Who should be officially classified "Unemployed" and why?

joG said:

Any of the definitions is fine, if it fits the question one has. The participation rate can easily be what you need. What is important is that it is always the same one you follow, as you otherwise cannot interpret the number. This is especially important in international comparisons.

Click to expand...

Frankly, what I think is far more important and indicative of a nation's economic situation is the "Ratio of Employment-to-population".

Which, with an historical perspective, gives one an interpretation of what a country can do, or should be doing, if all was going well. Here is the that ratio historically (going back a decade) for the US, and it is not that comforting:



Given an unemployment rate that's almost half what it was in 2010, some would see the bright-side; but given the above Employment-to-population Ratio chart, another might say, "We can do better, much better". Personally, I'm with the latter interpretation - and the upward trend looks highly promising.

Caveat: Once again, I insist on the long-term fact that we "changing ages", which will have a profound effect on the types of jobs that the market will have in the future. Those jobs lost in 2006 are not coming back, they're gone forever. The challenge therefore is getting people up to a standard of education that is required for the new job-requirements of today - and that mans higher educational degrees*.

*Which is why it is imperative that the Federal government defunds the DoD and spends the money on state-run institutions offering tertiary-level degrees at a low annual tuition cost. (As the EU does, btw.)

ttwtt78640 said:

When we "ended welfare as we knew it" its cost actually went up.

Click to expand...

And I am sure we did not give that even a second-thought, though I am not sure when the above happened.

Regardless, the Replicants will insist that "anybody with a set or real-balls does not need a hand-out". Which indicates more about their IQ than economic reality.

Still, the challenge is to recover from a de-jobbing of the American nation brought about by the advent of the China Price. (Which means not only China, itself feeling price-pressures from other far-east nations - like Thailand and the Philippines.)

And that requires, as I never tire of saying, Going Upmarket. How do we do that.

We get of the wild merry-go-round of ever increasing costs of a tertiary education. As is indicated in this info-graphic:


Our Tertiary-Education costs are far, far too much for most young students, having a high-school degree, to access. And until we change the mechanism, those kids are going to jobless if they do not obtain the higher set of skill credentials.

The case is so critical, any politician who doesn't see it is damn fool* ...

*Bernie sees the challenge, so does Hillary - but the Donald is on some other planet.

1751Texan said:

Are we including any and all "means testing" of persons with "jobs" that are eligible to receive government assistance or subsidies for any reason...at any income levels ...or are poor-folk the subject of your focus?

Click to expand...

And why should we ... ?

The right to an education was settled a hundred years ago when the US decided that primary and secondary education should be free, gratis and for nothing provided by the city/state. Did we need "means testing" to arrive at that decision across America.

Nowadays the necessity is no longer at the Secondary Schooling level but at the Post-Secondary level, as evidenced by the wholesale gutting of base-level jobs that remunerate well. (I'm not talking about McJobs that proliferate within the fast-food outlets.) Production jobs in some basic industries - typically plastics - have left for the far-east and they are not coming back.

Is our country so poor that we can spend more than 20% of our national budget on the DoD when there is No Major World Threat of imminent attack upon US soil, but barely 3% on Education after exiting the most important recession since the 1930s:


Where is the sense in that? You think education is a "handout"?

If so, then so is the acquisition of a bunch of F-35s that are going to cost more than a trillion over its lifetime. Go Lockheed .... !

Lafayette said:

Frankly, what I think is far more important and indicative of a nation's economic situation is the "Ratio of Employment-to-population".

Which, with an historical perspective, gives one an interpretation of what a country can do, or should be doing, if all was going well. Here is the that ratio historically (going back a decade) for the US, and it is not that comforting:

Given an unemployment rate that's almost half what it was in 2010, some would see the bright-side; but given the above Employment-to-population Ratio chart, another might say, "We can do better, much better". Personally, I'm with the latter interpretation - and the upward trend looks highly promising.

Caveat: Once again, I insist on the long-term fact that we "changing ages", which will have a profound effect on the types of jobs that the market will have in the future. Those jobs lost in 2006 are not coming back, they're gone forever. The challenge therefore is getting people up to a standard of education that is required for the new job-requirements of today - and that mans higher educational degrees*.

*Which is why it is imperative that the Federal government defunds the DoD and spends the money on state-run institutions offering tertiary-level degrees at a low annual tuition cost. (As the EU does, btw.)

Click to expand...

That is quite right. But that index comments on quite different aspects of society than the unemployment number. And you are right, that it is more geared to the long term.

Lafayette said:

Frankly, what I think is far more important and indicative of a nation's economic situation is the "Ratio of Employment-to-population".

Which, with an historical perspective, gives one an interpretation of what a country can do, or should be doing, if all was going well. Here is the that ratio historically (going back a decade) for the US, and it is not that comforting:

Given an unemployment rate that's almost half what it was in 2010, some would see the bright-side; but given the above Employment-to-population Ratio chart, another might say, "We can do better, much better". Personally, I'm with the latter interpretation - and the upward trend looks highly promising.

Caveat: Once again, I insist on the long-term fact that we "changing ages", which will have a profound effect on the types of jobs that the market will have in the future. Those jobs lost in 2006 are not coming back, they're gone forever. The challenge therefore is getting people up to a standard of education that is required for the new job-requirements of today - and that mans higher educational degrees*.

*Which is why it is imperative that the Federal government defunds the DoD and spends the money on state-run institutions offering tertiary-level degrees at a low annual tuition cost. (As the EU does, btw.)

Click to expand...

This is an example of what I was complaining about in the OP. You're not making an argument. You are stating that the emp-pop ratio is "far more important and indicative of a nation's economic situation" but you don't explain WHY. The UE rate and the emp-pop ratio measure completely different things. In what ways do you consider the employment ratio more indictive, and why? And do you think it's a substitute for the UE rate or should both be considered, but you'd prefer more emphasis on the emp-pop ratio?

DA60 said:

Really?

'in·tel·li·gent
inˈteləjənt/
adjective
having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.'

https://www.google.ca/search?source...lligent def&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.3319j0j8


So, you have never gotten an 'intelligent argument' on this subject from ANYONE on this board?

Click to expand...

Not just this board....any message board.

And how do you quantify an 'intelligent argument'?

Click to expand...

It's a simple count...zero.

Are you referring to the argument itself? Which would be odd because I am not sure how a group of words can have an intelligence.

Click to expand...

"Intelligent argument" is a pretty standard phrase meaning an argument that shows intelligence and reason went into its formation.

Or are you referring to the person you are arguing with?

Click to expand...

Intelligent people don't always make intelligent arguments and less intelligent people sometimes do.

joG said:

That is quite right. But that index comments on quite different aspects of society than the unemployment number. And you are right, that it is more geared to the long term.

Click to expand...

I think it answers the question, "What is the actual Employment Potential of this country in terms of its Total Population". That question seems crucial to me if we are planning for the future and no simply hoping for a replay of the past.

We are not "up to potential" (as the ratio shows) and we wont be with current political ideologies. I underscore the fact that the jobs that the US is creating aren't the ones that existed before 2006. Those are gone forever unless we want McFood in every household of the country. Which would not surprise me either.

(BTW, the same phenomenon is happening in Europe. Both were prompted by too much affluence and too little self-discipline.)

And, frankly, given America's obesity-rate (one of the highest of any developed nation, see here), that is indeed a very possible outcome.

There aint any "going back to the good-ole-days", cuz those days aint any more (to put it in the vernacular) ...

Lafayette said:

I think it answers the question, "What is the actual Employment Potential of this country in terms of its Total Population". That question seems crucial to me if we are planning for the future and no simply hoping for a replay of the past.

We are not "up to potential" (as the ratio shows) and we wont be with current political ideologies. I underscore the fact that the jobs that the US is creating aren't the ones that existed before 2006. Those are gone forever - unless we want McFood in every household of the country.

And, frankly, given America's obesity-rate (one of the highest of any developed nation, see here), that is indeed a very possible outcome.

There aint any "going back to the good-ole-days", cuz those days aint any more (to put it in the vernacular) ...

Click to expand...

Yep. Obesity is way ahead of that in most countries. But Germany and others seem to be catching up in spite of the warning example of the US development.

pinqy said:

This is an example of what I was complaining about in the OP. You're not making an argument. You are stating that the emp-pop ratio is "far more important and indicative of a nation's economic situation" but you don't explain WHY. The UE rate and the emp-pop ratio measure completely different things. In what ways do you consider the employment ratio more indictive, and why? And do you think it's a substitute for the UE rate or should both be considered, but you'd prefer more emphasis on the emp-pop ratio?

Click to expand...

I thought the relationship between Unemployment Rate, and the Ratio of Employment to Population is self-evident.

They measure different populations. The former measure those looking for a job. The latter measures those who have a job versus those who dont (and probably are not looking either). These two populations are thus opposites.

So, what would YOU conclude the two statistics are telling us ... ? (I've already expressed mine previously.)

Lafayette said:

I thought the relationship between Unemployment Rate, and the Ratio of Employment to Population is self-evident.

They measure different populations. The former measure those looking for a job. The latter measures those who have a job versus those who dont (and probably are not looking either). These two populations are thus opposites.

So, what would YOU conclude the two statistics are telling us ... ? (I've already expressed mine previously.)

Click to expand...

The UE rate is the percent of the labor force that is not working. The emp-pop ratio is the percent of the population that is working.

The emp-pop ratio is affected by demographics and other non-economic factors. For example the emp-pop ratio averaged 56.6% in the 1950's. Does that fact that the emp-pop ratio during the recession never got anywhere near that low mean that throughout the recession we were better off than the 1950's?

On the other hand, since the UE rate is based on the labor force, the relationship is not affected by demographics and shows how much available labor is not being used.

That someone who doesn't want a job doesn't have one doesn't tell us anything significant. So for what purpose do you consider the emp-pop ratio better?

pinqy said:

That someone who doesn't want a job doesn't have one doesn't tell us anything significant. So for what purpose do you consider the emp-pop ratio better?

Click to expand...

In economics, all is a matter of "purpose":
*The unemployment RATE tells us how much of the registered workforce is unemployed. (obviously)
*The employment to population RATIO tells us what is the relation of Total Employment in the population as a whole.

In the former, the lesser the better, in the latter the higher the better.

You may be in member of the workforce (meaning unemployment insurance is available to you), or you may be a non-member of the workforce who simply does not seek work (for any number of reasons).

It is two perspectives on the problem of "national employment" - one being the willingness to be employed but unavailability of employment, the other being the national situation of employment as regards the entire population.

They are just different perspectives.

You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill ...

In the past (Pre Obama) 6% or less U3 unemployment meant everyone who wanted a job had one or was short time between jobs. Not even Obama himself is claiming that to be true today. Today’s 4.9 % is mostly due to the millions of Americans being unemployed so long they have given up looking and are no longer counted.

Lafayette said:

In economics, all is a matter of "purpose":
*The unemployment RATE tells us how much of the registered workforce is unemployed. (obviously)

Click to expand...

What is the "registered workforce?" I'm not aware of that term as it's not one we ever used at BLS.

*The employment to population RATIO tells us what is the relation of Total Employment in the population as a whole.

Click to expand...

The adult civilian noninstitutional population. Yes.

In the former, the lesser the better, in the latter the higher the better.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The unemployment rate can be too low...reflecting no job mobility. And are you really saying that because the Emp-Pop ratio in 2009 was higher than anytime before 1978, that we were better off than anytime before 1978? So, no, a higher emp-pop ratio is not always better.

You may be in member of the workforce (meaning unemployment insurance is available to you),

Click to expand...

Not in the U.S. The Current Population Survey (the basis of the labor force statistics) doesn't even have any questions about unemployment insurance...it's entirely irrelevant.

or you may be a non-member of the workforce who simply does not seek work (for any number of reasons).

Click to expand...

How do you think those looking for work but not eligible for UI are classified?

It is two perspectives on the problem of "national employment" - one being the willingness to be employed but unavailability of employment, the other being the national situation of employment as regards the entire population.

They are just different perspectives.

Click to expand...

I agree. But you said that you considered the emp-pop ratio to be "far more important and indicative of a nation's economic situation" But you have not answered WHY you consider that to be the case.

joG said:

Yep. Obesity is way ahead of that in most countries. But Germany and others seem to be catching up in spite of the warning example of the US development.

Click to expand...

Yes, 'tis sad, 'tis sad - but oh so true.

And Germany is not the only country. France has an increasing obesity rate as well. The only question that remains is, "Why do the Eurasian countries show much lower rates (by about at least half) than the lowest European/American countries"?

OECD Obesity rates amongst adults (2012):


Yes, yes, - the US is way down at the very bottom, meaning the most obese of the lot ...

pinqy said:

Not just this board....any message board.

It's a simple count...zero.

"Intelligent argument" is a pretty standard phrase meaning an argument that shows intelligence and reason went into its formation.


Intelligent people don't always make intelligent arguments and less intelligent people sometimes do.

Click to expand...

So, you are resorting to 'standard phrases' now? And the determination of the level of intelligence in the argument is done solely by you, apparently.

So much for exactitude.

Noted.

I shall try and remember that when (and if I am) dealing with you in the future.


Thank you for answering.


Good day.

BTW, the answer to the OP is irrelevant because it is very obvious to me that the BLS will alter the makeup of the term 'unemployment rate' as much as they can to make the unemployment rate seem as positive as possible.

Never forget people, the BLS is NOT an independent bureau (like the CBO sort of is). It is part of the Department of Labor which has a Secretary nominated (and indebted to) the POTUS. To assume no corruption whatsoever is naive in the extremis. Sure, they do not flat out lie...that would be dumb (especially since they do not need to). They merely stipulate that a statistic is to include/exclude whatever statistics are required to leave the desired result. All legal.
Surely pinqy will disagree with this (he has before), but he claims to have worked for the BLS - so there is obviously a huge conflict of interest there on this subject - no offense to him as I assume he genuinely believes the BLS is beyond corrupt.
An official statistic as important as the unemployment rate should be tabulated by a wholly independent and impartial organization...not by a bureau whose head honcho is nominated (and indebted to) the POTUS. In fact, ALL important government statistics should be tabulated independently.


And it's not just me realizing what a joke the U-3 (official unemployment rate) is.

Try the Federal Reserve and the two leading anti-establishment candidates in this election - Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The Fed has long given up using the U-3 as a viable means of determining the unemployment situation in America and I think most of you have heard Trump and Sanders both ridicule the U-3 as staggeringly inaccurate (my words). And they are by no means alone.

The U-3 is clearly designed to paint a rosy picture of the unemployment situation of America to make the sitting POTUS look like he/she is doing a better job then they really are...no matter which party is in power.


As I have said many times, if only one American was working and 200 million Americans were desperate for work, were ready to work but gave up looking for work because there simply were no other jobs - the official unemployment rate would be 0.0%. 200 million Americans with no job and DESPERATELY wanting a job and there is officially ZERO unemployment?!? Ridiculous.


No credible unemployment rate should exclude people who have no job, want a job and could do a job but were forced to give up looking for a job. To not call those people unemployed is asinine in the extremis.


The U-3 (as an official unemployment rate) is a joke...and the Fed, Trump, Sanders and MANY others see that as well.

DA60 said:

So, you are resorting to 'standard phrases' now?

Click to expand...

What do you mean? I really have no idea what you're trying to say or why you're not familiar with the phrase "intelligent argument." It's a common expression.

And the determination of the level of intelligence in the argument is done solely by you, apparently.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about "level of intelligence?" Either an argument demonstrates reason or it doesn't. I've never heard of levels of intelligence for the phrases "intelligent argument" or "intelligent reply."


Let's take a look at statements from you: "if you are not employed and want a job and are legally able to work then you should be classified as unemployed...period. Whether you are actively looking or not is TOTALLY irrelevant. You could be not looking because you are lazy or you could be not looking because you did and there are NO JOBS to be had and you have to do something else (like school, gardening, praying, crying etc.). ... To call someone who is not employed and who desperately wants a job and is legally able to work but is not actively looking because there are no jobs available not only not unemployed, but out of the labor force is asinine in the extremis (no offense) to me."

You are not making an argument. You are simply asserting what you think the definition should be without explanation, without showing your reasoning or rationale.

What do you think the purpose of measuring unemployment is or should be that your definition is the best? What information does it give that is an improvement over current practice?

Argument: a process of reasoning; series of reasons:

pinqy said:

What is the "registered workforce?" I'm not aware of that term as it's not one we ever used at BLS.

Click to expand...

In each state you need not "register" yourself for unemployment?

You just show up with a paper-bag to collect the UI-payments ... ?

pinqy said:

What do you mean? I really have no idea what you're trying to say or why you're not familiar with the phrase "intelligent argument." It's a common expression.:

Click to expand...

Cheap shot.

What I said is in plain English. If you don't understand, that is really 'n truly too bad.

Had English lessons recently ... ?

It doesn't make sense to have only one definition of "unemployment," as it has different meanings, different causes, different implications.

While neither the data nor the naming conventions are perfect, the current system seems to work reasonably well. Of course, it's gotten wildly abused during the Obama years, but that's not a fault of the definitions or data itself. That's a result of people deliberately misusing statistics to push an agenda, and no set of definitions can prevent that.

pinqy said:

What are you talking about "level of intelligence?" Either an argument demonstrates reason or it doesn't. I've never heard of levels of intelligence for the phrases "intelligent argument" or "intelligent reply."

Click to expand...

Try harder ...

DA60 said:

BTW, the answer to the OP is irrelevant because it is very obvious to me that the BLS will alter the makeup of the term 'unemployment rate' as much as they can to make the unemployment rate seem as positive as possible.

Click to expand...

Please cite when you claim this has been done. I have already posted the 3 defintions of unemployment that have been used. Are you claiming 2 times over 68 years (since 1948 when BLS took over the CPS) is "as much as they can?

Never forget people, the BLS is NOT an independent bureau (like the CBO sort of is). It is part of the Department of Labor which has a Secretary nominated (and indebted to) the POTUS.

Click to expand...

From the Federal Register: "The BLS is an independent national statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor."

While the Commissioner of BLS is appointed by the President, the Commissioner's term is independent of the President. Dr. Keith Hall was appointed by Bush in 2008 and served under Bush and Obama until completing his full term in 2012.

But please tell us of how the main Department of Labor has influenced BLS.

To assume no corruption whatsoever is naive in the extremis.

Click to expand...

I'm not assuming. There is no evidence of any. To assume something where there is no evidence is bizarre.

Sure, they do not flat out lie...that would be dumb (especially since they do not need to). They merely stipulate that a statistic is to include/exclude whatever statistics are required to leave the desired result. All legal.

Click to expand...

Can you give an example? It seems like you're saying that BLS reports change what is reported or how data is used to best support a pre-determined story. What is your evidence?

The Fed has long given up using the U-3 as a viable means of determining the unemployment situation in America

Click to expand...

That is completely untrue. Yellen's remarks were:
"The maximum level of employment is largely determined by nonmonetary factors that affect the structure and dynamics of the labor market. These factors may change over time and may not be directly measurable. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to specify a fixed goal for employment; rather, the Committee's policy decisions must be informed by assessments of the maximum level of employment, recognizing that such assessments are necessarily uncertain and subject to revision. The Committee considers a wide range of indicators in making these assessments. Information about Committee participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rates of output growth and unemployment is published four times per year in the FOMC's Summary of Economic Projections. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 5.8 percent. Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy

Neither she nor anyone else at the Fed has ever said the U-3 was not a viable means of determining the unemployment situation.
As amended effective January 28, 2014

No credible unemployment rate should exclude people who have no job, want a job and could do a job but were forced to give up looking for a job.

Click to expand...

WHY?????????????????????????????????? Make an argument.

Lafayette said:

Try harder ...

Click to expand...

Give me an example.

pinqy said:

And are you really saying that because the Emp-Pop ratio in 2009 was higher than anytime before 1978, that we were better off than anytime before 1978? So, no, a higher emp-pop ratio is not always better.

Click to expand...

And you are saying that since 2008/2009 Americans have been better off?

So, now pull the other leg. You just out of kindergarten ... ?

A higher E-to-P ratio is better than a lower one - now you give me concrete evidence why it isn't so.

I want examples, and non-refutable evidence ...

Lafayette said:

In each state you need not "register" yourself for unemployment?

Click to expand...

Well, sure. But that has nothing to do with the Unemployment Rate.