| Topic Name: |
When side-jobs hurt your chances.. |
| Message Name: |
... |
| Date Posted: |
09/03/2004 |
| In Reply To: |
these sentences in quotes are from
the BLS press release issued today
3 sept '04 ---
"Both the number of unemployed persons,
8.0 million, and the unemployment rate,
5.4 percent, were little changed from July
to August. The jobless rate is down from
its recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003;
most of this decline occurred in the second
half of last year."
i emphasis sentence number2, "... is down
from its recent high...." shall we define "recent"?
recent to me is july, even late spring -- of
this year, 2004, not last year, 2003. BLS is
calling "recent" 15 months ago. maybe seen
as an unimportant point -- i'm looking at overall
impression here, their sentence impresses the
rate has fallen from 6.3 to 5.4 -- recently.... now,
continue to read how they redefine "recently"
when the numbers aren't so good...
"After rising in July, the labor force participation
rate edged down to its
June level of 66.0 percent."
edged down... did people die? they don't tell us...
but they claim to know who is in school or simply
staying home with family.....
" The number of persons who were marginally
attached to the labor force was 1.6 million in
August, about the same as a year earlier. (Data
are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
wanted and were available to work and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior
12 months. They were not counted
as unemployed, however, because they did
not actively search for work in the
4 weeks preceding the survey. There were
534,000 discouraged workers in August, also
about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged
workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
were not currently looking for work specifically
because they believed no jobs were available
for them. The other 1.1 million marginally
attached had not searched for work for reasons
such as school or family responsibilities."
marginally attached - a great term. sort of like
your arm being marginally attached...can't use it,
even though it is still connected to your body
awaiting reconnection through surgery. more
importantly -- this number, per BLS is the same
as a year ago -- "recently" if you use their term
from the first paragraph... and yet the
unemployment rate is 1 percent lower. that is what
my article is about. it points out how that
rate can drop even though the numbers of
unemployed don't change. furthermore, the other
marginally attached are called students or
homemakers (roughly)? are they in that position
because they were laid off and couldn't find a job?
that is what i find to be an important point which is
not addressed.
1.6 million were not counted as unemployed. they
wanted a job, but in the same sentence they say
these people didn't look for a job. "wanted"
doesn't sync up with "no action." it is not a logical
connection.
discouraged -- same as a year ago. (recently if i
use their term from para 1)
workforce total is 147 million (down slightly from
month before)
workforce employed is 139 million (21 people
more than the month before)
this means 94.6 percent are employed; or 5.4
percent are not.. that is what bls is saying.
when you include the 1.6 -- 93.4 percent are
employed; or 6.52 percent unemployed.
amazing how just a handful of people (1.6
million) can put that rate above where it
was 'recently.'
have a good weekend everyone. |
| Message: |
??that is what
my article is about. it points out how that
rate can drop even though the numbers of
unemployed don't change. Furthermore??
No, this isn??t what your article is about. According to your summery it??s about how "those who fail to find a job after 26 weeks fall off BLS statistics" (this is wrong and what your ??example?? is based upon). If you look at the number of unemployed (the first number you quoted in the news release) it was 8830 last year vs. 7940 now. This is why the unemployment rate has fallen. You can also look at the entire number of people who are underutilization (this is what the LATs did). I??ve already showed you were to get these numbers (several times) but you can find them here:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
U-6 Total unemployed (the LATs used "Not seasonally
adjusted").
I wonder if the LATs is going to run another story anytime soon using these numbers and comparing them year-over-year...
As for the term recent I??m guessing they are viewing the unemployment rates vs. the most recent economic cycle. Most of the other numbers they compare on a year-over-year basis?? this makes sense since they aren??t seasonally adjusted like the unemployment rate is.
|
|
