• 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!

Economy Sheds 20,000 Jobs But Rate Drops to 9.7 Percent

ptif219 said:
Here is what you said

Your right there were more unemployment claims this week (actually for the past three weeks)

Yet the percent unemployed went down.
Click to expand...

Unemployment is a statistic, and that statistic went down from 10% to 9.7%! Employment is a statistic that went down 20,000! Unemployment claims went up to 180,000! Those are all statistics. They contradict each other because they come from different sources! They are all different surveys! This is what Paul Krugman said, this is what I said. Read!
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
Unemployment is a statistic, and that statistic went down from 10% to 9.7%! Employment is a statistic that went down 20,000! Unemployment claims went up to 180,000! Those are all statistics. They contradict each other because they come from different sources! They are all different surveys! This is what Paul Krugman said, this is what I said. Read!
Click to expand...

Because the books are cooked. You cannot say claims went up and the percent unemployed went down. That makes no sense.
 
ptif219 said:
Because the books are cooked. You cannot say claims went up and the percent unemployed went down. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

They are not cooked, the surveys came up with two different results because they are surveys taken by different people, and a different number of people.

Heres what krugman said again:

"Payroll numbers come from a survey of firms; unemployment (and employment-population) numbers come from a survey of households. Both surveys are subject to error, both strict statistical sampling error and things like incomplete coverage, uncertain seasonal adjustments, and so on. When employment growth is near zero, on either side, it’s not that surprising that the surveys should point in opposite directions."
 
Also, your 480,000 (unemployment claims) is the advance figure for the seasonally adjusted intial claims for the week of Jan. 30. That means people were filing for unemployment during that week. That does not have everything to do with how many people are on unemployment insurance. More people could have been taken off unemployment than those who are now claiming for the first time.

Also, the insured unemployment rate is only a part of the total unemployment rate. This is because not everyone who is unemployed gets unemployment, or people who are unemployed may have already had their benefits expire.

Here is the official report of unemployment claims:
ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report

"In the week ending Jan. 30, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 480,000, an increase of 8,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 472,000. The 4-week moving average was 468,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 457,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.5 percent for the week ending Jan. 23, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 3.5 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Jan. 23 was 4,602,000, an increase of 2,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 4,600,000. The 4-week moving average was 4,617,500, a decrease of 51,250 from the preceding week's revised average of 4,668,750."

As you can see from this report, the initial claims went up, but the number on unemployment insurance remained relatively the same, or even decreased when compared using a 4 week average.
 
drz-400 said:
They are not cooked, the surveys came up with two different results because they are surveys taken by different people, and a different number of people.

Heres what krugman said again:

"Payroll numbers come from a survey of firms; unemployment (and employment-population) numbers come from a survey of households. Both surveys are subject to error, both strict statistical sampling error and things like incomplete coverage, uncertain seasonal adjustments, and so on. When employment growth is near zero, on either side, it’s not that surprising that the surveys should point in opposite directions."
Click to expand...

You sound like you are not realizing what you are saying.

More are collecting but the percentage is going down. That makes no sense.
 
drz-400 said:
Also, your 480,000 (unemployment claims) is the advance figure for the seasonally adjusted intial claims for the week of Jan. 30. That means people were filing for unemployment during that week. That does not have everything to do with how many people are on unemployment insurance. More people could have been taken off unemployment than those who are now claiming for the first time.

Also, the insured unemployment rate is only a part of the total unemployment rate. This is because not everyone who is unemployed gets unemployment, or people who are unemployed may have already had their benefits expire.

Here is the official report of unemployment claims:
ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report

"In the week ending Jan. 30, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 480,000, an increase of 8,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 472,000. The 4-week moving average was 468,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 457,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.5 percent for the week ending Jan. 23, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 3.5 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Jan. 23 was 4,602,000, an increase of 2,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 4,600,000. The 4-week moving average was 4,617,500, a decrease of 51,250 from the preceding week's revised average of 4,668,750."

As you can see from this report, the initial claims went up, but the number on unemployment insurance remained relatively the same, or even decreased when compared using a 4 week average.
Click to expand...

Still for it to go down .3% is cooking the books or not counting those that are no longer collecting.

The real figure is about 17%
 
ptif219 said:
Still for it to go down .3% is cooking the books or not counting those that are no longer collecting.

The real figure is about 17%
Click to expand...

Not really, because insured unemployment is only a part of U3 unemployment and I have already described why initial claims can go up without insured unemployment going up. Also, U3 is not determined by those on unemployment insurance, it is done by a household survey. This is why U3 is higher than the unemployment insurance percentage, because not everyone who is unemployed has unemployment insurance. The 17% figure is U6 unemployment which includes discouraged workers, loosely attached workers, and part time workers who want full time work. Rumor has it that this went down as well.
 
ptif219 said:
Because the books are cooked. You cannot say claims went up and the percent unemployed went down. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Are you concerned because of the cooked books or because it is currently happening under Obama


This same cooking of books happened in the Bush admin

And for all the stupidity of it

You can have unemployement fall, and have fewer people working, if the number of people looking for work declines (if only because they have given up
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Are you concerned because of the cooked books or because it is currently happening under Obama


This same cooking of books happened in the Bush admin

And for all the stupidity of it

You can have unemployement fall, and have fewer people working, if the number of people looking for work declines (if only because they have given up
Click to expand...

The books are not being cooked now, and they were not under bush either. The results were contradictory mainly because of the difference in the two surveys. Thats it.
 
drz-400 said:
The books are not being cooked now, and they were not under bush either. The results were contradictory mainly because of the difference in the two surveys. Thats it.
Click to expand...

Well the numbers (ie the unemployment rate) has been modified over time to make the rate appear smaller or less of a problem then it actually is

But you are correct, the current numbers are not cooked, but follow a set standard of guildlines that have been around for at least a decade
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Are you concerned because of the cooked books or because it is currently happening under Obama


This same cooking of books happened in the Bush admin

And for all the stupidity of it

You can have unemployement fall, and have fewer people working, if the number of people looking for work declines (if only because they have given up
Click to expand...

To say more are unemployed but the percetage goes down makes no sense. You see I have been unemployed almost a year and did not collect unemployment. I would not be a part of the stats.

The phony cooked books is bad enough but don't tell me more are collecting this week but the percentage is going down.
 
ptif219 said:
To say more are unemployed but the percetage goes down makes no sense. You see I have been unemployed almost a year and did not collect unemployment. I would not be a part of the stats.

The phony cooked books is bad enough but don't tell me more are collecting this week but the percentage is going down.
Click to expand...

The unemployement rates is calculated using people who are actively seeking work but cant find it

If people have stopped looking for work they are no longer counted
 
Instead of looking at unemployment, which has a number of caveats and qualifiers, I'd rather look at total non-farm employment. One telling statistic is that there were more people employed ten years ago (when there were 28 million fewer people) than there are today:

CES0000000001_83807_1265856546210.gif


Note that during the last two "jobless" recoveries the stock market didn't bottom until the economy started adding jobs again.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
The unemployement rates is calculated using people who are actively seeking work but cant find it

If people have stopped looking for work they are no longer counted
Click to expand...

Thats what I said but drz 400 said this in post #146.

The drop in the percent of unemployment has nothing to do with people giving up looking for work, it has to do with a divergence between the surveys. The surveys are an estimate of what is happening in the general population, becuase they do not survey everyone in america (duh).
 
ptif219 said:
Thats what I said but drz 400 said this in post #146.

The drop in the percent of unemployment has nothing to do with people giving up looking for work, it has to do with a divergence between the surveys. The surveys are an estimate of what is happening in the general population, becuase they do not survey everyone in america (duh).
Click to expand...

They dont survey everyone in America

I think they survey around 155 000 homes and use that group as a guildine to determine the unemployement rate

The number of jobs is also modified by the birth/death model which tends to overstate jobs being created when entering an economic downturn and understate them during an economic upswing. It can take months for the actual number of jobs either created or lost to be determined on a factual rather then statistical value

And I agree with Ahlevah

Total non farm employement is a far better tool to determine the state of the job market then either the initial jobless claims, the unemployement rate, or jobs created or lost
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They dont survey everyone in America

I think they survey around 155 000 homes and use that group as a guildine to determine the unemployement rate

The number of jobs is also modified by the birth/death model which tends to overstate jobs being created when entering an economic downturn and understate them during an economic upswing. It can take months for the actual number of jobs either created or lost to be determined on a factual rather then statistical value

And I agree with Ahlevah

Total non farm employement is a far better tool to determine the state of the job market then either the initial jobless claims, the unemployement rate, or jobs created or lost
Click to expand...

Why not look at the broader measure, U6?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They dont survey everyone in America

I think they survey around 155 000 homes and use that group as a guildine to determine the unemployement rate

The number of jobs is also modified by the birth/death model which tends to overstate jobs being created when entering an economic downturn and understate them during an economic upswing. It can take months for the actual number of jobs either created or lost to be determined on a factual rather then statistical value

And I agree with Ahlevah

Total non farm employement is a far better tool to determine the state of the job market then either the initial jobless claims, the unemployement rate, or jobs created or lost
Click to expand...

So they cook the books so unemployment does not look so bad.

It is worse than they say and here is how I know.

In 15 years of driving truck i could always find a jod because there was a shortage of drivers.

I am having a hard time now finding a job. If there is an abundance of drivers that means there is no freight to haul.
 
ptif219 said:
So they cook the books so unemployment does not look so bad.

It is worse than they say and here is how I know.

In 15 years of driving truck i could always find a jod because there was a shortage of drivers.

I am having a hard time now finding a job. If there is an abundance of drivers that means there is no freight to haul.
Click to expand...

I my opinion yes,

They have changed the way unemployement is calculated in the US to make the number appear better. (before Obama and I believe before Bush took office as well)

They have also modified the Core inflation rate (CPI) figure to ensure Social Security payments do not increase as much as they would have (done during the Clinton admin) I believe

The best place to get good governmental stats is from ShadowStats. That site uses government data but compiles them according to past methodology
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Personally I dont like using the underemployed part of U6.
Click to expand...

Why don't you like using the underemployment piece? As the economy starts to improve you will probably see it first in underemployment turning into fully employed.
 
washunut said:
Why don't you like using the underemployment piece? As the economy starts to improve you will probably see it first in underemployment turning into fully employed.
Click to expand...

How do you count someone who is working 30 hrs a week vs someone who is working 5 hrs a week

Both are underemployed, but the person working 30 hrs is not as bad off as the person working 6 hrs/week

That is what I dislike about the underemployed stat as it currently stands

I would personally combine their hrs workd and count every 40 hrs as a job, and have the remaining numbers count as unemployed
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
How do you count someone who is working 30 hrs a week vs someone who is working 5 hrs a week

Both are underemployed, but the person working 30 hrs is not as bad off as the person working 6 hrs/week

That is what I dislike about the underemployed stat as it currently stands

I would personally combine their hrs workd and count every 40 hrs as a job, and have the remaining numbers count as unemployed
Click to expand...

You can sort of get to a full time equivalent number by looking at the average hourly numbers. I think they are currently something like 33.2.

The same problem you mention regarding part-time you have with full time, as someone working 60 hours gets counted as 1 versus 1.5. You even have the question of what is full time. This may range from 35-40 depending on the company.
 
washunut said:
You can sort of get to a full time equivalent number by looking at the average hourly numbers. I think they are currently something like 33.2.

The same problem you mention regarding part-time you have with full time, as someone working 60 hours gets counted as 1 versus 1.5. You even have the question of what is full time. This may range from 35-40 depending on the company.
Click to expand...

Yeah but a person working 60 hrs will not be counted as overemployed

And yes I could get reasonable equivalent by using the average hourly numbers, but I would perfer a quick accurate number without extra compilation having to be done by me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom