Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/news/economy/jobs_july/index.htm?postversion=2009080708" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/0...09080708</a> All week long every single report I read said that the jobless rate would rise above 10%, further crippling any perceived recovery. Instead, it fell from 9.5% to 9.4% - a small figure, but a good sign. Here's hoping it keeps up and isn't just an anomaly for July.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy From an AP article: << Moreover, in July the workforce fell by 422,000, far more than the 155,000 decline in June, suggesting jobless workers may have given up looking for new work. >> That might factor into the change in the jobless rate. We simply stopped counting some people as out of work because the government says they aren't looking for work anymore.
Originally Posted By mawnck The key sentences: >>The unemployment rate fell even as employers continued to cut jobs because the Labor Department estimated there were 237,000 fewer people it counted as unemployed. That decline in the labor force can be due to discouraged job seekers who have stopped looking for work, people who now consider themselves retired or those have gone back to school rather than applying for jobs. "You can't lose jobs and have the unemployment rate decline unless folks are opting out," said Tig Gilliam, CEO of Adecco Group North America, a unit of the world's largest employment staffing firm. "That means unemployment is going to go back up again."<< And stay tuned for all the state and local government budget cuts to kick in. That's not going to be pretty.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 It's called creative accounting.... All administrations do it, so I am not going to call out President Obama... We as Americans allow this, so it continues to happen. The jobless rate is alot worse than the numbers show....
Originally Posted By HRM re: the jobless rate is a lot worse than the numbers show... This has always been the case, it's always difficult to be totally accurate; I would rather the measuring method remain consistent over time. This way we are comparing the same type of numbers and rate. Also I agree that there is potential for the rate to increase over the next couple of months due to federal and state budget cuts trickling down to more job cuts. I feel this is more of a measuring stick for perception. If the general public perceives the worst is over, maybe consumer confidence will improve and positively affect the economy. We will need consecutive months of good news for thus to take place. The reality of actually losing a job, or job furloughs, is more of an individual occurance. There is still a lot of uncertainty in the job market. We'll just have to wait and see if their is improvement over time. Also, the unknown of large government spending, increased national debt, and potential rampant inflation is looming as an after-effect of what is occuring now. It's just like Space Mountain: lots of twist and turns, all happening in the dark! Hold on for the ride!!
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 This has always been the case, it's always difficult to be totally accurate; I would rather the measuring method remain consistent over time. This way we are comparing the same type of numbers and rate.<< I agree and said as much in my post, this is something all Administrations do....
Originally Posted By hopemax I'm a little confused...Administrations don't usually come up with their own method. The method we used to calculate unemployment was created by BLS in 1994, which would put it in the Clinton years. It's not like Bush put in his own method, and now Obama has his. Although, the administrations may highlight different parts. Clinton and Bush were more about the U-3 number, and now, reporting also includes the U-6 number which is closer to how it was calculated before 1994. So trying to have a little consistency with the previous big recessions...
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I understand that, I am just saying all Administrations fudge the numbers using the same sort of criteria... I was attempting to show I dont blame The President for the fudging to prove I am not attempting to turn this into a political pissing match.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< This has always been the case, it's always difficult to be totally accurate; I would rather the measuring method remain consistent over time. This way we are comparing the same type of numbers and rate. >>> I think most of us are in agreement here. The reason many of us are reacting was that there was an implication earlier in the thread that the reason the jobless numbers are going down was that suddenly stopped counting discouraged workers, but there has been no change in this policy for years. So, even after making the observation that discouraged workers are not counted, it's still valid to make month-to-month comparisons and does not detract from the jobless numbers having gone down. Having said that, another way that the jobless numbers underreport the problem is that they don't reflect underemployed people. That is, people with jobs who have had their hours reduced, or people working the same number of hours but for less pay (such as waitpersons at restaurants where people are ordering less expensive items). The jobless numbers are not a perfect measure, but it's still a very useful set of statistics for measuring what's happening in the economy.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 In one years time my staff has gone from 75 to 20. Week ago entire company took a 10% pay cut. Might be going to 4 day, 8 hour work weeks, not 10. Not buying the stats.
Originally Posted By -em >>Having said that, another way that the jobless numbers underreport the problem is that they don't reflect underemployed people. That is, people with jobs who have had their hours reduced, or people working the same number of hours but for less pay (such as waitpersons at restaurants where people are ordering less expensive items).<< Agreed... and you can put in the people who while "employed" its not in their field and not at their "monetary worth" I think its good its going down but its got a long way to go before its going to help me... -em
Originally Posted By fkurucz Here is a link to the bls stats page: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/news.releas....t12.htm</a> FWIW, "Not seasonally adjusted" rates did not fall. Another interesting indicator is the "payroll data" which is the data reported by employers (as opposed to the gov't phone polls) which is tabulated by payroll processors such as ADP. The payroll data almost always shows a much higher numer of lost jobs than the gov'ts poll numbers. Something that I find interesting in that with over 20 years in the labor force I have never been contacted by the gov'ts pollsters and have never met anyone who has been. Has anyone here ever been contacted by the gov'ts pollsters?
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<So, even after making the observation that discouraged workers are not counted, it's still valid to make month-to-month comparisons and does not detract from the jobless numbers having gone down.>> It might be an "apples to apples" comparison, but its still flawed as an indicator of the job market. If there is a surge in discouraged workers it will show that things have improved, when they clearly have not. <<Having said that, another way that the jobless numbers underreport the problem is that they don't reflect underemployed people. That is, people with jobs who have had their hours reduced, or people working the same number of hours but for less pay (such as waitpersons at restaurants where people are ordering less expensive items).>> Or people whose unemployment bennies have expired and have to take anything, no matter how low the pay nor how few the hours.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>> Has anyone here ever been contacted by the gov'ts pollsters?<<< Here in the UK I have been, but often they contact the company Finance Director, HR Director or Company Secretary for most of these.
