Are the unemployment numbers being manipulated?

[Madison320]

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I found this to be suspicious. Shadowstats is a private website that tracks government statistics to check for accuracy. In the chart below notice how the shadowstat and government unemployment rates diverge over the last few years:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

The fact that the government understates inflation and unemployment is nothing new but you can normally see the trend even when they are understating it. For example if true unemployment is rising sharply you can still see it in the official government numbers. It may go from 4% to 8% instead of 10% to 20% but the proportion is still the same so you can still get a good idea of what is happening. But in this case the shadowstat unemployment numbers are rising and the government numbers are falling. Kinda makes you go hmmm. Doesn't it?

[cheapseats]

Yes.

[thoughtomator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA

As a historical note, the method of calculation for unemployment has been repeatedly revised. If we were still calculating unemployment with the same formula used to calculate unemployment in the 1930s, we'd have an official unemployment rate north of 20% right now.

Inflation rate (CPI) is also a big one for manipulation, but in general I don't trust ANY number coming out of the gov't unless confirmed by objective third parties.

[Cabal]

Pretty much all numbers put out by the federal government are either manipulated and/or 'tiered' to be sugarcoated. This is done with CPI, this is done with the money supply, this is done with unemployment/underemployment, and so on. This is also nothing new--it's well documented; unfortunately most people don't pay attention to or know how to compare line graphs.

[moderate libertarian]

Probably.

In the light of shocking recent reports, I'm seriously considering becoming a truther about gov claims relating to domestic as well as foreign policy events. Everything Obama's masters dish out needs to be re-examined.

[kylejack]

I approve of the way the government is calculating unemployment (the official U3 figure). Looking for a job isn't hard at all. If someone hasn't even checked Monster, classifieds, or looked for Help Wanted signs in over 4 weeks I certainly don't think they want a job that bad.

Core inflation is definitely a crock, though.

[DamianTV]

Another fact to consider is that the "Official" Unemployment Rate was not introduced until the 1940's, which means the Real Unemployment Rate during the Great Depression was just as cooked as this one is.

[onlyrp]

They dont need to manipulate numbers, are they consistently using the same measurement, thats the real question.

[onlyrp]

I approve of the way the government is calculating unemployment (the official U3 figure). Looking for a job isn't hard at all. If someone hasn't even checked Monster, classifieds, or looked for Help Wanted signs in over 4 weeks I certainly don't think they want a job that bad.

Core inflation is definitely a crock, though.

isnt the best way to calculate unemployment, by counting the employed?

Might be slower, but much more accurate

[Liberty74]

You manipulate numbers by controlling the equation used to derive those numbers. With inflation, the government excludes energy and food prices making the inflation rate look lower than otherwise. With unemployment, the government excludes those people unemployed who have fallen off the unemployment benefits or who have stopped looking for work making the unemployment rate look lower than otherwise.

[Feelgood]

Yes they are manipulated. No President has ever been re-elected with unemployment numbers that are above 8%, that seems to be the threshold. I think the only exception has been Hoover? So with that, they will keep slowly lowering the numbers artificially, till they are below the 8% threshold, in hopes of getting the dictator re-elected. I think after November, youll see the numbers shoot back up to a more realistic level. ESPECIALLY if a Republican gets into office.

[Zippyjuan]

If you would like to learn how unemployment figures are calculated- check this out: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Shadowstats incudes people who have given up looking for work. If you are not looking for work I don't think you should be counted as unemployed which is supposed to be a measure of those looking for work and not finding it.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts


The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

[Madison320]

Now this is a weird coincidence. I just heard on the Neal Boortz show that since last year the federal government started replacing state supplied unemployment numbers with their own. That's smells really fishy to me. That's about when the fed's numbers started diverging with shadowstats.

I think some of you are missing my point. I've seen a few of those shadowstat reports and although the shadowstat numbers are higher, they always track parallel to the government statistics. I've never seen the stats diverge like they are here.

It seems like it would be a big risk for Obama to take. If they got caught by the republicans fudging the numbers they would almost certainly lose the election. But since the unemployment rate is so important, they have the motive.

[kylejack]

isnt the best way to calculate unemployment, by counting the employed?

Might be slower, but much more accurate
Not really, because it's meant more to show people who don't have a job minus the people who don't have one and don't want one. A housewife who has never worked and doesn't want a job may be unemployed, but it's by choice.

[kylejack]

You manipulate numbers by controlling the equation used to derive those numbers. With inflation, the government excludes energy and food prices making the inflation rate look lower than otherwise. With unemployment, the government excludes those people unemployed who have fallen off the unemployment benefits or who have stopped looking for work making the unemployment rate look lower than otherwise.
No, only the people who stop looking (for greater than 4 weeks) are removed. Benefits have nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

[kylejack]

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

Ha. So their shadow rate includes part-time workers. Unbelievable. I like their work on inflation, but this unemployment work is terrible.

[SL89]

I know I don't count in their number. I am not on the dole and haven't pulled a check in 6 months. How many thousands are like me that are not counted?

[kylejack]

Now this is a weird coincidence. I just heard on the Neal Boortz show that since last year the federal government started replacing state supplied unemployment numbers with their own. That's smells really fishy to me. That's about when the fed's numbers started diverging with shadowstats.
Not true. The unemployment numbers have come from a survey conducted by BLS for a long time.

[kylejack]

I know I don't count in their number. I am not on the dole and haven't pulled a check in 6 months. How many thousands are like me that are not counted?
Have you looked for work in the past 4 weeks? If so, you count in their number. Benefits are irrelevant to the unemployment rate.

[Liberty74]

No, only the people who stop looking (for greater than 4 weeks) are removed. Benefits have nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

Then how does the government know if you are or aren't looking? It seems logical that the unemployment benefits is the only way to track that.

[row333au]

deleted double posted

[row333au]

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/21/21059/Drunken_Ben-R_jpg_635x345_crop-smart_upscale_q85.jpg

Bernanke, who sources confirmed was "totally sloshed," arrived at the drinking establishment at approximately 5:30 p.m., ensconced himself upon a bar stool, and consumed several bottles of Miller High Life and a half-dozen shots of whiskey while loudly proclaiming to any patron who would listen that the economic outlook was "pretty goddamned awful if you want the God's honest truth."


Bernanke:"And hell, as long as we're being honest, I might as well tell you that a truer estimate of the U.S. unemployment rate is actually up around 16 percent, with a 0.7 percent annual rate of economic growth if we're lucky—if we're lucky," continued Bernanke, nearly knocking a full beer over while gesturing with his hands. "Of course, if everybody knew that, it would likely cripple financial markets across the entire fucking globe, even in various emerging economies with self- sustaining growth."


http://www.theonion.com/articles/drunken-ben-bernanke-tells-everyone-at-neighborhoo,21059/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmrG7eLs-dQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp1nhKEBb9A

[kylejack]

Then how does the government know if you are or aren't looking? It seems logical that the unemployment benefits is the only way to track that.
They conduct a survey and estimate the unemployed that way.

They can't do it with the benefits because of all the different rules in different states for collecting. In Texas, for example, you can't collect if you quit or were fired with cause. There are also some people who are either ignorant of their right to collect or who have an ideological objection to collecting government benefits.

[satchelmcqueen]

i wasnt counted as i wasnt allowed to draw. yes they manipulate everything.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Rhetorical questions?

[kylejack]

i wasnt counted as i wasnt allowed to draw.
Unemployment benefits aren't tied to the unemployment rate.

[Zippyjuan]

To be counted as unemployed you must be:
1) without a job currently (not worked a single hour for pay in the last week)
and
2) actively looking for work

As a condition for unemployment benfits, in most (if not all) states, you must be still actively looking for work. That requirement may encourage some people to lie about if they are actually looking for work so that they can continue to receive their benefits. Now if those benefits run out, the incentive to lie about looking for work is removed so a person losing their benefits may finally admit they are not looking for work and that will cause the work force to decline and the unemployment rate to go down, but it was not the act of losing the benefits which changed those figures but it was the person saying they are no longer actively seeking employment. The survey does not care if you are getting any benefits or not- only that you are seeking employment. If you have a job and are looking for a better one, you are not counted as unemployed either.

There is another thread on this topic in the Economics forum: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?359664-Government-fudging-of-economic-numbers&p=4170012#post4170012

In the most basic terms:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

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.



Some of the questions asked on the survey to try to determine if a person is in the workforce and is employed or unemployed:

1.Does anyone in this household have a business or a farm?
2.LAST WEEK, did you do ANY work for (either) pay (or profit)?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no," the next question is:
3.LAST WEEK, did you do any unpaid work in the family business or farm?
For those who reply "no" to both questions 2 and 3, the next key questions used to determine employment status are:
4.LAST WEEK, (in addition to the business,) did you have a job, either full or part time? Include any job from which you were temporarily absent.
5.LAST WEEK, were you on layoff from a job?
6.What was the main reason you were absent from work LAST WEEK?
For those who respond "yes" to question 5 about being on layoff, the following questions are asked:
7.Has your employer given you a date to return to work?
and, if "no,"
8.Have you been given any indication that you will be recalled to work within the next 6 months?
If the responses to either question 7 or 8 indicate that the person expects to be recalled from layoff, he or she is counted as unemployed. For those who were reported as having no job or business from which they were absent or on layoff, the next question is:
9.Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
For those who say "yes," the next question is:
10.What are all of the things you have done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
If an active method of looking for work, such as those listed at the beginning of this section, is mentioned, the following question is asked:
11.LAST WEEK, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
If there is no reason, except temporary illness, that the person could not take a job, he or she is considered to be not only looking but also available for work and is counted as unemployed.

[slamhead]

Yes, just like the consumer price index is being manipulated. They changed the CPI formula back before 2008 to hide true inflation. They added a "substitution" factor to the CPI. In other words, if you can no longer afford to buy steak because the price has increased, you can substitute it for chicken which has not increased. Just more government wool.

[Keith and stuff]

Maybe but it is still very easy to compare the states, either way.
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

ND is the best in the US, no matter how you look at it. NH is the best in the East, no matter how you look at it. CA, MI and so on are complete crap, no matter how you look at it.

[HOLLYWOOD]

If you look at the amount of people in the workforce on the day that Obama was sworn as president and the amount today the REAL U3 unemployment level is ~11%. Remember that was 3 years ago.

Of course, if your phone is disconnected, unable to be contacted, you are NOT counted as looking for work. If you are working 2 or 3 part time jobs you are counted as 2-3 workers in the work force. Plus all those that lost there high paying self sufficient professional jobs now working 2 jobs at half the salary of their original high paying job. Government has been in the business of professional manipulating the numbers FOR THEIR FAVOR. One of the few things they are experts @ aka LYING.

Of course, if there aren't any jobs, or have the ability to call, email, or travel for a job interview in another state, you are NOT counted.

Now, the government chooses who they consider who's looking for work and who is NOT. They control the numbers and counts, just like Stalin.

Think the economy is getting better? Why has the payroll taxes dropped then?

Ron Paul puts it best... to show how government manipulates the numbers and propaganda. There are more than 30,000,000 more Americans in the country over the past decade, with NO increase in JOBS.

That also contributes to greater deficits now and decades to come. Poverty rates increased record, Food stamps record levels.

Of course, if you expired all your Unemployment Funds... you are no longer counted either

[Brian4Liberty]

As a historical note, the method of calculation for unemployment has been repeatedly revised. If we were still calculating unemployment with the same formula used to calculate unemployment in the 1930s, we'd have an official unemployment rate north of 20% right now.

Inflation rate (CPI) is also a big one for manipulation, but in general I don't trust ANY number coming out of the gov't unless confirmed by objective third parties.


Pretty much all numbers put out by the federal government are either manipulated and/or 'tiered' to be sugarcoated. This is done with CPI, this is done with the money supply, this is done with unemployment/underemployment, and so on. This is also nothing new--it's well documented; unfortunately most people don't pay attention to or know how to compare line graphs.

That about sums it up. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and government statistics.

[Working Poor]

I know I don't count in their number. I am not on the dole and haven't pulled a check in 6 months. How many thousands are like me that are not counted?

More than 1000's

[Zippyjuan]

If you look at the amount of people in the workforce on the day that Obama was sworn as president and the amount today the REAL U3 unemployment level is ~11%. Remember that was 3 years ago.

Of course, if your phone is disconnected, unable to be contacted, you are NOT counted as looking for work. If you are working 2 or 3 part time jobs you are counted as 3 workers in the work force. Plus all those that lost there high paying self sufficient professional jobs now working 2 jobs at half the salary of their original high paying job. Government has been in the business of professional manipulating the numbers FOR THEIR FAVOR. One of the few things they are experts @ aka LYING.

Of course, if there aren't any jobs, or have the ability to call, email, or travel for a job interview in another state, you are NOT counted.

Now, the government chooses who they consider who's looking for work and who is NOT. They control the numbers and counts, just like Stalin.

Think the economy is getting better? Why has the payroll taxes dropped then?

Ron Paul puts it best... to show how government manipulates the numbers and propaganda. There are more than 30,000,000 more Americans in the country over the past decade, with no increase in JOBS.

That also contributes to greater deficits now and decades to come. Poverty rates increased record, Food stamps record levels.

Of course, if you expired all your Unemployment Funds... you are no longer counted either

Not true. On the employment side (total number of jobs in the economy), yes, you do count as two or three jobs. But you only count as one person in the workforce in the Unemployment calculations- whether you have one part time job or even five. You are correct that the labor force has gone down- when people give up and stop looking for work they are no longer considered part of the labor force and if all those people started to look for work again, the unemployment rate would probably rise.

[Brian4Liberty]

Not true. On the employment side (total number of jobs in the economy), yes, you do count as two or three jobs. But you only count as one person in the workforce in the Unemployment calculations- whether you have one part time job or even five. You are correct that the labor force has gone down- when people give up and stop looking for work they are no longer considered part of the labor force and if all those people started to look for work again, the unemployment rate would probably rise.

It doesn't sound like you disagree. Counting one person as three workers skews statistics. It will effect percentages by over estimating the number of people employed.

[idiom]

The employment number that really matters:

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=2712

America never recovered from the 2001 recession and it hasn't recovered from the 2008 recession. The population just gets used to the new normal of having fewer people working.

[Zippyjuan]

It doesn't sound like you disagree. Counting one person as three workers skews statistics. It will effect percentages by over estimating the number of people employed.
There are two numbers reported- the number of jobs in the economy and the unemployment figure. If you have three jobs, that counts as three jobs existing in the economy. If you have one job or three you count as one person in the work force and as one person working- not three. I don't see how that skews the number of people employed since you only count as one person- no matter how many jobs you have. One person is not counted as three workers.

[kylejack]

If you look at the amount of people in the workforce on the day that Obama was sworn as president and the amount today the REAL U3 unemployment level is ~11%. Remember that was 3 years ago.
No, because U3 starts with the existing labor force, not the labor force from 3 years ago. Some people leave the labor force when times are tough to go back to school, care for the kids, etc.


Of course, if your phone is disconnected, unable to be contacted, you are NOT counted as looking for work.
No, the Current Population Survey arrives by mail. They make efforts to follow up with door-to-door visits, and they make an effort to poll the homeless as well (who many times do have some job).



If you are working 2 or 3 part time jobs you are counted as 2-3 workers in the work force.
Absolutely not. A person is either counted as employed, unemployed, or not a part of the labor force in U3. They only count as one person.


Plus all those that lost there high paying self sufficient professional jobs now working 2 jobs at half the salary of their original high paying job.
This is an important number as well, but it is referred to as underemployment, and is found in a different government statistic, not U3 unemployment (because in fact it is not unemployment).


Of course, if there aren't any jobs, or have the ability to call, email, or travel for a job interview in another state, you are NOT counted.
I've been through some nasty unemployment in the past and faced some hard times, but it never stopped me from checking the classifieds or Monster.com once a week at the worst. Even if I only checked once every 4 weeks I am still counted as unemployed.


Of course, if you expired all your Unemployment Funds... you are no longer counted either
False, benefits are not tied to the U3 unemployment figure.

[DamianTV]

False, benefits are not tied to the U3 unemployment figure.

That IS the figure purported by the MSM Media, not the U6.

[kylejack]

That IS the figure purported by the MSM Media, not the U6.
Correct, and benefits have nothing to do with U3 or U6.

[DamianTV]

I wasnt even talking about benefits. However the number of people out of work and the number of people actually collecting benefits is considerably different. Care to deny that?

[kylejack]

I wasnt even talking about benefits. However the number of people out of work and the number of people actually collecting benefits is considerably different. Care to deny that?
For one example, I have an ideological objection to unemployment benefits and refuse to collect even when I'm unemployed. Also, there are qualifications, like you can't have quit or been fired with cause in some states.

[Brian4Liberty]

There are two numbers reported- the number of jobs in the economy and the unemployment figure. If you have three jobs, that counts as three jobs existing in the economy. If you have one job or three you count as one person in the work force and as one person working- not three. I don't see how that skews the number of people employed since you only count as one person- no matter how many jobs you have. One person is not counted as three workers.

Let's do the math.

Number of jobs = 85
Number of workers = 100

85/100= 85% employment, 15% unemployment.

Yet if some of those people have multiple jobs, a more accurate statistic would calculate that as more workers. Essentially, one person doing the work of two.

Thus, if ten of those workers had two jobs, the more realistic statistic for number of workers would be 110, not 100.

85/110=77% employment, 23% unemployment.

Which is more accurate? The lies of statistics.

[kylejack]

Let's do the math.

Number of jobs = 85
Number of workers = 100

85/100= 85% employment, 15% unemployment.

Yet if some of those people have multiple jobs, a more accurate statistic would calculate that as more workers. Essentially, one person doing the work of two.

Thus, if ten of those workers had two jobs, the more realistic statistic for number of workers would be 110, not 100.

85/110=77% employment, 23% unemployment.

Which is more accurate? The lies of statistics.
The first is more accurate, but still not correct. The unemployment figure is the % of people looking for a job who can't find one, not some statistic that invents people who don't exist. Your latter way allows for unemployment to exist when in fact every single person has a job.

100 workers, redefined as 110 with your numbers, yet everyone has a job, 100/110 = 9% unemployment.

But who are these 9% unemployed? What are their names? They don't exist.

[DamianTV]

So now the dishonest government is all about telling us the Truth? All their statistics are 100% correct? And there were in fact WMD's in Iraq? And Iran? Japan attacked Pearl Harbor completly unprovoked? While we are stacking up the lies, why dont we add to it the Federal Reserve operates an Honest Money System! Wall Street Banksters dont run this country. Obama really was all about 'Change' and Politicians dont lie or abuse the powers of the Office for Personal Gain.

I have a feeling you have a job. Why dont you go out and try looking for one like we the Uncounted Unemployed do? See how hard it is for the measly 8.5% to even get an Interview! Then come back and tell me that the Unemployment Rate is actually only at 8.5%.

There is probably not another single person on the planet that actually believes the statistics that are being thrown around. Dont bother trying to sniff out the bullshit because all your going to smell is the Ashes of the People that have been burned by those lies.

Its a Recession when your Neighbor loses their job.

Its a Depression when You lose Your job.

[oyarde]

To answer the original question , yes , and have been for quite some time . The other number that is manipulated grossly , is inflation , the items that inflate the worst and are most needed are not used in the calculation.

[Brian4Liberty]

The first is more accurate, but still not correct. The unemployment figure is the % of people looking for a job who can't find one, not some statistic that invents people who don't exist. Your latter way allows for unemployment to exist when in fact every single person has a job.


The current method allows for saying that there is 0% unemployment when there is 100% unemployment. They can just put everyone into the category of "not actively" looking for work.

Why are you defending government statistics? Do you work for the government?

[kylejack]

The current method allows for saying that there is 0% unemployment when there is 100% unemployment. They can just put everyone into the category of "not actively" looking for work.
That's true...but if we get to a point where nobody is looking for a job, we must live in utopia. I certainly don't have enough money saved that I can afford to stop looking for work.

Why are you defending government statistics? Do you work for the government?
Because I consider this one a useful metric that is collected correctly.

[Zippyjuan]

Let's do the math.

Number of jobs = 85
Number of workers = 100

85/100= 85% employment, 15% unemployment.

Yet if some of those people have multiple jobs, a more accurate statistic would calculate that as more workers. Essentially, one person doing the work of two.

Thus, if ten of those workers had two jobs, the more realistic statistic for number of workers would be 110, not 100.

85/110=77% employment, 23% unemployment.

Which is more accurate? The lies of statistics.

In this example we don't have enough information to calculate the unemployment rate. We know the number of people in the society (85) but we don't know how many of those are working and we don't know how many of those not working want jobs (if you aren't looking for a job- ie don't really want one- should you count as unemployed?). If 85 is the number with jobs (since they are described as workers) we still don't know how many others there are in total (are you assuming 100 people?) and again, we don't know how many of they are actually looking for work and unable to find it.

But let us asume that you ment that there was 100 people in this society and 85 had jobs and everybody else not working (15 people) wanted jobs and were actually looking for one. In that case, yes, the unemployment rate would be 15%. The total number of jobs is irrelevant to calculating unemployment- though if the number of jobs is rising then the chances of those who want jobs getting one is higher so that is watched as well.

The only thing we can work out is the average number of jobs per worker which would be 100 divided by 85 or 1.2 jobs per worker.

[kylejack]

In this example we don't have enough information to calculate the unemployment rate. We know the number of people in the society (85) but we don't know how many of those are working and we don't know how many of those not working want jobs (if you aren't looking for a job- ie don't really want one- should you count as unemployed?).
He stated 100 workers, so I assumed he was referring to people in the labor force.

[Jingles]

I wish I could find the article. It was on lewrockwell.com about a week or so ago breaking down the false claim of gained employment. They don't count the people out of the workforce who stopped looking for work which up to highest levels in the past 50 or something or other years. A lot of people simply just dropped out of the workforce. Food stamps are up, welfare is up, etc... up to record levels.

Basically it's the fact that they don't count employment in a correct manner.

[ProIndividual]

Have you looked for work in the past 4 weeks? If so, you count in their number. Benefits are irrelevant to the unemployment rate.

And how do they track who "looked" in the last 4 weeks exactly? Oh, they don't. They track who still files with unemployment and hit a little onscreen button where it asks "did you look for work as required in the last claiming period?"

You can't measure when some random dude is looking for work or not. They don't track every business in America and ask them "did anyone come in looking for work this week? What was his name?" Hell, they don't even check up on people who CLAIM to have been looking for work as required. It's on the honor system for the most part (although they randomly audit people to keep up appearences). We can't say for sure those who say they looked in the last 4 weeks even actually did!

So, it's wrong to think unemployment numbers track those who "looked" for work in the last 4 weeks. It tracks those who SAID they looked via unemployment filings. BUT, you don't file unless you're weird once you quit getting benefits. So when your benefits run out, and you still can't find work, you stop filing (as it's a waste of time with no monetary gain for you), and after 4 weeks you are no longer counted as "looking" for work...even though you are in all likelihood looking for a job actively.

Let me also say, this "they're just lazy" argument is not only flawed because of what I've said above, but also because of several other factors. (You may not of implied "anyone can find a job on Monster, etc.", but others are...incorrectly I might add). First, you can't always afford to relocate for a job. You may have other repsonsibilities that make this impossible (elderly parent, house payment, etc.). So live in Cleveland or Detriot and try to find a job to replace the one you lost...you'll find incomes so much lower that you won't be able to make ends meet anyways. I'm all for reducing costs of living on yourself, and standards of living that are more realistic being adopted, but you have to realize that there has to be more marginal utility in a job than in unemployment, welfare, or even the drug trade or what have you, for people to take that vastly lower paying job. Some folks just wait it out on unemployment (a good reason to privatize it and not keep extending it), some will go on welfare if their standard of living will be so greatly reduced that they "give up", and some will "go outlaw". In any case, this doesn't mean they aren't looking for work, or that they're lazy. It means the work they can find is not sufficient to make the time invested in it worth it. They simply find more value marginally in other means of survival.

This is why government dependency is a disease. It breeds more dependency.

So, should we consider people on welfare (or the like) that aren't filing through the unemployment system any longer, but nonetheless looking for MEANINGFUL employment actively, unemployed? YES!!!

Hence, upwards of 20% of the current working age population are unemployed (some estimates say 18%+, some 16%+, but certainly it's double the government totals). We should measure it exactly how they did in the 1930s, as to fairly compare our rates today with the Great Depression. Othwerwise we get the false impression we are doing so much better than they were in the Great Depression...when we aren't. Inflation was very high last year, and unemployment remains very high. The only thing saving us from bread and soup lines is the fact FDR isn't here putting tariffs on imported food, handing out subsidies to export food, burning millions of acres of food to drive up costs of food, and slaughtering millions of farm animals to keep meat prices high. See, FDR caused those conditions, not the economy per se.

So let's not pretend that people are just lazy and don't want to work. The fact is, if you made $30k a year and were just living paycheck to paycheck, it's hardly going to help you to make $15k a year (it's just an example; don't hit me with links to job search sites please). You'd be better off making that much on unemployment without working and using your time that you would of spent working to find a $25K a year job. The incentives are perverse...but you can't expect people to act against their own self interests en masse. Moral or not, it's not going to happen. Human nature, ya know?

BTW, I was self employed until the government outlawed my job (online poker) and effectively seized the bulk of my net worth (the DOJ has control over all of the funds from Full Tilt Poker). I made a good living for years, and will leave the country if and when I get my money back so I can go back to work. But in my case, the government outlawed my job, with no respect for property or trial rights. No unwilling participants were hurt...and the DOJ has already instructed us that we commited NO CRIME. So, each individual situation varies. My level of income cannot be easily replaced, however I do have some savings I'm living off (and have been for 300+ days now). I also still work in casinos occasionally. But I'm underemployed big time, and yet am not counted in any of those stats...I simply don't qualify for unemployment benefits and am not receiving welfare.

This should make it clear: "unemployment" stats the government use are bogus. Those who wish to find a job that better their situation may be on welfare and counted as no longer looking for work. This isn't the same as actually giving up on looking.

The best way to measure unemployment is:

# of jobs in the economy available (measured by 32 hours or more a week, or 32 hours or less a week; the defintion of where full time falls above and below). We'll call this "#J".

# of people working. We'll call this "#W".

# of people of underage to work, physically incapable to work, and have an excuse not to work (and receiving benefits from the state is not an excuse; an excuse would be being a trust fund baby or some such lack of need for employment without sucking off the state). We'll call this "#P".

(#J - #W) - #P = accurate unemployment

(100 jobs - 85 workers) - (5 incapable/ineligible) = 10% accurate unemployment

If you want to start parsing out who is looking or not, that's fine, and someone else showed how to do that....but understand it's really irrelevant. If you're physically, mentally, and age-wise able to work, there is no excuse for not attempting self suffiency. If we had no social programs (or at least programs that forced people off when they had no real excuse for being on the assistance) then these people would reflect on unemployment. The only people then not actively seeking employment would be those voluntarily homeless. There has never been a trend of masses of people choosing to voluntarily homeless...so it's unlikely these more lazy individuals would choose to go that route given other alternatives (but not welfare). For this reason, it's reall important to measure these folks in the unemployment numbers...as the economy requires enough employment slots open for these folks if we're ever going to transition to a better system. We can't stop at just enough jobs fro everyone who wants a job if we ever seek to end welfare (or even greatly reduce it)...that simply won't be enough jobs for everyone in the absence of such perverse incentives.

Otherwise, we could "fix" "unemployment" by simply having more welfare. That would keep folks from looking for jobs for long periods often enough. But that's not our aim in measuring employment stats, and it's not what most of us understand by "unemployment rate".

[Zippyjuan]

They don't contact every person in the country- they conduct a random survey. They contact thousands but not everybody in the USA. And it does not matter if you are collecting unemployment benefits or not. They are not using the unemploment applications to determine the rate.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm

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.

The number of unemployed persons in the United States and the national unemployment rate are produced from data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of over 60,000 households. A person's unemployment status is established by responses to a series of questions on whether they have a job or are on layoff, whether they want a job and are available to work, and what they have done to look for work in the preceding 4 weeks. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed persons as a percent of the labor force (employed and unemployed persons). See "Who is counted as unemployed?" for more information.


More details about how it is calculated: http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques5

[kylejack]

And how do they track who "looked" in the last 4 weeks exactly? Oh, they don't. They track who still files with unemployment and hit a little onscreen button where it asks "did you look for work as required in the last claiming period?"
No, they conduct a survey. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the benefits. They do not consult the benefits database.


You can't measure when some random dude is looking for work or not. They don't track every business in America and ask them "did anyone come in looking for work this week? What was his name?" Hell, they don't even check up on people who CLAIM to have been looking for work as required. It's on the honor system for the most part (although they randomly audit people to keep up appearences). We can't say for sure those who say they looked in the last 4 weeks even actually did!
Well, it's conducted like any other poll. Polling part of a population can give you an estimate of the entire population. You don't have to ask every single person to get an estimate.


So, it's wrong to think unemployment numbers track those who "looked" for work in the last 4 weeks. It tracks those who SAID they looked via unemployment filings. BUT, you don't file unless you're weird once you quit getting benefits. So when your benefits run out, and you still can't find work, you stop filing (as it's a waste of time with no monetary gain for you), and after 4 weeks you are no longer counted as "looking" for work...even though you are in all likelihood looking for a job actively.
If you will go on the BLS website, you can easily find how wrong this is. It is a survey that has nothing to do with benefits conducted by the Census Bureau.

[otherone]

That's true...but if we get to a point where nobody is looking for a job, we must live in utopia. I certainly don't have enough money saved that I can afford to stop looking for work.



google: underground economy

[DamianTV]

No, they conduct a survey. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the benefits. They do not consult the benefits database.

...

Really? For as long as I have been out of work, I have NEVER been surveyed. EVER.

Question for everyone else: if you have EVER been out of work, have you EVER been Surveyed?

For those that have been out of work, if you have been surveyed, please correct me if I am wrong, but I would say that those people have NOT EVER been surveyed. So, where do these magical SURVEYS come from? They dont exist. They dont exist because they are collected elsewhere. Statistics are calculated by people who file for their WEEKLY UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS. THAT is their Survey. Thus, the Statistic only reflects the people that meet the requirements of Filing, which (in this state) is to apply for a minimum of 3 jobs per week, thus satisfying the requirement to be actively looking for work, and fills the Statistics to reflect only people that are collecting benefits to be counted in the Stats.

Filing for Unemployment Benefits IS the Survey, thus, the U3 only reflects people collecting benefits, not people who are all out of work.

[Brian4Liberty]

No, they conduct a survey. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the benefits. They do not consult the benefits database.


The media quite frequently refers to the number of people applying for UI benefits. The media has more than one source for statistics.

[oyarde]

Really? For as long as I have been out of work, I have NEVER been surveyed. EVER.

Question for everyone else: if you have EVER been out of work, have you EVER been Surveyed?

For those that have been out of work, if you have been surveyed, please correct me if I am wrong, but I would say that those people have NOT EVER been surveyed. So, where do these magical SURVEYS come from? They dont exist. They dont exist because they are collected elsewhere. Statistics are calculated by people who file for their WEEKLY UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS. THAT is their Survey. Thus, the Statistic only reflects the people that meet the requirements of Filing, which (in this state) is to apply for a minimum of 3 jobs per week, thus satisfying the requirement to be actively looking for work, and fills the Statistics to reflect only people that are collecting benefits to be counted in the Stats.

Filing for Unemployment Benefits IS the Survey, thus, the U3 only reflects people collecting benefits, not people who are all out of work. No , I will be around 50 years old around 2014 , I have never been surveyed , my current girlfriend will be around 62 in a couple of years , never been surveyed , my Mother , pushing 80 , never been surveyed , my deceased wife , never surveyed , my children , never surveyed , small sample size ? :)

[kylejack]

Really? For as long as I have been out of work, I have NEVER been surveyed. EVER.

Question for everyone else: if you have EVER been out of work, have you EVER been Surveyed?

For those that have been out of work, if you have been surveyed, please correct me if I am wrong, but I would say that those people have NOT EVER been surveyed. So, where do these magical SURVEYS come from? They dont exist. They dont exist because they are collected elsewhere. Statistics are calculated by people who file for their WEEKLY UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS. THAT is their Survey. Thus, the Statistic only reflects the people that meet the requirements of Filing, which (in this state) is to apply for a minimum of 3 jobs per week, thus satisfying the requirement to be actively looking for work, and fills the Statistics to reflect only people that are collecting benefits to be counted in the Stats.

Filing for Unemployment Benefits IS the Survey, thus, the U3 only reflects people collecting benefits, not people who are all out of work.
Okay, now you're getting into conspiracy theories. You don't have to survey an entire population to get the data you need.

[kylejack]

The media quite frequently refers to the number of people applying for UI benefits. The media has more than one source for statistics.
Sure, and there are some problems with other numbers, like the Jobs Created number that POTUS likes to cite.

But U3 comes from the survey, not the unemployment benefits.

[Travlyr]

Never been surveyed.

[kylejack]

60,000 surveys are sent out, and there are over 311 million people in the country, so the likelihood of a specific person being surveyed is small.

[oyarde]

60,000 surveys are sent out, and there are over 311 million people in the country, so the likelihood of a specific person being surveyed is small. Very small.

[kylejack]

Very small.
Quite large. 60,000 surveys in a population of 117,538,000 households yields a margin of error of 0.4%. http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html

[oyarde]

Quite large. 60,000 surveys in a population of 117,538,000 households yields a margin of error of 0.4%. http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html Well , I guess that is better than the margin of error on the Groundhog ( roughly 50 % )

[Zippyjuan]

Since the sample changes every month, that means 720,000 different households contacted in a year.

[kylejack]

Since the sample changes every month, that means 720,000 different households contacted in a year.
Maybe fewer. I don't know that they have measures in place not to duplicate an address. I think it's entirely randomized.

[Zippyjuan]

Probably randomized phone numbers. They can have a computer program set up to randomly select them and eliminate those called previously. In this scenario a houshold with more than one phone number could in theory be contacted more than once but I would think if that is indeed how they do it that overlap would be very small.

[DamianTV]

Maybe fewer. I don't know that they have measures in place not to duplicate an address. I think it's entirely randomized.

Why dont we all take a look at the "Official" source, since you seem to be well versed in the specific operations of Unemployment Statistics. Care to show us all one of the Survey Forms (if paper), Screenshots, (if online), or list of questions specifically asked by an Official Script / Dialogue (if telephone), of course omitting any personal or private data on said forms?

[kylejack]

Probably randomized phone numbers. They can have a computer program set up to randomly select them and eliminate those called previously. In this scenario a houshold with more than one phone number could in theory be contacted more than once but I would think if that is indeed how they do it that overlap would be very small.
They send forms to addresses to avoid duplicate or non-existent phone numbers. They follow up with visits, if necessary.

[kylejack]

Why dont we all take a look at the "Official" source, since you seem to be well versed in the specific operations of Unemployment Statistics. Care to show us all one of the Survey Forms (if paper), Screenshots, (if online), or list of questions specifically asked by an Official Script / Dialogue (if telephone), of course omitting any personal or private data on said forms?
Here's some more information: http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_b.htm

[Zippyjuan]

Some of the questions they ask: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm


The questions used in the interviews are carefully designed to elicit the most accurate picture of each person's labor force activities. Some of the major questions that determine employment status are: (The capitalized words are emphasized when read by the interviewers.)
1.Does anyone in this household have a business or a farm?
2.LAST WEEK, did you do ANY work for (either) pay (or profit)?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no," the next question is:
3.LAST WEEK, did you do any unpaid work in the family business or farm?
For those who reply "no" to both questions 2 and 3, the next key questions used to determine employment status are:
4.LAST WEEK, (in addition to the business,) did you have a job, either full or part time? Include any job from which you were temporarily absent.
5.LAST WEEK, were you on layoff from a job?
6.What was the main reason you were absent from work LAST WEEK?
For those who respond "yes" to question 5 about being on layoff, the following questions are asked:
7.Has your employer given you a date to return to work?
and, if "no,"
8.Have you been given any indication that you will be recalled to work within the next 6 months?
If the responses to either question 7 or 8 indicate that the person expects to be recalled from layoff, he or she is counted as unemployed. For those who were reported as having no job or business from which they were absent or on layoff, the next question is:
9.Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
For those who say "yes," the next question is:
10.What are all of the things you have done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
If an active method of looking for work, such as those listed at the beginning of this section, is mentioned, the following question is asked:
11.LAST WEEK, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
If there is no reason, except temporary illness, that the person could not take a job, he or she is considered to be not only looking but also available for work and is counted as unemployed.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The government will lie until reality asserts itself. Food stamps and Tax receipts will continue to tell the truth; the BLS can say whatever they want.

Liars, and manipulators will out themselves with time. The unemployment numbers do not count those discouraged workers no longer looking for work with the BLS not providing detailed information on ALL the data collection. All you have to look at all the spin doctors and the ambiguous data collection and reformulated propaganda IS:


There are more people UNEMPLOYED TODAY then when Obama was sworn into office

The Joseph Goebbels labor propaganda is stellar... calculating the so-called facts that Government BlS delivers...

80+% of those filing NEW unemployment claims are revised UP in previous months/afterwards.

Then when the final BlS tallies the unemployment number for the previous year it is increases... I think the average now is about 600,000 unemployed/discouraged more than what .GOV stated during that previous year end close.

The facts on how to fudge: This is the largest absolute jump in 'Persons Not In Labor Force' on record...and biggest percentage jump in 30 years.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force.jpg

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/Participation%20Rate.jpg

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/wow-but-is-the-number-real/


February 3, 2012, 10:13 am
By FLOYD NORRIS (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/author/floyd-norris/)
How many jobs did the American economy add in January?


The Labor Department estimated on Friday that the economy gained 243,000 jobs (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/business/economy/us-economy-added-243000-jobs-in-january-unemployment-rate-is-8-3.html).

The department also estimated that the economy lost 2,689,000 jobs in the month.

The difference in the two numbers is in seasonal adjustment. Employment always falls in January, as temporary Christmas jobs end. So the government applies seasonal adjustment factors in an effort to discern the real trend of the economy apart from seasonal fluctuations. The actual survey showed the big loss in jobs. The seasonal adjustments produced the reported gain of 243,000 jobs.
A reason to doubt the number is that there has been a tendency in this cycle for the seasonal factors to overstate moves, in both directions. Labor mobility is down, as fewer workers quit to seek better jobs and employers both hire and fire fewer people than they used to do. If the seasonal adjustment was too large, then the gain should be smaller.

...Additionally the 2010 Census data was incorporated into part of the unemployment survey which gives unemployment rates and demographic data. Previously unemployment rates, participation rates were based on the 2000 Census data, with statistical yearly adjustments. Here's the crux of what changed:
The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000.

Below is a running tally of how many official jobs permanently lost since the official start of this past recession, with the new numbers. Increased population growth, implies the United States needs to create at least 10.27 million jobs or self-employment. This estimate assume a 62.7% civilian non-institutional population to employment ratio, as it was in December 2007, which implies an additional 4.69 million jobs were needed over a 49 month time period beyond the ones already lost.
8.230 million of the 26.87 million part-timers working low hours are doing so because they cannot get full time jobs. We cannot compare the change from last month due to the Census adjustments added to the December data. So, one needs to realize that's a hell of a lot of people stuck in part-time jobs who need full-time work.

The employment to population ratio is now 58.5%, no change from last month and at record lows. You have to go back to the severe recession of 1983, October to find such low ratios. The uber-low ratios are not a structural change, such as all families decided to have a stay at home caretaker, or magically a host of people could retire early, or magically all young people went to school as some want to claim. The low employment to population ratio are people dropping out of the labor count. Once can see this simply by the cliff dive on the ratio during 2008-2010. There is no way magically, suddenly, a huge increase of population volunteered to drop out of the labor force. These ratios are with the 2010 Census population adjustments incorporated.

These numbers are important because unemployment is a ratio, percentage or during a limited time period, the number of people actively looking for a job and counted. Many people are not counted in the official unemployment statistics, yet when looking behind the official numbers it's clear America has more potential workers and less jobs in so called recovery than during one of the worst post WWII recessions.

The January 2012 unemployment report incorporated many statistical adjustments. Additionally you cannot compare in referencing the monthly changes between December and January because all of the adjustments are added to the December 2011 data only, not spread out over the entire year, which makes a monthly comparison statistically invalid. Look for even further "adjustments" (80+% adjustment = "Poorer Data")

Here's a chart comparing initial jobless claims (blue line) and U6 unemployment (Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons) (orange line).

There seems to be a separation between initial jobless claims and unemployment. That is, U6 unemployment shows far less progress on the employment front than initial jobless claims would indicate.

http://confoundedinterest.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/ijcu6.gif

This chart gives us an additional view of why housing is slow to recover. There really ISN’T A jobs recovery the way President Obama and the BLS thinks. By BLS logic, if everyone not working for the government would just quit working completely, they could get that unemployment rate down to 0%. Lot of dead bodies but no unemployment. Just Like North Korea.
From the charts and all the SPIN... U3 U6, Bonds and Baltic Dry are the best indicators of overall health.

(Q) Why did the UE go down?

(A) Because they are not counted anymore and they are manufactured numbers.

They are still UE, just not collecting. Were not "making" more jobs, were shipping more Corporations overseas. Ask Jeff Immelt our Job czar that has an office in the White House. Big red arrow for Mr. Nothing is improving, it's all for a confidence psyop in re-election year. Have any of looked at all the ARRA $800 BILLION Stimulus behemoth closely? I've posted before, and pointed out, the expenditures were across all 4 years of Obama Presidental Term #1, BUT, a majority of the funds are spent in year 3 and 4, especially year 4, the re-election year. Imagine that... first it's across 4 years of the presidency and then the "Back Loading of Expenditures".

They can artificially prop or say anything .GOV wants to skew/switch/taint, but when the stolen funds dry up, KABOOM BUBBLE. Confidence doesn't pay for groceries, money does.

I don't mean to be so harsh, but their(TPTB) end game is taking us to fuckin war again, period. It worked in WWII, etc etc, didn't it? The world is broke and on life support via FIAT toilet paper.

[AFPVet]

It doesn't take a bunch of statistical graphs and data sets to understand that the unemployment numbers are far worse than reported. Where I'm at, we have about 25 percent unemployment. Of course, it really depends on your location.

[Anti Federalist]

Shadowstats incudes people who have given up looking for work. If you are not looking for work I don't think you should be counted as unemployed which is supposed to be a measure of those looking for work and not finding it.

Yer kidding, right?

[kylejack]

Liars, and manipulators will out themselves with time. The unemployment numbers do not count those discouraged workers no longer looking for work
Good, because I think it's silly to count people who aren't even looking for a job. If you give up looking for 4 weeks, it clearly isn't a priority for you. I've had some nasty bouts of unemployment, but it never stopped me from looking at least once a week.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Good, because I think it's silly to count people who aren't even looking for a job. If you give up looking for 4 weeks, it clearly isn't a priority for you. I've had some nasty bouts of unemployment, but it never stopped me from looking at least once a week.I want to see at the micro level the entire BLS data gathering survey/formulas, etc.

I want to see just how Stalin counts the numbers on those no longer seeking.

As far as I know, you have to fill out paperwork every 2 weeks that you were seeking work to collect an Unemployment Check(State Dependent) IIRC. Those exhausting UI Insurance funds for their region... are then consider, no longer looking for work?

Those, who's home phones have been disconnected? dropped or picked back up the next cycle?

If the BLS cannot get a hold of someone, are they thrown into the bit bucket never to be recalled until the next time they file for UI compensation?

[DamianTV]

It makes more sense to me now why Employers are required to offer Applications while NOT offering Employment.

Go to a local Fast Food Joint. Ask the manager how many Applications they take in per Day. They may even tell you that there are More Requests for Employment than there are Customers Served. What does that tell you about the Official Unemployment Rate?

[kylejack]

I want to see at the micro level the entire BLS data gathering survey/formulas, etc.

I want to see just how Stalin counts the numbers on those no longer seeking.

As far as I know, you have to fill out paperwork every 2 weeks that you were seeking work to collect an Unemployment Check(State Dependent) IIRC. Those exhausting UI Insurance funds for their region... are then consider, no longer looking for work?
No, the federal government doesn't consult who is collecting benefits. They conduct a household survey. I'm having to repeat the same thing every few pages for those who haven't read the thread.

[rockerrockstar]

I agree that the official numbers that the Government has been releasing can't be right. I think it probably is near 20 percent really. Now I hope congress votes for an extension to the unemployment benefits that would be great to help people get back on their feet. Too bad there is always a fight about extending it. I am unemployed and I can tell you it is a life line that is needed in this economy.

Those that complain about the 99 weeks thing don't know the reality of it. Most people never get 99 weeks. You qualify for tiers and there is a max benefit amount for each tier. Once that max amount is reached you are done with that teir even if it says it is supposed to last 20 weeks and only lasted 12. Take the benefit amount for each tier and divide by the amount they pay per week and you find the true numbers. I found it lasts a little over half the amount of weeks they say. By the way the state benefits that they give don't last 26 weeks either. To go from one tier to another the congress must have passed a benefit extension period to qualify for each tier. You can easily not qualify for the next tier because congress has not approved it yet. Also, to qualify for the tiers your state has to have a really high unemployment rate.

[HOLLYWOOD]

No, the federal government doesn't consult who is collecting benefits. They conduct a household survey. I'm having to repeat the same thing every few pages for those who haven't read the thread.What is the survey? What's the formula? What's the procedure?

You haven't answer shit and repeating nothing still equals nothing

[HOLLYWOOD]

No, the federal government doesn't consult who is collecting benefits. They conduct a household survey. I'm having to repeat the same thing every few pages for those who haven't read the thread.Where is the survey results... spreadsheet of every household? What's the formula, no dial tone are they considered employed, UE, discouraged, illegal alien, carry forward? What's the procedures and results, I can give a shit less about the questions, I want to reveiw the scoring and documentation for evey single survey, call, email, reply, score, whatever.

[kylejack]

What is the phone survey? What's the formula? What's the procedure?

You haven't answer shit and repeating nothing still equals nothing
Please read the thread (including provided links) and then we can discuss.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Please read the thread (including provided links) and then we can discuss.My point has been proven over and over... the methods of counting are inaccurate and irrational.

[kylejack]

Where is the survey results... spreadsheet of every household? What's the formula, no dial tone are they considered employed, UE, discouraged, illegal alien, carry forward? What's the procedures and results, I can give a shit less about the questions, I want to reveiw the scoring and documentation for evey single survey, call, email, reply, score, whatever.
Methodology: http://www.census.gov/cps/methodology/
Data: http://www.census.gov/cps/data/
FAQ: http://www.census.gov/cps/about/faq.html

[HOLLYWOOD]

Methodology: http://www.census.gov/cps/methodology/
Data: http://www.census.gov/cps/data/
FAQ: http://www.census.gov/cps/about/faq.htmlThanx this is what I was looking for...




Imputation of Unreported Data Items

http://www.census.gov/cps/methodology/unreported.html

The CPS is subject to two sources of nonresponse.

The largest is noninterview households. To compensate for this data loss, the weights of noninterviewed households are distributed among interviewed households.

The second source of data loss is from item nonresponse, which occurs when a respondent either does not know the answer to a question or refuses to provide the answer. Item nonresponse in the CPS is modest.

One of three imputation methods are used to compensate for item nonresponse in the CPS.

Before the edits are applied, the daily data files are merged and the combined file is sorted by state and PSU within state. This sort ensures that allocated values are from geographically related records; that is, missing values for records in Maryland will not receive values from records in California. This is an important distinction since many labor force and industry and occupation characteristics are geographically clustered.

The edits effectively blank all entries in inappropriate questions (e.g., followed incorrect path of questions) and ensure that all appropriate questions have valid entries. For the most part, illogical entries or out-of-range entries have been eliminated with the use of electronic instruments; however, the edits still address these possibilities, which may arise from data transmission problems and occasional instrument malfunctions. The main purpose of the edits, however, is to assign values to questions where the response was "Don’t know" or "Refused." This is accomplished by using 1 of the 3 imputation techniques described below.

The edits are run in a deliberate and logical sequence. Demographic variables are edited first because several of those variables are used to allocate missing values in the other modules. The labor force module is edited next since labor force status and related items are used to impute missing values for industry and occupation codes and so forth.

The three imputation methods used by the CPS edits are described below:
Relational imputation infers the missing value from other characteristics on the person’s record or within the household. For instance, if race is missing, it is assigned based on the race of another household member, or failing that, taken from the previous record on the file. Similarly, if relationship data is missing, it is assigned by looking at the age and sex of the person in conjunction with the known relationship of other household members. Missing occupation codes are sometimes assigned by analyzing the industry codes and vice versa. This technique is used as appropriate across all edits. If missing values cannot be assigned using this technique, they are assigned using one of the two following methods.

Longitudinal edits are used in most of the labor force edits, as appropriate. If a question is blank and the individual is in the second or later month’s interview, the edit procedure looks at last month’s data to determine whether there was an entry for that item. If so, last month’s entry is assigned; otherwise, the item is assigned a value using the appropriate hot deck, as described next.

The third imputation method is commonly referred to as ‘‘hot deck’’ allocation. This method assigns a missing value from a record with similar characteristics, which is the hot deck. Hot decks are defined by variables such as age, race, and sex. Other characteristics used in hot decks vary depending on the nature of the unanswered question. For instance, most labor force questions use age, race, sex, and occasionally another correlated labor force item such as full-or part-time status. This means the number of cells in labor force hot decks are relatively small, perhaps fewer than 100. On the other hand, the weekly earnings hot deck is defined by age, race, sex, usual hours, occupation, and educational attainment. This hot deck has several thousand cells. All CPS items that require imputation for missing values have an associated hot deck . The initial values for the hot decks are the ending values from the preceding month. As a record passes through the editing procedures, it will either donate a value to each hot deck in its path or receive a value from the hot deck. For instance, in a hypothetical case, the hot deck for question X is defined by the characteristics Black/non-Black, male/female, and age 16−25/25+. Further assume a record has the value of White, male, and age 64. When this record reaches question X, the edits determine whether it has a valid entry. If so, that record’s value for question X replaces the value in the hot deck reserved for non-Black, male, and age 25+. Comparably, if the record was missing a value for item X, it would be assigned the value in the hot deck designated for non-Black, male, and age 25+.

As stated above, the various edits are logically sequenced, in accordance with the needs of subsequent edits. The edits and codes, in order of sequence, are:

Household edits and codes. This processing step performs edits and creates recodes for items pertaining to the household. It classifies households as interviews or noninterviews and edits items appropriately. Hot deck allocations defined by geography and other related variables are used in this edit.
Demographic edits and codes. This processing step ensures consistency among all demographic variables for all individuals within a household. It ensures all interviewed households have one and only one reference person and that entries stating marital status, spouse, and parents are all consistent. It also creates families based upon these characteristics. It uses longitudinal editing, hot deck allocation defined by related demographic characteristics, and relational imputation.

[DamianTV]

I still believe those Unemployment Statistics are so Cooked that I wouldnt be half suprised to find out that not only were they regulated by the FDA but also that they were banned in no less than six countries in the EU due to the ingredients being known to cause cancer to the state of California!

[DamianTV]

Wait! All those stats are coming from Census.Gov? Does that mean they only take Unemployment Statistics every Ten Years?
(/playing_dumb)

[kylejack]

Wait! All those stats are coming from Census.Gov? Does that mean they only take Unemployment Statistics every Ten Years?
(/playing_dumb)
CPS conducted once a month.

[DamianTV]

CPS conducted once a month.

I know, I was making a funny there.

Now explain these two things to me.

#1 Food Stamps

You have to Qualify to get Food Stamps. If you have NO INCOME and NO ASSETS, you are pretty much guaranteed to be Qualified. How is it that we have more Food Stamps ever than any other time in history? If these people were in fact working actual jobs, they would be more difficult (not impossible, kids for example) to Qualify for Food Stamps. Maybe that number is due to Illegal Immigration, maybe not, but it is the highest it has ever been.

--- End Food Stamps ---

#2 Baby Boomers

We've hit a period in time where all the Baby Boomers are retiring and living off their Social(ist) (in)Security. They paid into it, so they should be able to get back what they paid into. Thats a whole other ball of wax however. Many SS recipients cant afford to live solely on their Social Security checks, so many have put off retirement, or come out of retirement, or are working while retired to supplement their income.

I talked with my mother earlier today and found out that a program that she Volunteers for has pretty much just been completely cancelled. As a Volunteer, she was being compensated for her Gas Mileage, but they just cut that, thus, they cut the ability for anyone to volunteer for them. She is on SS, but cant live on what it pays. The Volunteer Program has a stipulation that you have to be LOW INCOME to be allowed to volunteer period. Yeah, how stupid is that? So she just lost her job, but because she is on SS retirement, she wont qualify as being Unemployed either, although she now has to go back and and look for work again. Retired SS does allow a person to work (as if we have to ask for permission to work) while on retirement, but SS takes a much bigger chunk of your paycheck while collecting both SS as Retired and working.

--- End Baby Boomers ---

I can understand not reporting on kids in school as Unemployed. I can understand Reasonable Exemptions from being counted, but the way that the numbers are crunched should tell you that they are making every exclusion possible in order to cook the numbers. It makes the Politicians look better than is actually reality. Now just to stay on topic, care to address both the Food Stamps and Baby Boomers?

[row333au]

Good economic news brightens Obama’s re-election prospects

Another made-up lies as there is no improvement on deficit and and state of US government bankruptcy and no job are created from looming double dip recession

Good economic news brightens Obama’s re-election prospects