| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
... |
| Date Posted: |
08/24/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
CONTD from first thread.
(john: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab 12.htm and click on U-6 not seasonally adjusted...)
that number is actually higher than the LAT's figure of 9.7 for all of 2003. BLS shows 10.1
(john: No shit! Congratulations! This is the reason they have higher unemployment. It??s not some
massive worldwide conspiracy to keep Bush in office. Its structural reasons that exist in various
countries such as Europe??s labor law vs. the US. The normative discussion we can have about the
pros and cons of these distinctions would be quite long as there are economists that dedicate
their careers to it.)
no, that connection does not exist. in discussing why france experienced 20 percent drop since
1970, and why the usa rose 20 percent is not about unemployment.... france (has used) a 35 hour
work week. in the usa it is --- as high as the corporation demands of the employee(s).
(john: By your logic you never were counted since as I keep repeating unemployment benefits don??t
mean anything to the BLS. The headline number that is posted in France is the same basic definition as
the US number. They use a survey just as in the US.)
by this logic, i've never been counted at all because i am not on the household survey. neither is my family...
or extended family... neither are any of my friends... and i'll bet neither are you. minus you, i count 117
households that i am intimate with. no survey...accurate? paint an equal picture of the entire
economy? enough to say everyone is back to work?
USpop: 281,000,000 (+)
households: 105,000,000 (+)
what you are saying is that 60,000 (if indeed we buy that higher number is consistent, BLS does not
confirm consistency only estimates ) is enough of a sample out of all households to accurately
gauge the unemployment rate. 60 / 105000
i say no. it is not accurate to based an entire federal policy, benefits program, unemployment
program, retraining program, or political ideology and argumentation upon these numbers.
fair to apply the same estimates to our GNP? trade deficit? military spending with contracting
service companies? your ID says "banker" is this is how banking business works today, by
estimating one or two accounts for all?
--end--
|
| Message: |
??the LAT has been keeping records --to the best of their ability-- of a much truer number of unemployed and underemployed since 911. they used more than BLS to compile their data. and disagree most strongly in how BLS reports the data....hence the reason they do this work.
their own research provides 16m in 2003, twice that of BLS. you may not agree; however, i suggest you take it up with them.??
No, they don??t keep their own data. They get it from the BLS as I showed you. I don??t see why you refused to post the article so I found it on my own:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1229-01.htm
I??ll go through some numbers given and post the corresponding section of BLS where the LATs got it from.
Fourth paragraph: ??The nation's official jobless rate is 5.9%?? This is the headline number which I think you can find for yourself.
Fifth paragraph: ??there are the 8.7 million unemployed??
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Go to ??Unemployment Level - Civilian Labor Force - LNS13000000?? The data is going to be November??s since the article was written in December the data for dec. wouldn??t have been out yet (it comes out the first Friday of the next month). The Unemployment Level was 8653K rounding up you get 8.7M or exactly what the LATs had.
Still in the fifth paragraph: ??But lurking behind that group are 4.9 million part-time workers??
Same link but this time select ??Persons At Work Part Time for Economic Reasons - LNS12032194?? now you get 4880K again rounding up 4.9M or exactly what the LATs had.
Sixth paragraph: ??there are also the 1.5 million people who want a job but didn't look for one in the last month??
Same BLS link, select: ??Marginally Attached to Labor Force - LNU05026642?? which gives you 1473K for November, rounding up we get 1.5M.
Still in the sixth paragraph: ??Nearly a third of this group say they stopped the search because they were too depressed about the prospect of finding anything.??
These would be Discouraged Workers which you can find at the same link but select: ??Discouraged Workers - LNU05026645?? In Nov there were 457K of these which is 31% of the total marginally attached to the labor force (31% is ??nearly a third??) which we just did.
How they then get 9.7% I have no idea. BLS does this for you the link I provided:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
Select ??U-6 Total unemployed (this was the 8.7M the LA times wrote about) plus all marginally attached workers (this was the 4.9M), plus total employed part time for economic reasons (this was the 1.5M), as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers??.
So I guess now that you know how the LATs gets their data you disagree with it since all they do is use BLS ?? S = BS, right?
|
|
