Posted on 07/02/2010 5:35:12 AM PDT by C19fan
/src on/Look at the bright side. Zero wanted to make the US more like Europe and now we are headed to European like labor force participation rates./src off/
God bless you and good luck! Never give up.
The number of people employed part-time due to economic reasons (e.g. hourly cutbacks / couldn’t find fulltime work) increased by 350,000 last month.
Remove households with unlisted numbers, and known retires people, and the odds are probably better that I should’ve gotten a call by now in the last 20-23 years. Regardless, they could be getting a better understanding of the numbers if they used a more realistic and proper sampling method. Phone polling has been shown severally to be at best inconsistent statistically (I’ve taken dozens of stats classes and that gets brought up almost every time sampling plans are discussed).
Clintons’s administration in addition to what you said of removing those who have “quit looking” from the unemployment number . . . Clinton’s administration also stopped using the Consumer Price Index as the inflation measure so they could save money on automatic increases on entitlements (and so the administration would look better).
So if I get laid off and subsequently get my phone cut off since I can no longer pay the bill, I will never be included in a BLS survey?
So they do these phone surveys - doesn’t that strike you as a little inaccurate maybe? Sigh....
____________________________________________________________
60,000 is a HUGE sample. Polls are usally 1,000 I think. Should be pretty accurate.
So they do these phone surveys - doesn’t that strike you as a little inaccurate maybe? Sigh....
____________________________________________________________
60,000 is a HUGE sample. Polls are usally 1,000 I think. Should be pretty accurate.
Not too fishy for you as an individual. But what about for all of us. My math:
There are 114,000,000 households in the USA.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_households_are_in_the_US
60,000 are polled so
114,000,000 / 60,000 = 1900
You have a one in 1,900 chance of being polled in any month.
12 monthly polls a year.
1900 / 12 = 158
You have a 1 in 158 chance of being polled in any given year.
Median Age = 36 years old
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
So the average person here at FR will have had say 16 years of being an adult in the household that might get polled.
158/16 = ~10
SO, the average person here should have a 1 in 10 chance of having already been polled for the governments employment figures.
I haven’t been. Have YOU?
No, I’m suggesting actually looking at removing the retired population from the polling data and the polled population, as well as the infirm, and underage (those not legally allowed to work because of age reasons), and quite possibly not looking at employer stated employment - especially that of illegals so the population isn’t so skewed. Of all the US households, how many are actually legal non retired workers? Looking at the UI roles is one good place to start, but you also have to look at many other items to get a clear picture. A simple telephone poll of 60K people monthly is hardly a robust method IMO.
Perhaps a lot of people that have been out of work for an extended time may not have standard telephone service, which makes it unlikely they will be polled. Unfortunately that also makes it more unlikely they will find work!
‘Business did not like the US president, and the president did not like business,” he (Jeffery Immelt) said,
Who is counted as unemployed? Only those drawing unemployment or by polling households? I have seen reference to both methods but don’t know what the government uses in official figures.
See post 70.
I’m pretty sure that the quote is from that book.
I’m shocked, shocked, I say, that they are padding the stats in DC!
Thank you! Not sure how I missed that post.
No - a large number of people are considered to no longer be in the workforce, the “labor force participation rate” - which went down by 0.3%.
Put another way, the BLS says that the size of the whole labor force decreased by 650K+ people.
Smaller workforce, unemployment rate goes down.
The labor force size has remained nearly flat for the last three years. Had the participation rate not declined so much in the ‘07 to ‘09 years, we’d be printing a U-3 unemployment rate of over 11.5%.
As with all these reports, I keep thumping on the barrel, telling Freepers to read the guts of these reports. They’re free, they’re easily accessible, and they’re not hugely difficult to interpret. They are, however, as exciting as watching paint dry. I don’t dispute that when you read enough of these wretched things, you want to puke up your socks before you read another one. But the good news is this: they don’t change in format or style. Once you learn how to read the BLS and BEA reports, and you’ve read, oh, three of them in a row, you know where to look in the reams of data for the deltas you’re seeking. I don’t read through every damn line in these wretched things any more - I can flip through, looking for the nuggets I want to find, because the interesting things are in the same place (relatively speaking) in every report.
Look at “Household Data, Summary Table A.” Read down through it, and you’ll see how the figures estimating a) the size of the workforce and b) the numbers of people no longer in the workforce spell out a different story than the headline number.
This is all what to examine before we start worrying about seasonal adjustments, the stupid “birth/death” model, etc.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.