It was summarized, but nothing was inaccurate. Which you know, or you would have pointed it out.Wrong! Your summation is incomplete and thus invalid.
And yet you don't point out any misinformation.So much so that it could be considered intentional misinformation strategically presented to to discredit the author of the article.
How? His claim was that BLS could change the participation rate and "vanish" numbers of the unemployed. There's nothing in the BLS brief that validates this.IN REALITY, please refer to the indisputable facts found at: US Department of Labor> Bureau of Labor Statistics> Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey> How the Government Measures Unemployment [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]
In short this document validates author DANIEL AMERMAN CFA and all the information provided in his article dated 13 March 2012.
Because they're not part of the calcualtions for the unemployment rate, and therefore not relevant for the specific comments I was making.A quick review of this official document will show that you have conveniently disregarded an important sector of the population.
How do you think that contradicts what I said? The people respond to the questions and are categorized by set definitions as Employed, Unemployed, (together the Labor Force) and Not in the Labor force. The UE rate is Unemployed/labor force and the labor force participation rate is Labor force / population. The BLS analyst can't arbitrarily assign categories..its' all based on what the people say.Who is not in the labor force? [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]
As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Since the mid-1990s, typically fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force reported that they want a job.
A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include the following (the bolded words are emphasized when read by the interviewers).
These questions form the basis for estimating the number of people who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be marginally attached to the labor force. These are individuals without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore are not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment.
Specifically, to be counted as marginally attached to the labor force, they must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work.
Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of the following types of reasons:
How? If someone says they were looking for work, BLS can't just decide to classify him as discouraged. You'll have to walk me through the steps you think happen, because right now, you're not making any sense.By adding and then modifying the new Discouraged Workers category, the Administration has used these loose rules to dump millions of truly unemployed off of the roles to improve their visuals.
Ths sample is surveyed. Responses are collected. Individuals are classified by category based on response. Everything is aggregated. Where do you see any "technique" to add or modify anything?
How is this a long history of remaining almost static?If, IF, IF your statement is valid, then how do you explain the Sept. 2012 Change In Participation Rate anomaly that coincides with the abnormally large decrease in the U3 Unemployment Rate ? How do you explain the recent increase and spikes in CWP that has a long history of remaining almost static?