The Unemployment Rate

[Bluegill]

[NDFarmer]

I think it is funny how they are falling all over themselves patting themselves on the back for getting the unemployment rate back to where it was when Obama TOOK office. He has had 4 years to improve it but is just now a month before the election (no coincidence there ) getting the rate back to where it was four years ago. I don't think that is anything to be proud of.

[brian0918]

Want to calculate your own "unemployment rate", using the BLS's own numbers? Take the number of "Employed" age 16-64, and divide it by the total number of people age 16-64 (both in and out of the "labor force"), then subtract from 1.00.

Result: 32.53% of people aged 16-64 are not employed

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm

[barrytrot]

What's the unemployment rate? 7.8%? 14.7%?

Want to calculate your own "unemployment rate", using the BLS's own numbers? Take the number of "Employed" age 16-64, and divide it by the total number of people age 16-64 (both in and out of the "labor force"), then subtract from 1.00.

Result: 32.53%

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm

Here's the real problem: People get plenty of cash by just filling out simple forms and get money from the government.

I am all for charity, but I'm not for lazy people "getting over" and that's what we have, and if we trust your number apparently about 23% of the people that could be in the work force or at least could be picking up trash in the park!


NOTE: Your number includes people like my wife, a stay-at-home mom, and others like her. But still it would still be massive 25%+ or so. Wow.

[Bluegill]

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_da ... ent-charts

[brian0918]

NOTE: Your number includes people like my wife, a stay-at-home mom, and others like her.

Oh, certainly, it includes people who choose not to work. Do you think, in a truly free economy, where there were absolutely no regulatory barriers to allowing someone to get some form of employment in exchange for sharing their skills, that your wife wouldn't find some sort of job beneficial?

In any case, the Census says there are 5 million stay-at-home moms as of 2011. So at a *maximum*, they could only affect that unemployment number by 2.5%. That's it.

[brian0918]

Continuing from my last post: take into consideration another group - college students - of which there are about 20 million. Even assuming they all are unemployed, and freely wished to be so (as opposed to being unemployed despite their best efforts), that would still only affect the unemployment number by a maximum of 10%.

So even with these wildly skewed assumptions about stay-at-home moms and college students, the unemployment number is still at a minimum of 20% among ages 16-64.

[Thogey]

The fees, taxes and insurance required to employ anyone, especially a micro business, is oppressive.

The economy is going underground for the really small businesess. Gubermint assistance is not enough to survive. an underground economy is developing.

The sales taxes where I live is 10% (.9868346572727...). I make every effort not to pay sales tax.

Cash is king.

[Engineer]

So even with these wildly inaccurate assumptions, the unemployment number is still at a minimum of 20%.

This also doesn't count the underemployed. To get to that number, you'd have to count the total hours worked versus the number of available man hours.

[Bluegill]

I think it is funny how they are falling all over themselves patting themselves on the back for getting the unemployment rate back to where it was when Obama TOOK office. He has had 4 years to improve it but is just now a month before the election (no coincidence there ) getting the rate back to where it was four years ago. I don't think that is anything to be proud of.

"They" didn't do anything but do the math differently. Only in D.C. does 2+2=5...

[brian0918]

This also doesn't count the underemployed.

Nope, nor does it count the homeless, or the undocumented, but I was just trying to show that even the most basic calculation of true UNemployment is much much higher than the BLS numbers.

[Bluegill]

So even with these wildly inaccurate assumptions, the unemployment number is still at a minimum of 20%.

This also doesn't count the underemployed. To get to that number, you'd have to count the total hours worked versus the number of available man hours.

Let's also add in everybody who has had to take a pay cut. either because it was that or a pink slip, or because they had to take a new job in a different field that pays half of what they used to earn.

Anybody who thinks the economy is improving is either a bovine idiot, or a government shill. How can it when damn near a ¼ of the nation doesn't have a job. Those that do have jobs, haven't had pay increases to keep up with inflation in well over a decade.

[brian0918]

The public is catching on. Yahoo Finance poll today:

The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September. What’s your take-away?

It assures President Obama's re-election (13253)
8%

It's proof the economy is improving (34653)
22%

It's temporary, the worst isn't over (19147)
12%

I don't trust the numbers (93509)
58%

[thedrifter]

In the past the media would have called this "recovery" a jobless recovery. Have not heard that this time.

[barrytrot]

NOTE: Your number includes people like my wife, a stay-at-home mom, and others like her.

Oh, certainly, it includes people who choose not to work. Do you think, in a truly free economy, where there were absolutely no regulatory barriers to allowing someone to get some form of employment in exchange for sharing their skills, that your wife wouldn't find some sort of job beneficial?

In any case, the Census says there are 5 million stay-at-home moms as of 2011. So at a *maximum*, they could only affect that unemployment number by 2.5%. That's it.

There are plenty of jobs my wife could have if she so desired, she had a nice job that she enjoyed and paid her well before I took her off the market (job and dating).

In speaking with several families with stay-at-home moms the result of a stay-at-home mom is generally a far less stressful home life. Just imagine if one person never has a boss yelling at them how much easier it would be for the family to get along each day. It's quite pleasant and I highly recommend it!

[barrytrot]

Continuing from my last post: take into consideration another group - college students - of which there are about 20 million. Even assuming they all are unemployed, and freely wished to be so (as opposed to being unemployed despite their best efforts), that would still only affect the unemployment number by a maximum of 10%.

So even with these wildly skewed assumptions about stay-at-home moms and college students, the unemployment number is still at a minimum of 20% among ages 16-64.

Assuming your original math was accurate I absolutely agree with you.

Quite an astonishing society in which we live!

[barrytrot]

The fees, taxes and insurance required to employ anyone, especially a micro business, is oppressive.

The economy is going underground for the really small businesess. Gubermint assistance is not enough to survive. an underground economy is developing.

The sales taxes where I live is 10% (.9868346572727...). I make every effort not to pay sales tax.

Cash is king.

Doesn't it seem like the government would benefit from employing more people? And yet employment is exactly what they choose to make difficult.

My suggestion is simply: Anyone that is getting welfare of any kind would then have a "bounty" on their heads which could be redeemed by an employer. Just to be on the safe side it would only be a 90% payback, so that abuse would not reign. And to avoid further abuse and to incentive the person on welfare the redemption would count only 50% of payments made.

In other words for every $100 that someone is making on welfare a company could instead pay them $200 and get a refund of $90 on their payment. This is a win-win-win people!

The government saves $10
The business saves $90
The person previously on welfare makes an extra $100 And, if I may be so bold gains some pride of life!

That's a triple-win people! Very rare!


The biggest determent to getting off welfare, in my opinion, is that when you get a job you suddenly lose your "kick back". And may make less or barely more. So who in their right mind would trade 168 hours per week of watching quality cable tv for 40 hours per week of work and an extra $25 after taxes? Very few.

[barrytrot]

This also doesn't count the underemployed.

Nope, nor does it count the homeless, or the undocumented, but I was just trying to show that even the most basic calculation of true UNemployment is much much higher than the BLS numbers.

I would say that counting the homeless shouldn't be done as (not to re-open that debate, but) most of them are homeless by choice.

And, it matters not anyway, 20% unemployment is still "Armageddon level" as it is. The only reason it doesn't seem that way is the exceptionally immense level which the government chooses to steal from those with a job and give to those without one.

[barrytrot]

Let's also add in everybody who has had to take a pay cut. either because it was that or a pink slip, or because they had to take a new job in a different field that pays half of what they used to earn.

Anybody who thinks the economy is improving is either a bovine idiot, or a government shill. How can it when damn near a ¼ of the nation doesn't have a job. Those that do have jobs, haven't had pay increases to keep up with inflation in well over a decade.

I'm not sure I would count pay cuts really. Just because you are making less, if it is still a fair value, it's fair. There are a lot of jobs where the salaries blasted skyward too fast and coming back to earth a bit is proper. Those type being primarily "tech" related jobs which hit the 6-figure range even for those with minimal talent and now are floating back to earth.

[Bluegill]

Let's also add in everybody who has had to take a pay cut. either because it was that or a pink slip, or because they had to take a new job in a different field that pays half of what they used to earn.

Anybody who thinks the economy is improving is either a bovine idiot, or a government shill. How can it when damn near a ¼ of the nation doesn't have a job. Those that do have jobs, haven't had pay increases to keep up with inflation in well over a decade.

I'm not sure I would count pay cuts really. Just because you are making less, if it is still a fair value, it's fair. There are a lot of jobs where the salaries blasted skyward too fast and coming back to earth a bit is proper. Those type being primarily "tech" related jobs which hit the 6-figure range even for those with minimal talent and now are floating back to earth.

There are a lot of jobs taking sizable pay cuts, with folks attempting to at least partially make up for the lost wages,(that weren't that high to begin with) working massive amounts of overtime. They are barely keeping their noses above water. They are not going to be the ones contributing to a recovering economy.

So yeah, you have to count it as a drag in the overall scheme of things.

"Fairness" of wages is a whole other topic for another thread.

[barrytrot]

True it depends on the industry, I don't have much experience outside my particular one where wages were WAY too high for WAY too little talent for several years.

[Lemon Thrower]

the focus on the "rate" is absurd.

the government knows exactly how much money for how many people it received payroll taxes. they don't need the BLS to conduct a survey, they have the actual numbers. of course, its harder to cook those numbers.

you can also look at changes in state sales tax receipts and glean a lot of meaningful information from them; more than from manufactured GDP numbers which include government spending.