Unemployment rate falls to 5% (CNN Ticker)

CNNMoney ^ | May 2, 2008 | Staff

[abb]

Employers trimmed a less-than-expected 20,000 jobs in April, marking the 4th straight month of losses; unemployment falls to 5%.

[VRWCmember]

If the unemployment rate went from 5.1% to 5% then employers must have ADDED jobs.

Either that or the workforce shrunk as people left the work force (for whatever reason).

[nascarnation]

It was the poor and minorities that starved to death and went off the unemployment rolls
/sarc

[VRWCmember]

“No, the unemployment rate calculation is subject to external massage as folks drop off the roles.”

Actually the way the UE rate is calculated has nothing to do with collection of benefits.

Correct. It is calculated as the percentage of "unemployed persons" (those over the age of 16 who are not employed and who are actively pursuing work) divided by the "work force" (all those over the age of 16 who are working or actively pursuing work.

[jwalsh07]

You are incorrect. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. See above.

[VRWCmember]

You are incorrect. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. See above.

Really? Not sure what you wanted me to see above, but here is some information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website "How the Government Measures Unemployment" page:

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

• People with jobs are employed.
  
• People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
  
• People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
  

The survey is designed so that each person age 16 and over who is not in an institution such as a prison or mental hospital or on active duty in the Armed Forces is counted and classified in only one group. The sum of the employed and the unemployed constitutes the civilian labor force. (emphasis added) Persons not in the labor force combined with those in the civilian labor force constitute the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years of age and over. Under these concepts, most people are quite easily classified.

I guess technically you could say I'm incorrect since my post qualified the survey as "people over 16" rather than "people 16 and over". Other than that, what did you see "above" that indicated I was incorrect.

[jwalsh07]

See post 66 and my correction of my INCORRECT 66 in 68.

The UE rate is based on a sample space of 60,000 families. Thta was the incorrect implication.

But in the scheme of things it's NBFD.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, the F in NBFD was a typo. It was meant to be NBD as in No Big Deal.

[VRWCmember]

The unemployment rate is the sum of those unemployed and looking for work divided by the sample size.

Not quite. The unemployment rate is the number of those unemployed, divided by the labor force -- which is the sum of those employed and those not employed but looking for work. Those who are neither employed nor looking for work are part of the sample size but excluded from the calculation because they are not part of the labor force.

[jwalsh07]

Take a breath. Read what I wrote in the last post. See # 68. Oyvey.

[VRWCmember]

OK, so other than my neglecting to mention the fact that the numerator and denominator are estimates of the total numbers of unemployed persons and the workforce based on a sample of 60,000 households, where was my description of the calculation of the unemployment rate different from your “corrected” version?

[jwalsh07]

Fagetaboutit. It was perfect! :-}