• 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!

Who should be officially classified "Unemployed" and why?

pinqy said:
So, regardless of whether we're talking scientifically/technically in economics or casually or emotionally?
Click to expand...
Officially - but emotionally (for me) as well. If I had the power to change the official unemployment rate, that is what I would change it to (as of now).

why do you think they would do that when they never have before? They clearly and demonstrably have never changed the unemployment parameters.


And why have they never done this before? Or are you claiming you have evidence of secret internal changes?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Of course the criteria of the official unemployment rate has changed...several times. You listed three of them in the OP.

Plus, the definition of 'discouraged workers' has changed - which effects the unemployment rate.

https://harvest.cals.ncsu.edu/are201/unempmsr.html
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Officially - but emotionally (for me) as well. If I had the power to change the official unemployment rate, that is what I would change it to (as of now).
Click to expand...
How do you think your definition is better from an economics perspective? I am not aware of any economist, ever, endorsing a definition even close to yours.



What are you talking about?

Of course the criteria of the official unemployment rate has changed...several times. You listed three of them in the OP.

Plus, the definition of 'discouraged workers' has changed - which effects the unemployment rate.

https://harvest.cals.ncsu.edu/are201/unempmsr.html
Click to expand...
I didn't proof read. I meant to specify changes made in direct response to undesirable conditions with the express purpose of deception. If that is not your claim about what BLS would do, please clarify. It reads to me that you're saying that they'll just change the parameters if they don't like the situation.

Oh, and how do you think changing the definition of discouraged affected the UE rate? That change is not reflected in the UE definition
 
pinqy said:
How do you think your definition is better from an economics perspective? I am not aware of any economist, ever, endorsing a definition even close to yours.
Click to expand...
Then you need to study a wider range of economists. Try Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber, the 'gang' over at zerohedge (I assume) and Ron Paul (not really an economist) and other like minded individuals.

Please remember, most economists (including those at the Fed) COMPLETELY missed both the dot.com crash and the housing bust (even though both should have been ridiculously obvious).

Most economists are (imo) wastes of time.


And I think it is better because it includes people in the work force (and thus in the unemployment rate) that are not presently included that I think should be.

You obviously disagree...fine.

End of story.


I didn't proof read. I meant to specify changes made in direct response to undesirable conditions with the express purpose of deception. If that is not your claim about what BLS would do, please clarify. It reads to me that you're saying that they'll just change the parameters if they don't like the situation.
Click to expand...
We have been over this and over this. You seem to think that the BLS is beyond reproach and is incapable of corruption (I think you even said something like the last part). Whereas I think ALL branches of government (especially federal) are not only capable of corruption but I assume they are corrupt until I see factual PROOF to the contrary.
I am not having this pointless discussion again. You seem to think the BLS is wonderful. I think it semi sucks. End of story.

Oh, and how do you think changing the definition of discouraged affected the UE rate? That change is not reflected in the UE definition
Click to expand...

I am not interested in how it would change it (up or down), I am only interested in measuring it properly, free of government corruption or bureaucratic red tape (as much as realistically possible).


Which is also why I believe the LAST people who should be tabulating the official unemployment rate (and all major economic statistics) are the government...it should be an outside, unbiased, non-profit, independent organization.

Having the government give a report card on how the government is doing is ludicrous.

Obviously you disagree with this. But you were (apparently) part of the government...so no surprise there.
 
Last edited:
JohnfrmClevelan said:
So many families these days are two-income households, putting in 80+ hours of work/week combined. I think that says more about the economy than any combination of unemployment rate + emp-pop ratio does.
Click to expand...

The above was less common in our post-war economy, and is more so today.

Don't know why anybody should think that Mom stays at home (to take care of the kids until they're young-adults). Whilst Dad goes off to wherever to earn their "daily bread".

Especially since "Mom" now has the academic credentials of the same calibre as "Dad" ...
 
Lafayette said:
The above was less common in our post-war economy, and is more so today.

Don't know why anybody should think that Mom stays at home (to take care of the kids until they're young-adults). Whilst Dad goes off to wherever to earn their "daily bread".

Especially since "Mom" now has the academic credentials of the same calibre as "Dad" ...
Click to expand...

It's not about Mom staying home to take care of the kids, it's about somebody being able to stay home and take care of the kids. There are obvious advantages.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
It's not about Mom staying home to take care of the kids, it's about somebody being able to stay home and take care of the kids. There are obvious advantages.
Click to expand...

Why "somebody" at home?

Here in France we have public "creches" - no, not the Nativity Scene, but a nursery where babies and young children are cared for during the working day. Largely paid-for by city administrations, which frees young-mothers to work should they decide to do so.

In Sweden, both the husband or wife can take leave, paid by his/her company, to look after the child. The "maternity leave" for the wife is up to 68 weeks at 80% of salary, and "paternity leave" at 2 weeks and 80% of salary.

Backward country, Sweden ...

Then throughout the child's infancy, up to schooling age, there are "day nurseries" paid for by the state in most countries and most large cities. In fact, in the small village where I live, lost in the French countryside, the school (now 80 years old) still is run by the French government.

If a people wanted it, and they did not mind paying for it, a system of "cradle-to-Doctorate-Degree" could be established. It is not "mission impossible" in the US, just "mission improbable" - and another reason why taxes are higher in the EU.

All government taxation is a matter of choice. We don't want something in the US, so we don't have it. ("We", plural, as a nation of individuals - a collectivity.)

Go figure. We think a child should "wake-up" at the age of sixteen and know that they need to climb as high on the educational ladder as their intelligence will take them to have as good a life as possible?

Nope, it doesn't work like that - the path must be established and they need to be shown the way ...
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
Don't dwell on the "can't provide for needs" bit, is the person spending a significant amount of his or her time working, or not working?
Click to expand...

Ever think that the prevailing minimum wage did not offer sufficient wages to "meet needs"?

It's been happening in the US since at least 1965, which is why the Poverty Threshold is at 15% of the population since then:

Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate.jpg
 
Socrates1 said:
For starters everyone on welfare and all 20 million illegals . :lol:
Click to expand...

Very funny. All that bandwidth wasted to say nothing?

You've got the wrong moniker ...
 
pinqy said:
The E/P 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?/QUOTE]

The fact that the 2008 high-point was still lower than the 2000 high-point at the end of the Clinton Administration indicates that the former and not the latter is potentially achievable. The real harm done to American employment by the China-Price had started in the early 1990s, wiping out shop-floor jobs of little skills-requirement that simply could not compete.

That economic blockage still exists. American cannot compete with the China-Price in some low-craft industries.

So, if long-term unemployment was once around 4/4.5 percent, I'd wager that today it is in the 4.5/5.0 range. Moreover, that new range is at a lower per hour wage-rate.

So, clearly, even if back to its pre-2008 levels, Employment today is not any way comparable wage rate-wise to pre-1990 years.

pinqy said:
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./QUOTE]

As I said, I don't think any rates beyond those collected by the Employment Offices in the EU are of any real consequence. The employment offices roll-up the numbers on a sufficiently periodic basis to give the seeing-eye a very good idea of the key unemployment-rate. All economists, at least in France, watch that number diligently, even if it is reported only monthly.

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...

I will repeat my principle argument; it is not the static-number (of unemployment) that is important but the dynamic-of-the-number. Is the economy creating jobs or not, or is it destroying jobs. The answer to this question is an indication to take various actions, one of them being "nothing whatsoever".

And historically, the E/P ratio has an upper boundary that is a goal-orientated. It is the best number towards understanding what percentage of Americans “can or will work” given that perhaps substantial percentage have no need whatsoever to do so (because retired).

In America, the PotUS takes the heat for job-destruction and that person has little room for manoeuvre to rectify it. Stimulus-Spending bills issue from the HofR, and are approved by the Senate - unless formally proposed in the Annual Budget, which is only annual. Without governmental stimulus-spending there is little incitation for consumers (fearing higher unemployment) to expand consumption, which is the only way to stop a recession.

Which is how Obama was able to obtain from a Dem Congress (both houses) the ARRA stimulus-spending bill of around $850B (that was worth almost a trillion finally). Which was sufficient to spike an exploding unemployment rate at 10% and commence the downward trend - that the Replicants slowed to a crawl in order to maintain high-rates for the 2014 presidential elections.

(They are right basterds those Replicants - for them politics has one meaning. The only play hard-ball …)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Lafayette said:
Very funny. All that bandwidth wasted to say nothing?

You've got the wrong moniker ...
Click to expand...

It wasn't meant to be funny , I thought you would figure that out . Oh well ! :lamo
 
Lafayette said:
Why "somebody" at home?

Here in France we have public "creches" - no, not the Nativity Scene, but a nursery where babies and young children are cared for during the working day. Largely paid-for by city administrations, which frees young-mothers to work should they decide to do so.

In Sweden, both the husband or wife can take leave, paid by his/her company, to look after the child. The "maternity leave" for the wife is up to 68 weeks at 80% of salary, and "paternity leave" at 2 weeks and 80% of salary.

Backward country, Sweden ...

Then throughout the child's infancy, up to schooling age, there are "day nurseries" paid for by the state in most countries and most large cities. In fact, in the small village where I live, lost in the French countryside, the school (now 80 years old) still is run by the French government.

If a people wanted it, and they did not mind paying for it, a system of "cradle-to-Doctorate-Degree" could be established. It is not "mission impossible" in the US, just "mission improbable" - and another reason why taxes are higher in the EU.

All government taxation is a matter of choice. We don't want something in the US, so we don't have it. ("We", plural, as a nation of individuals - a collectivity.)

Go figure. We think a child should "wake-up" at the age of sixteen and know that they need to climb as high on the educational ladder as their intelligence will take them to have as good a life as possible?

Nope, it doesn't work like that - the path must be established and they need to be shown the way ...
Click to expand...

Why should there be somebody at home? Because we should be able to afford it. And all else being equal, I believe that it's better for kids. But that's not my point.

Ask yourself why we should need child care at all. Workers are more productive than ever, yet we have gone from one person working 40 hours/week being able to support a family to two people working 80+ hours/week being able to support a family. As workers become more productive, the work requirement should be going down, not up.

Child care is great in some situations - single parents that have to work, for instance. I'm not arguing against child care, I'm arguing against the conditions that are requiring workers to produce more while earning less, all for the increased benefit of ownership.
 
THE PASSAGE OF AGES

JohnfrmClevelan said:
I'm not arguing against child care, I'm arguing against the conditions that are requiring workers to produce more while earning less, all for the increased benefit of ownership.
Click to expand...

What is happening, as I must repeat apparently, is an historic Passage of Ages. We are leaving the Industrial Age, which took people off the farms and gave them a job In a production line with a salary and and a Union to protect their interests.

Bottom-of-the-line production jobs started high-tailing for the Far East in the early 1990s. Which probably scandalizes you - just like the British were scandalized when cheap southern-US cotton went to mills in New England thus taking the business away from English mills. Those old mills are the history of many towns in midland England.

The Industrial Age is coming to an end, and we are in the midst of a transfer to the Information Age, with all the upsetting characteristics that Age Changes have always had upon mankind - and without which we would still be living in caves ...

Those workers today "earning less" are caught in a "time-trap" and the only way out for them is to adopt other skills of which the qualification allow them better jobs. I see no other way out. Either they become taxi-drivers (or some other such low-skill but back-breaking service job) or they get schooling in some other profession.

Better yet, prepare our children for the same career choice - either they get Post-secondary Schooling or their life-time incomes are going to be constantly insufficient for a middle-class existence. (Yes, some construction jobs will be less impacted - but anyone familiar with new construction technologies should not be blind to the major changes coming to that sector as well.)

That enabling schooling, otoh, should be free, gratis and for nothing. It is the sort of assistance that a national government should be proud of offering those who have suffered (or will suffer) solely at the hands of fate.

A MODERN HYPOCRISY

What hypocrisy today ... we ask kids to put their ass-on-the-line in a land-war and IF they survive the government promises fully-paid scholarship for any post-secondary schooling of their choice. (The last time that happened was when the Roman Legions, having conquered more land, were disbanded and the soldiers given the farmland to produce needed foods for the Roman Empire! Which is why Rome itself was the richest town in the world of its time.)

MY POINT?

Look to history and you will see that it simply repeats itself - only differently ... !
 
DA60 said:
Jeez..it's simple.

If you do not have a job, want to work and are available to work...you are unemployed...period.


But that criteria would make the unemployment rate seem too high...so the BLS conveniently muddies the water and changes the parameters to make the official unemployment rate sound much lower so the government in power seems much better at running things.

And if the public starts getting used to 5% unemployment, then the BLS will magically change the parameters again to artificially lower the rate.

Duh.
Click to expand...
If you truly want to work you would either be working or be looking for work.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
imagep said:
If you truly want to work you would either be working or be looking for work.
Click to expand...

Who "truly" wants to work? Americans, it seems. We are gluttons for work, work, work.

Americans are a people who find work also a "social outlet". Most Europeans simply do it in order to spend their time elsewhere doing something more interesting.

In fact, a study once showed that, amongst developed countries, the US is the only one where workers give significant vacation-time back to their employers.

Lemme see now, how does that expression go? "Get a life!" ... ?

Fortune Mag tried to answer the question, "Why Americans just won't take time off". Excerpt:
I didn’t realize how extreme it was until I saw the research,” said Cheryl Rosner ... “It’s an epidemic of overwork. Forty-one percent of Americans don’t take their paid time off. On those days, you’re paying your employer to be at work.”
Click to expand...

Surely there are ways to spend time-off that broadens one's horizons and/or lessens the stress-buildup.

You wanna work your ass off to build somebody else's Net Worth? Be my guest, jerko ...

PS: And how about throwing in a broken marriage, whilst you're at it!
 
Last edited:
Sure, that's what I am saying. Americans who really want to work, will work, will work darned hard, and will work long hours.

Thats why I don't include "discouraged workers" as being unemployed. They don't REALLY want to work, if they did they would either be working or seeking work. Their desire to work is exceeded by their degree of discouragement, thus they don't have a strong enough desire to raise them to the level of "unemployed". They are retired, or on sabbatical, or homemakers or caregivers.
 
Quote Originally Posted by SocialD View Post

No that's not what I'm saying... you are missing my point.

The point of reporting the unemployment figure is obviously to give us one measure of how the jobs part of the economy is.
The primary unemployment figure should be just what I said.
And you said it should include people who are not working, but exclude those who did not want a job.

So, essentially, the question becomes why should it include people who aren't looking for a job? How is that a better reflection of the labor market for the month, to include in the unemployed category people who are not looking for a job? That doesn't really make much sense. Besides that, we already have statistics to represent those who are not employed and not looking for a job, so why should the U-3 number reflect that also?

How does it make sense to change the U-3, when we already have statistics to represent what you want counted?

The U-3 number is misleading is why. and the general public doesn't know that there is a u-1 thru u-6 they only know that one number. The baseline of what is told to the people should be more honest and real is what I'm saying.
Previous to the change in the mid 90s the reported unemployment rate did include more. So I didn't say 'change' the u-3' I am saying the number that is reported.. you know the primary reported rate, the one that is on the news etc etc.. should be the rate that includes the more real data.. the u-5 would work. you could leave the u-classifications just as they are, just report the u-5 rate instead of the u-3 rate.
 
DA60 said:
Then you need to study a wider range of economists. Try Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber, the 'gang' over at zerohedge (I assume) and Ron Paul (not really an economist) and other like minded individuals.
Click to expand...
Besides Peter Schiff not being an economist, I can't find any proposed defintion by any of them. They usually are citing John (not an economist) Williams' demonstrably made up number or variations of the LFPR.

Please remember, most economists (including those at the Fed) COMPLETELY missed both the dot.com crash and the housing bust (even though both should have been ridiculously obvious).
Click to expand...
And how many times have Schiff and Rogers incorrectly predicted a recession? Jim Rogers has predicted recessions for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and now he's guaranteeing it in 2016 or 2017. This is better? Schiff and Faber do the same thing. They all just continuously predict doom and they'll eventually be right.
Schiff claims he predicted the mortgage crash, but he had been predicting a recession for years before it actually happened..of course he was eventually going to be right.


And I think it is better because it includes people in the work force (and thus in the unemployment rate) that are not presently included that I think should be.
Click to expand...
What defintion of "the work force" are you using? And in any case, that's still not an explanation of why or how you think it's better. Why should those people be included? What information do they add?


We have been over this and over this. You seem to think that the BLS is beyond reproach and is incapable of corruption (I think you even said something like the last part). Whereas I think ALL branches of government (especially federal) are not only capable of corruption but I assume they are corrupt until I see factual PROOF to the contrary.
Click to expand...
I've shown proof. Gallup's measure of unemployment using similar definition to BLS is not significantly different from BLS. MIT's measure of inflation is not significantly different from BLS.

But beyond that...you're making a specific claim that the defintion (or parametets or whatever word you want to nit-pick over) is deliberately changed when BLS does not like the answer. You have not supported this. It's one thing to assume "corruption" in a general sense, but it's another to claim specific wrong-doing without any evidence whatsoever.

But you want evidence from me that BLS is not deliberately manipulating the data. Ok. What evidence would you accept?
 
pinqy said:
Besides Peter Schiff not being an economist, I can't find any proposed defintion by any of them. They usually are citing John (not an economist) Williams' demonstrably made up number or variations of the LFPR.
Click to expand...

If those knuckleheads on CNBC that claimed 'all is well' before the crash are economists. Then - like him or hate him - Peter Schiff is one as well...by definition.

Peter Schiff was Right (2006-2007 Edition) - YouTube

Schiff misses it a lot. But he gets it right sometimes as well. He has a huge ego but he is an economist.


Do most economists agree with my definition? Nope.

Considering I have virtually no respect for most economists, I consider that a good thing.

You have to ignore what economists say and think for yourself. I respect Rogers and Faber et al...but I don't take what they say as gospel. If they cannot back up their claims with hard data - I dismiss it.

That is why I got killed during the dot.com crash (I listened to them) and made out relatively fabulously in the housing crash (because I did not listen to them).

Most economists are macroeconomic ignoramuses.

And how many times have Schiff and Rogers incorrectly predicted a recession? Jim Rogers has predicted recessions for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and now he's guaranteeing it in 2016 or 2017. This is better? Schiff and Faber do the same thing. They all just continuously predict doom and they'll eventually be right.
Schiff claims he predicted the mortgage crash, but he had been predicting a recession for years before it actually happened..of course he was eventually going to be right.


What defintion of "the work force" are you using? And in any case, that's still not an explanation of why or how you think it's better. Why should those people be included? What information do they add?



I've shown proof. Gallup's measure of unemployment using similar definition to BLS is not significantly different from BLS. MIT's measure of inflation is not significantly different from BLS.

But beyond that...you're making a specific claim that the defintion (or parametets or whatever word you want to nit-pick over) is deliberately changed when BLS does not like the answer. You have not supported this. It's one thing to assume "corruption" in a general sense, but it's another to claim specific wrong-doing without any evidence whatsoever.

But you want evidence from me that BLS is not deliberately manipulating the data. Ok. What evidence would you accept?
Click to expand...

I am not wasting my time with you on this.

Your mind seems COMPLETELY closed on this unemployment definition stuff...has been for years.

And your obsession with the BLS's 'goodness' is beyond tiring.

And I do not waste my time (generally) debating with closed minded people...the effort is pointless.


I have made my point and if they are not good enough for you..too bad.

Open your mind on this subject or please stop wasting my time with your inane BLS loyalty.

You seem a decent chap but these BLS rose colored glasses of yours are blinding you, IMO.

But since you claimed to work their, I guess that makes sense.


We are done here, for now.


I sincerely wish you a good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
If those knuckleheads on CNBC that claimed 'all is well' before the crash are economists. Then - like him or hate him - Peter Schiff is one as well...by definition.

Peter Schiff was Right (2006-2007 Edition) - YouTube

Schiff misses it a lot. But he gets it right sometimes as well. He has a huge ego but he is an economist.


Do most economists agree with my definition? Nope.

Considering I have virtually no respect for most economists, I consider that a good thing.

You have to ignore what economists say and think for yourself. I respect Rogers and Faber et al...but I don't take what they say as gospel. If they cannot back up their claims with hard data - I dismiss it.

That is why I got killed during the dot.com crash (I listened to them) and made out relatively fabulously in the housing crash (because I did not listen to them).

Most economists are macroeconomic ignoramuses.



I am not wasting my time with you on this.

Your mind seems COMPLETELY closed on this unemployment definition stuff...has been for years.

And your obsession with the BLS's 'goodness' is beyond tiring.

And I do not waste my time (generally) debating with closed minded people...the effort is pointless.


I have made my point and if they are not good enough for you..too bad.

Open your mind on this subject or please stop wasting my time with your inane BLS loyalty.

You seem a decent chap but these BLS rose colored glasses of yours are blinding you, IMO.

But since you claimed to work their, I guess that makes sense.


We are done here, for now.


I sincerely wish you a good day.
Click to expand...

I am willing to consider any evidence of wrongdoing you can present. I have presented evidence that there is no wrongdoing and I'm asking what kind of evidence would convince you. And yet you say I'm close minded.

You just believe that wrongdoing has occurred despite no evidence (you have never claimed there is any) and in the face of contrary evidence, which you refuse to address. Do you think you are open minded?

I'm baffled. You can't claim I'm closed minded because I won't just accept an unsubstantiated claim.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Is There A Problem With The BLS Employment Reports?
Click to expand...

I find it odd the author failed to mention that we have the hard numbers to see how accurate the birth/death model is. BLS conducts the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which is a census of businesses that pay unemployment insurance taxes. It takes a long time to process all that data, but the Current Employment Survey is benchmarked to the QCEW every year. So we can actually see the forecast birth death and the actual.

Before the recession, the birth death model was calculated annually as it was seen as relatively stable. The CES captures business deaths, but not births, but they tended to even out. But then came the recession and the birth/death model failed spectacularly:
2008 benchmark.jpg
2009 benchmark.jpg


So BLS changed the methodology to update the model every quarter, and the accuracy improved.

2010 benchmark.jpg
2011 benchmark.jpg


2015 benchmark.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom