What would be the point?

So yea the official unemployed that is reported could disclude those who do not wish to have a job.

It does.

They could still keep track of that though.

They do. :shrug:

So, basically, what I'm understanding from you is you recognize they already keep all of this information and already report it all, you just think they should change the U-3 because...of what reason again?

I asked people to set and describe their own boundaries. But no one did. No one has given an argument...just assertions of what it "should" be without esplanation of why or for what purpose. ludin has told straight falsehoods about what the U-5 and U-6 cover.

In fairness, he probably simply doesn't know. But I doubt he's interested in finding out.

It makes no sense to ask a question which allows for an emotional answer and then ask the emotion behind the answer to be stated in some sort of scientific manner...not realistically possible.

You realize, of course, you have basically made pinqy's point, correct? Pinqy's point is that people are using non-scientific reasons to argue they should change a scientific method. That's stupid. Whatever emotional reason you may have for wanting to change the numbers would be subjective to you and if we simply use a subjective measure, then the numbers are pointless.

So people who claim the "real" unemployment definition should change to include whatever subjective emotion the person is feeling are simply wanting to skew the numbers in a direction they find favorable. Ironically enough, THAT would be far more likely to lead to the corruption you baselessly allege happens at the BLS.

In other words, you WANT a corrupted number, so long as the number fits the narrative you're trying to tell. To me, that seems pretty shady and it makes much more sense to have an objective scientific number.

 

[pinqy]

Because what I said is a true representation of unemployment. everyone of age who can work who is not working.

Why do we want to know that? Why is that something we should measure? Currently we measure those who could be working that aren't.

 

[Lafayette]

IDENTITY CARDS

How the government measures unemployment. Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

I too believed this to be the case, because that's how its done in Europe, where we have identity-papers. And every governmental context is linked to that identity-document. Your social-security knows you by that number. Your taxes are paid directly to the government by that number. And when you become unemployed, your UI is paid to whatever bank account you gave (having identified yourself as unemployed to both the UI-office and the National Employment Agency that will help you find a new job. (Because employers send new job openings to them.)

In the US, we have a SS-number and it seems that number is only good for SS-payments.

Europe does not sample people to understand what is the general unemployment situation, because it knows full-well how many declare themselves to be unemployed - and they are encouraged to take courses (paid by the state) to enhance their skills/competencies if that is a road-block to reemployment.

I've never been unemployed in the US, so I would not know how the "system" actually works. But, neither have I any qualms about having to carry an identity number (on a card with my photo and other relevant information).

MY POINT?

I hear arguments of Identity Cards being "against basic rights". What "basic rights"? We live in a collective, and it is important to know and be able to identify people in order to help keep the peace and enforce the law. THAT is a collective responsibility!

I cannot understand why "Identity Cards" are such a sticking-point in the US ... of what are people afraid? BigBrother is going come looking for you? In that case, the courts cannot protect your innocence? Habeus Corpus and the notion of Innocent until proven guilty are not sufficient protection against abuse ... ?

 

[Lafayette]

The unemployment number is useless unless its change is telling us the situation in the market for employees (that is, improvement or the opposite). It is a dynamic variable, not static.

And far more important is the Employment-to-population ratio to understand whether the economy is at its maximum or not. It was in 2007/8 (see here), and it will be a long time before it recovers that level.

Why? For the reasons that economists are now very tired of relating, it has been said so many times. In a serious recession, the only way out is Stimulus Spending. Which is how Obama spiked an exploding unemployment-rate (with the 2009 ARRA stimulus-spending bill).

Which the Replicants refused to continue, once they had won the HofR in the 2010-midterms. They stonewalled any further spending under the asinine reasoning called "Austerity Budgeting". It was all camouflage - they took the America people for fools, because they specifically wanted high-employment for the 2012 presidential election in order to defeat Obama.

And for that selfish purpose, the American people paid dearly in a long and excruciatingly slow decent in the unemployment rate that took 4-years more than need be.

That is what we can expect from the Replicant Party as constituted today in service to America's plutocrat rich ...

 

[Slyfox696]

I too believed this to be the case

Umm, I didn't say any of the things you quoted me saying.

 

[Lafayette]

Umm, I didn't say any of the things you quoted me saying.

That's a bit difficult - the quote is clearly of your comment. Anyway, I was just expanding upon your comment. I'm intrigued that the US has formal ID.

So, why is there no Formal Identity Document in the US, justified by a birth-certificate mentioning parents, on file, and perhaps not consultable without a court-order ... ?

 

[SocialD]

Under your definition, my mom's husband would have been unemployed for many many years throughout his life, even though he chose to not work because he was so successful as a salesman, he could afford to take years off and do nothing but live in Florida and play golf. Why should my mother's husband, who has written checks to the IRS which includes six figures before the decimal point, who chose to not work because he was so well off be considered unemployed? How is that an accurate reflection of the labor market?

Your definition is sorely lacking.
Exactly. So the information you're wanting included in the U3 is already being included in other numbers, so why should it also be included in the U-3? What would be the point?

It does.

They do. :shrug:

So, basically, what I'm understanding from you is you recognize they already keep all of this information and already report it all, you just think they should change the U-3 because...of what reason again?

In fairness, he probably simply doesn't know. But I doubt he's interested in finding out.
You realize, of course, you have basically made pinqy's point, correct? Pinqy's point is that people are using non-scientific reasons to argue they should change a scientific method. That's stupid. Whatever emotional reason you may have for wanting to change the numbers would be subjective to you and if we simply use a subjective measure, then the numbers are pointless.

So people who claim the "real" unemployment definition should change to include whatever subjective emotion the person is feeling are simply wanting to skew the numbers in a direction they find favorable. Ironically enough, THAT would be far more likely to lead to the corruption you baselessly allege happens at the BLS.

In other words, you WANT a corrupted number, so long as the number fits the narrative you're trying to tell. To me, that seems pretty shady and it makes much more sense to have an objective scientific number.

No that's not what I'm saying... you are missing my point.

The point of reporting the unemployment figure is obviously to give us one measure of how the jobs part of the economy is.
The primary unemployment figure should be just what I said.

So the current figure that we always see, the figure that is reported is the U3. you prob know that and many here prob do.
So the U3 doesn't count discouraged workers or what is called marginally attached or loosely attached workers.
The U4 counts the U3 plus discouraged workers and the U5 counts U4 plus marginally attached workers.
To clarify this when we hear the unemployment rate they are not counting people who do want to work but have not looked for work in the last 4 weeks.
That's the U3 number.
So what we should be the reported unemployment rate is essentially the U5 number. Previous to the mid 90s when the rate structure for how unemployment statistics were done some of these people were counted in the published rate.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Anyone aged 18 to 62 who works fewer than 15 hours per week, and anyone over 62 who reports to be looking for work. Only exclusions should be those adjudicated disabled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lafayette]

Typo: I'm intrigued that the US has formal ID.
Should read: I'm intrigued that the US has no "formal" ID.

 

[Lafayette]

EMPLOYMENT IS THE ONLY CRITERION

So what we should be the reported unemployment rate is essentially the U5 number.

Whether one is working or not, meaning a person has no income from an employment is the only criterion of any economic consequence. All the rest is just socio-economic context - interesting but not relevant to the immediate economic policy of a government.

All the rest beyond that definition is sociology, interesting perhaps but not of any valid economic relevance. The matter in question is whether the government should act upon the situation or not - and only the lack of sufficient employment is of any consequence.

Which is why also the Employment-to-population ratio is important to understand what it is the long-term potential of employment, towards arranging economic policy to attain it.

At present this is the history of said ratio rom the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

So the trend is decidedly positive at present.

The country has room for expansion to meet its previous high-mark of around "63%". Which means further that inflation is not likely to be incited were the US to employ some stimulatory spending.

More people working, higher level of consumption, and therefore likely further consumer spending.

(Not automatic, just likely ...)

MY POINT?

Both unemployment and the employment-to-population must be considered together*, and not statically but dynamically. It is movement in the statistic that matters more than just the monthly rate ...

*And they likely "move" in the same manner historically.

 

[Lafayette]

So yea the official unemployed that is reported could disclude those who do not wish to have a job. They could still keep track of that though.

Which is not relevant to economic policy, and is just "nice to know" in a psycho-sociological context.

The government is directly responsible for the former, not the latter, given that it has the means to affect unemployment ...

 

[Lafayette]

You are missing the point. You are asking a potentially emotional question and looking for a statistical answer (theoretically).

I agree. Economics is one thing - directly influenced by government policy whilst sociology is "interesting" but not more.

The economic context of a person depends very largely upon into which family-grouping they were born far more than any given economic climate at birth. Societal grouping will determine very importantly whether one continues in education to a higher skill-set and therefore standard-of-living.

And I argue that the most influential impact upon changing one's existence is (aside from luck) education. The more one rises in Educational Attainment, the better is one's income and therefore likelihood of a better standard-of-living.

That point is underlined in this info-graphic "Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment":

 

[pinqy]

No that's not what I'm saying... you are missing my point.

The point of reporting the unemployment figure is obviously to give us one measure of how the jobs part of the economy is.

FINALLY! You're at least stating what you think the purpose should be. Vague, but it's a start.

The primary unemployment figure should be just what I said.

But you have not explained WHY you think your proposal measures the jobs part better.

So the current figure that we always see, the figure that is reported is the U3. you prob know that and many here prob do.
So the U3 doesn't count discouraged workers or what is called marginally attached or loosely attached workers. The U4 counts the U3 plus discouraged workers and the U5 counts U4 plus marginally attached workers.
To clarify this when we hear the unemployment rate they are not counting people who do want to work but have not looked for work in the last 4 weeks.
That's the U3 number.

Right. Because they are not participating in the job market. The UE rate is for a given month, so if someone is not trying to work..could not be working...that month, then they do not add to the jobs picture. Why do you think they do?

So what we should be the reported unemployment rate is essentially the U5 number. Previous to the mid 90s when the rate structure for how unemployment statistics were done some of these people were counted in the published rate.

WHY "SHOULD" they? What information about available work and how relatively easy/difficult it is to get work do they tell us? And I already posted the pre and post 1994 definitions, so I'm not sure how you think any discouraged or marginally attached were included.
1967 - 1993 Definition
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.

Where are you seeing any discouraged or marginally attached in there?


"Marginally Attached" was not a category and no information was collected on them prior to 1994. Data on Discouraged were collected since 1976, but only quarterly, and the definition was looser.

 

[Lafayette]

WHY "SHOULD" they? What information about available work and how relatively easy/difficult it is to get work do they [U5,U6]tell us?

Yes, indeedy.

The facts, just the facts. Economic policy depends upon factual evidence. Psychology and sociology are nice, but neither enter into what matters foremost policy-wise (in terms of governmental responsibility) than employment.

Longer-term however, other factors can be prevalent. If unemployment is high, but the racial balance does not correspond to local population stats, one should ask why. Evidence shows us that race matters, and this shows up in employment-income stats.

For instance, from Mean Household Income by Racial Class:
Mean Household Income by Ethnicity (2014):
Ethnic Category - Mean Household Income
*Asian alone - $90,752
*White alone - $79,340
*Hispanic or Latino - $54,644
*Black - $49,629

From the above, of course we should be asking why Hispanic or Latino or Blacks earn so much less. (I suggest the answer is highly linked to average level of education. So, the socio-economic challenge is to understand how to get more of those classes into-and-out-of a Tertiary Education!)

 

[Socrates1]

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.​

My guess is 48% of the population and as soon as the $15 an hour kicks in it should be 68% of the population ! :shock:

 

[pinqy]

Anyone aged 18 to 62 who works fewer than 15 hours per week, and anyone over 62 who reports to be looking for work. Only exclusions should be those adjudicated disabled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did nobody actually read the OP? Or was I that unclear?

WHY and for what purpose are you proposing this definition and WHY do you consider it better?

 

[Slyfox696]

That's a bit difficult - the quote is clearly of your comment.

No, it's not. It's nothing I have ever said. The only thing in what you quoted belonged to me was the "How the government measures unemployment" but even that was only the title of a link I used as a source to provide the definitions of employed and unemployed, it was nothing I said.

Do both of us a favor. Do you see the little blue square with the two arrows in it? Click on that and it will take you to the post of mine you quoted. You'll notice you will find nowhere in my post any of the things you quoted from me.

Anyway, I was just expanding upon your comment.

It wasn't my comment. I have no idea from where you got the comment.

EDIT: Is it possible you garnered that information from the link I posted? I haven't read the entire source, I just was posting it for the definitions.

No that's not what I'm saying... you are missing my point.

The point of reporting the unemployment figure is obviously to give us one measure of how the jobs part of the economy is.
The primary unemployment figure should be just what I said.

And you said it should include people who are not working, but exclude those who did not want a job.

So, essentially, the question becomes why should it include people who aren't looking for a job? How is that a better reflection of the labor market for the month, to include in the unemployed category people who are not looking for a job? That doesn't really make much sense. Besides that, we already have statistics to represent those who are not employed and not looking for a job, so why should the U-3 number reflect that also?

How does it make sense to change the U-3, when we already have statistics to represent what you want counted?

So the current figure that we always see, the figure that is reported is the U3. you prob know that and many here prob do.

All of the numbers are reported by the BLS. And if you're talking about the media, then the problem you have is not with the number or the method for gathering it, but rather with the people who analyze the numbers.

So, once more, we're back to changing a scientific process for subjective and biased reasons. How does that make sense?

So the U3 doesn't count discouraged workers or what is called marginally attached or loosely attached workers.

No, that's why we have U-4, U-5, and U-6. :shrug:

The U4 counts the U3 plus discouraged workers and the U5 counts U4 plus marginally attached workers.

And U-6 includes those and people who are employed for part time reasons.

To clarify this when we hear the unemployment rate they are not counting people who do want to work but have not looked for work in the last 4 weeks.
That's the U3 number.

Exactly. Why count people who were not an active part of the labor market as being an active part of the labor market? How does that make sense?

So what we should be the reported unemployment rate is essentially the U5 number.

The BLS reports all the numbers. Once again, I believe you're confusing those who analyze the numbers with the actual numbers themselves.

Previous to the mid 90s when the rate structure for how unemployment statistics were done some of these people were counted in the published rate.

So what? We now have better/more specific information.

See, the problem here is not with the numbers, but rather with the fact you don't like how the media reports them. Unfortunately for your position, the BLS is nonpartisan...they don't report numbers to influence politics. They simply report numbers. So changing the scientific method for collecting numbers, just so you can support the narrative YOU wish to spin is silly.

The fact is all of the people you're concerned about getting counted are getting counted. If not in the U-3, then in the U-4, U-5 or U-6. There's no reason to ALSO include them in the U-3, when those people are not actively looking for work and we are already counting them elsewhere.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Did nobody actually read the OP? Or was I that unclear?

WHY and for what purpose are you proposing this definition and WHY do you consider it better?

Because I think the word "unemployed" should mean adults who are of working age who do not sell enough labor or other goods/services to provide for their own basic needs, thus rely on family, savings or government. Working less than half of what's considered full time should just fall on the unemployed side of the fence.

This would give us a better and truer picture of the degree of underutilization of our nation's productive capacity.

 

[pinqy]

Because I think the word "unemployed" should mean adults who are of working age who do not sell enough labor or other goods/services to provide for their own basic needs, thus rely on family, savings or government. Working less than half of what's considered full time should just fall on the unemployed side of the fence.

This would give us a better and truer picture of the degree of underutilization of our nation's productive capacity.

Ok, fair enough. The problem is that is very subjective. For example, a person could be working 60 hours a week and still not be able to provide for their own basic needs. And those basic needs change based on dependents, age, and many other conditions. When I left the Army, I was a full time student and worked part time 3-4 hours a week at what today would be around $22/hour and on top of Army Reserve pay, GI Bill, and savings, I had my own 2 room apartment a car, and had zero debt. But you would want to say I was unemployed and couldn't meet basic needs, even though I didn't want to work any more.

And remember, each household surveyed is representing anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand other households, so the more subjective or specific the attributes, the less likely it is the sample household actually reflects its neighbors.

So, your idea is actually a good one, but unfortunately, it's not a practical measure.

 

[Ntharotep]

Personally, I think this is overcomplicated probably on purpose.
The unemployment numbers should be anyone out of work who is either a) looking for work or b) leaning on the system (gaining any benefit other than disability that would normally take a person out of the work force).

Boom. Numbers! STAT!

And such.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Ok, fair enough. The problem is that is very subjective. For example, a person could be working 60 hours a week and still not be able to provide for their own basic needs.

But they are employed. Actively working and selling labor. Don't dwell on the "can't provide for needs" bit, is the person spending a significant amount of his or her time working, or not working?

And remember, each household surveyed is representing anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand other households, so the more subjective or specific the attributes, the less likely it is the sample household actually reflects its neighbors.

So, your idea is actually a good one, but unfortunately, it's not a practical measure.

The "actively looking" criterion has no valid place in the definition of "unemployed." If you aren't spending a significant amount of your time working, you aren't employed, hence you're unemployed.

 

[DA60]

Jeez..it's simple.

If you do not have a job, want to work and are available to work...you are unemployed...period.


But that criteria would make the unemployment rate seem too high...so the BLS conveniently muddies the water and changes the parameters to make the official unemployment rate sound much lower so the government in power seems much better at running things.

And if the public starts getting used to 5% unemployment, then the BLS will magically change the parameters again to artificially lower the rate.

Duh.

 

[pinqy]

But they are employed. Actively working and selling labor. Don't dwell on the "can't provide for needs" bit, is the person spending a significant amount of his or her time working, or not working?

That's still a subjective quality. But the main problem is that if someone is working voluntarily less than 15 hours then they're not competing for other jobs. So you've just added "unemployed" who aren't in the market for a job. That distorts the job picture.

The "actively looking" criterion has no valid place in the definition of "unemployed." If you aren't spending a significant amount of your time working, you aren't employed, hence you're unemployed.

There are three categories: Employed, Unemployed, and "Not in the Labor Force" which is basically "not participating."

Unemployed, to be useful, means more than just not working, it means competing for jobs.

 

[Neomalthusian]

That's still a subjective quality. But the main problem is that if someone is working voluntarily less than 15 hours then they're not competing for other jobs. So you've just added "unemployed" who aren't in the market for a job. That distorts the job picture.

There are three categories: Employed, Unemployed, and "Not in the Labor Force" which is basically "not participating."

Unemployed, to be useful, means more than just not working, it means competing for jobs.

You're not wrong, this definitely is a semantic and subjective issue though. And the more nuances are added in regarding whether someone is truly
"Looking" for work make it all the more subjective. Maybe the LFPR and a full-time to part-time employment rate should be cited alongside the official UE rate as a matter of habit so we can keep a fuller picture in context.

 

[pinqy]

Jeez..it's simple.

If you do not have a job, want to work and are available to work...you are unemployed...period.

So, regardless of whether we're talking scientifically/technically in economics or casually or emotionally?

But that criteria would make the unemployment rate seem too high...so the BLS conveniently muddies the water and changes the parameters to make the official unemployment rate sound much lower so the government in power seems much better at running things.

why do you think they would do that when they never have before? They clearly and demonstrably have never changed the unemployment parameters.

And if the public starts getting used to 5% unemployment, then the BLS will magically change the parameters again to artificially lower the rate.

Duh.

And why have they never done this before? Or are you claiming you have evidence of secret internal changes?