Will the real U.S. unemployment rate please stand up!

[Chewbacca]

Have unemployment figures always been released seemingly incomplete. I'm confusified about this.


Link

*****************
SAN FRANCISCO — Lisa Gluskin has had a tough three years. She works almost as hard as she did during the dot-com boom, for about 20% of the income.

When Gluskin's writing and editing business cratered in 2001, she slashed her rates, began studying for a graduate degree and started teaching part time at a Lake Tahoe community college for a meager wage.

It's been a fragmented, hand-to-mouth life, one that she sees mirrored by friends and colleagues who are waiting tables or delivering packages. In the late '90s, the 35-year-old Gluskin says, "we had careers. We had trajectories. Now we have complicated lives. We're not unemployed, but we're underemployed."

The nation's official jobless rate is 5.9%, a relatively benign level by historical standards. But economists say that figure paints only a partial — and artificially rosy — picture of the labor market.

To begin with, there are the 8.7 million unemployed, defined as those without a job who are actively looking for work. But lurking behind that group are 4.9 million part-time workers such as Gluskin who say they would rather be working full time — the highest number in a decade.

There are also the 1.5 million people who want a job but didn't look for one in the last month. Nearly a third of this group say they stopped the search because they were too depressed about the prospect of finding anything. Officially termed "discouraged," their number has surged 20% in a year.

Add these three groups together and the jobless total for the U.S. hits 9.7%, up from 9.4% a year ago.

No wonder the Democratic presidential candidates have seized on jobs as a potentially powerful weapon.

Howard Dean criticized President Bush for "the worst job creation record in over 60 years." Richard Gephardt said that "I have three goals for my presidency: jobs, jobs, jobs." John Kerry said "the first thing" he'd do as president would be to fight his "heart out" to bring back the jobs that have disappeared in recent years.

Bush, meanwhile, is quick to seize credit where he can. When the unemployment rate for November fell one-tenth of a point, he went out immediately to give a speech at a Home Depot in Maryland.

"More workers are going to work, over 380,000 have joined the workforce in the last couple of months," Bush said. "We've overcome a lot."

A number of economists say it's a mistake to evaluate the job market solely by talking about the official unemployment rate. It's a blunt instrument for assessing a condition that is growing ever more vague.

"There's certainly an arbitrariness to the official rate," says Princeton University economics professor Alan Krueger. "It irks me that it's not put in proper perspective."

On Jan. 9, when the rate for December is announced, both Republicans and Democrats will assuredly again maneuver for advantage — precisely because the number isn't expected to change much.

"At this point, where we don't know which way it's going but it isn't likely to be going far, both sides will try to use it," says Michael Lewis-Beck, a political scientist at the University of Iowa.

In every election since 1960, the party in the White House lost when the unemployment rate deteriorated during the first half of the year. If the rate improved, the party in the White House won.

That's not a coincidence, says Lewis-Beck, who has edited several volumes on how economic conditions determine elections. "People see the president as the chief executive of the economy," he says. "They punish him if things are deteriorating and reward him if things are improving."

By any normal standard, things should have been improving on the employment front long before this point. More than 2 million jobs have been lost in the last three years, a period that encompassed a brief, nasty recession and a recovery that was anemic until recently. Even in the best-case scenario, Bush will end this term with a net job loss. That hasn't happened to a president since Herbert Hoover at the beginning of the Depression.

Many economists are mystified about why a suddenly booming economy is producing so few jobs.

*snip*

[skywalker]

Well Chewie, you can add me to the rolls of the newly unemployed. Today is my last day at my current job.


Mark

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: The nation's official jobless rate is 5.9%, a relatively benign level by historical standards. But economists say that figure paints only a partial — and artificially rosy — picture of the labor market. To begin with, there are the 8.7 million unemployed, defined as those without a job who are actively looking for work. But lurking behind that group are 4.9 million part-time workers such as Gluskin who say they would rather be working full time — the highest number in a decade. There are also the 1.5 million people who want a job but didn't look for one in the last month. Nearly a third of this group say they stopped the search because they were too depressed about the prospect of finding anything. Officially termed "discouraged," their number has surged 20% in a year. Add these three groups together and the jobless total for the U.S. hits 9.7%, up from 9.4% a year ago. No wonder the Democratic presidential candidates have seized on jobs as a potentially powerful weapon.

I'm confused by this article as well, Chewbacca. Except that I'm confused about the part where they take the 4.9 million part-time workers and add them to the unemployment ranks to increase the "jobless total for the U.S."

I'm sorry, but part-time employment IS employment nonetheless. And while I sympathize with Lisa Guskin having to work just as hard for a fraction of the money - that is just the way life goes. I have a B.S. degree in Financial Planning and Marketing both (double major). I also have an Associates degree in Electronic Data Processing (very early computer science degree). Yet there was a period after my graduation where I had to work for 2 years as a dishwasher in a local restaurant because there aren't any jobs available in my field in the area where I live. Even now, I could make far more money than I do if I chose to live in a large city as opposed to my small rural town.

The entire "dot.com boon" created a lot of false expectations because of fantastic salaries and benefits offered by companies riding the wave a technological boom that gave them enormous profits - for a short period of time. As with all waves, this one eventually crashed upon the shore and tumbled down when the market corrected itself.

I also don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the 1.5 million who claim they want a job, but didn't actually look for one in the last month because they were too depressed about the prospects. I wasn't real excited about going to work as a dishwasher either, but I WAS real excited about having a paycheck...ANY paycheck. Because some money is still more than no money.

But as the article pointed out, the unemployment figure is going to remain relatively the same, yet BOTH sides plan to use it in the upcoming Presidential election....which just goes to prove that any one figure (taken by itself) doesn't mean a whole lot...since each side will be using the same figure to prove opposite points.

skywalker - I am sorry to hear that you have been added to the ranks of the unemployed. I sincerely hope that changes for you quickly.

[ 01-02-2004, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Garnet FalconDance]

Article very confusing...and, like most 'official' reports, not exactly accurate. How many of those who are unemployed but 'actively looking' are like several people I know who simply report fictitious job contacts so they can continue to sit on their duffs and collect unemployment? Or like the sig-other of one of my employees who'd rather claim she has to take care of her baby (who is at a grandparent or other relative's house/care 98% of the day, every day) so she can collect state aid? These shouldn't be added to the official count, in my opinion.

[skywalker]

I wonder how many people who are 'actively looking' are having to deal with that the only jobs offered are paying less than unemployment compensation? Or would be faced with having to get 2 or 3 jobs, just to survive. Or are competing for the good jobs they are qualified for with 100's of others. I guess it is just easier to sit on your 'duff and collect unemployment'.

I've always kept an eye on the Want Ads and the paper I subcribe to has a section called the Hot List. 3 years ago this Hot List used to be at least 1/2 to 1 page of new jobs every day. Now it is usually a square about 4 x 4 inches. I know that the newspaper is not the only resource for jobs, but it is an indicator of current opportunities in my area.

I hope it gets better, for my sake and all the other unemployed people out there. I'm pulling for all of them as well.

Mark

I think another issue ignored by the article was that all those complaints were made in every other year as well....the number is still reflective of the number of people employed. Part time employment is EMPLOYMEnt and has always been counted as such. Im not trying to run anyone down who is currently out of work or a part time. Im saying that the salaries of the late 1990's like the stock market was artificially inflated so yeah...people are now going to have to start working harder to reach those inflated levels again.

As usual the numbers game is being played...one side uses the numbers to claim doom and gloom and the other side uses the numbers to claim boom. So Im left to judge the economy by how it affects me and mine (since I can observe thsi first hand) and so...im left to conclude...it is waaaaaaaaaaay better than it was in 1979 and it is still better than it was last year or the year before. So Im currently content to say that the economy from all indications that I have is dong well.


Mark...sorry to hear about your job guy. I wish you luck in finding new employment....of course you DO get to benefit from the fact that it was GWB's administration that enacted a longer unemployment benefit program...

Originally posted by skywalker: I wonder how many people who are 'actively looking' are having to deal with that the only jobs offered are paying less than unemployment compensation? Or would be faced with having to get 2 or 3 jobs, just to survive. Or are competing for the good jobs they are qualified for with 100's of others. I guess it is just easier to sit on your 'duff and collect unemployment'. I've always kept an eye on the Want Ads and the paper I subcribe to has a section called the Hot List. 3 years ago this Hot List used to be at least 1/2 to 1 page of new jobs every day. Now it is usually a square about 4 x 4 inches. I know that the newspaper is not the only resource for jobs, but it is an indicator of current opportunities in my area. I hope it gets better, for my sake and all the other unemployed people out there. I'm pulling for all of them as well. Mark

Disclaimer: no invective or rabid emotions being displayed, just calm rational questions.

While we are wondering, lets wonder: how many people who are on welfare doing nothing at all for their money but collecting a state check, have cable TV, have VCR's...have TV's and have cars? Electricity? Water and indoor plumbing? Housing? How many manage to supply their smoking and or drinking vices? How many continue to keep having children they can't pay for? How many get free medical assistance? WIC programs? Food Stmaps? Social Security Benefits?

Theres a lot to wonder about...and like Garnet...I know of too many people "working the system" rather than working. Untill I moved in with Mysti, I lived in a community where it was the norm and not the exception.


Mark, one of the key things about newspaper ads for jobs, at least in metroplitan areas (I froget where you live) is that each ad generates up to 2000 or even 3000 responses. Corps. are finding that newspaper ads are wasting too much HR time. You realy have to seek out Job fairs and network with friends and aquaintences to get the inside track to positions. Watch for organizational meetings open to the public to meet the people you need to impress. There is the state employment agency as well..not the most efficient either...and the internet....while the net is only marginally better for finding jobs than the news paper...if you can follow all the resources perhaps your search won't be so dificult. I know from personal experience, job hunting is hard, takes up a LOT of time and effort.....so again. I wish you well and hope that the economic growth that is going on will help you.

[skywalker]

Not to worry about GWB and blame. As left as I am, I am smart enough to know that the Federal Government does not have that much of a direct effect on actual job loss or creation. There are so many elements involved that have more to do with local factors.

Imagine, I do not blame Bush for it! It is a holiday miracle!

Mark

There is also the issue...of the idea that low wages means people can't survive....I think that claim needs to be made mroe accurate...."Can't survive at their desired level of comfort and ease." might be closer to the truth....as an article about education recently showed us....some people complain that having to work puts a crimp in their social life......my heart does not hold much sympathy for these kinds of people.

Originally posted by skywalker: Not to worry about GWB and blame. As left as I am, I am smart enough to know that the Federal Government does not have that much of a direct effect on actual job loss or creation. There are so many elements involved that have more to do with local factors. Imagine, I do not blame Bush for it! It is a holiday miracle! Mark

ROTFL hehehe ok that was good [img]smile.gif[/img]
but since they are there, don't hesitate to make use of the assistance programs that the government does provide....hell we (you and I and everyone) have already paid for them...so lets let people like you ...who want to work...get some use out of them!