You do know that the people who's unemployment inusrance ran out and are no longer trackable are no longer counted, don't you?
And that millions of people are in this category recently?
And that, theoretically, if unemployment insurance were discontinued we would have "no unemployment"?
States are now reducing the amount of time they are allowing the unemployed to collect this insurance, therefore the unemploynment figures are going to artificially "drop."
This is all a stupid trick. Don't fall for it. Would love to see some organization or someone with the guts to tell the real story as just described. Tricking the public (or trying to) doesn't work, unless you're dumb enough to believe it. Don't be. Just because something is "officially" reported...well, you know better.
The real unemployment rate, including underemployeds, and those no longer counted is near 20%!!!
Do you think that would ever be the "official" number? Not a chance. But that's what it IS.
Who gives a flying phawkk about how the government reports the employment numbers? Everybody knows that the politicians will sugarcoat everything they can to get elected or re-elected.
What's really important is the fact that even while torturing the employment statistics, the government can't get them to state that we've got a meaningful economic recovery, because the government can't get the employment number above the 350,000 per month needed just to get the employment figures where they were prior to the start of the Great Recession, while absorbing the new entrants into the workforce, within a little over two years. Additionally, nobody from the government is addressing a much more damaging statistic, which is linked below.
>>>Well when you are trying to measure economic output, I think it does matter if you fall off the rolls. Are those people who exhausted the benefits counted somewhere? <<<
YEs, they would be. Statisicaly speaking, anyway. We don't do a full census every month, which would be a practical impossibility, but CPS surveys 60,000 HH every month (I believe this is the world's single largest, most comprehensive regularly conducted survey)It measures people's employment status, and is used to determine the total count of those employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force (those who say they don't want work, or who say they didn't look for work). From this, we get the total count of the unemployed, and calculate the UE rate.
I think the Department of Labor stats are bogus...If there were 216k net jobs created, that would imply that there were 1,785,000 people hired last month...I would like to see the data that supports that...What companies and industries hired 1,785,000 people last month....? I would suspect the real reason for the drop, is as you correctly pointed out. Long term unemployed or underemployed are falling off the rolls. Also notice how there is no real big headlines about average hourly wages, which were flat and have no fallen behind inflation.
BTW, anyone of any opinions about the upcoming weeks price movement, I loaded up on Jun 130 and 129 puts on Friday when the VIX was below 17...just curious what the board thinks.
>>I think the Department of Labor stats are bogus...If there were 216k net jobs created, that would imply that there were 1,785,000 people hired last month.<<<
>>>Long term unemployed or underemployed are falling off the rolls. <<
How, pray tell, do you think this happens?
Also, tell me about this:
"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."
"Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving
unemployment insurance benefits?
No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households.
All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work
are included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if
they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to
unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey."
You seem knowledgable about the unemployment stats...I have a question, can you explain to me how the government calculates and arrives at 214k new jobs created in March. For me, the 4 week average for new unemployment claims was 392k give or take, so that means that there were 1,568k people that lost their jobs in March. In order to get 214k net new jobs, wouldn't that mean that 1,782 new jobs were created? That number just seems really unbelievable to me. I am just wondering were all these jobs are?
Easy one imo. "The government says"... Do you believe everything you're being fed? I suppose we weren't in another "war," either in Libya.
It's a bunch of bs. Don't be naive. The economy sucks. We're in a depression, not a recession. It's only "recovering" for the wealthy. We are in 3 wars (yes, still "involved' in Libya). The housing market has crashed and not recovering anytime soon because who's going to buy a house when you need to be mobile for any job in this economy (look at the booming rental market!)?
Lots of "glass half full" nonsense being spewed. If the reality was bared then you'd see panic, chaos, calls for resignations. Do you think the government and media would allow that?
And unemployment is about 20%, with over 20 million Americans unemployed or underemployed.