Unemployment Confusion

[cowboycarl04]

According to the government, we lost 345,000 jobs in May and raised unemployment from 8.9% to 9.4%.

A 0.5% rise indicates that 1 in 200 workers lost their jobs in May. Therefore, take 345,000 x 199 = 68,655,000 working Americans out of 320,000,000 living here.

However, TOTAL unemployment is now at 14.5 million. Therefore, should the unemployment numbers be 14.5 million / (68,655,000+14,500,000) = 17.4% TOTAL unemployment?

I'm sorry, but unless I did my math wrong, I smell a heaping pile of BS here.

[Ancona]

The BLS has been massaging the numbers for years, and are doing so now. Their birth/death [of businesses] is so completely skewed that it adds construction and banking sector jobs when those sectors are contracting at the greatest rates.

It's all smoke and mirrors man.

[akak]

The BLS has been massaging the numbers for years, and are doing so now. Their birth/death [of businesses] is so completely skewed that it adds construction and banking sector jobs when those sectors are contracting at the greatest rates.

It's all smoke and mirrors man.



Good point Ancona. All the bankster shills who keep quoting those BLS (Bogus and Laughable Statistics) numbers as if they were the gospel truth make me furious with their peddling of such blantant lies. The inflation statistics, in particular, are nothing but absurd propaganda, and have been for years. While I do suspect that John Williams' ShadowStatistics overstate inflation and unemployment somewhat, I believe his numbers are much closer to the truth than the spurious numbers churned out for political consumption by the government's BLS.

[theo68]

According to the government, we lost 345,000 jobs in May and raised unemployment from 8.9% to 9.4%.

A 0.5% rise indicates that 1 in 200 workers lost their jobs in May. Therefore, take 345,000 x 199 = 68,655,000 working Americans out of 320,000,000 living here.

However, TOTAL unemployment is now at 14.5 million. Therefore, should the unemployment numbers be 14.5 million / (68,655,000+14,500,000) = 17.4% TOTAL unemployment?

I'm sorry, but unless I did my math wrong, I smell a heaping pile of BS here.


I don't fully trust the numbers either. However its important to understand that not all workers who do not have a job are counted as "unemployed." Many people who have been out of work for a while will give up and stop looking. The BLS calls these people "discouraged workers" and does not count them as part of the unemployment rate. Now if some of these discouraged workers become hopeful and resume their job search they are then counted as part of the unemployment rate. This could account for some of the discrepancy between job losses and the jump in the unemployment rate. I know it sounds a little nuts, but as far as I know, they've been doing it that way since the inception of the unemployment rate calculation.

Also, I think the unemployment is artificially low because it does not reflect "under-employment." So, if I lose my job as a 300k a year bank VP and then get another job working at a 7-11 for minimum wage for 20 hours a week, the BLS will simply view that as one job lost and one job gained. In other words the BLS does not measure the quality of employment, only the level of unemployment.

[Round Town]

These initial reports are frequently inacurate. I'll wait for the revised figures before I disagree with them. They will be wrong also.

Bob.
The view from my pile, yours may be different.

[Trvlr45]

They also never discuss all the millions of people that are "under-emplyed". Those who lost their $30 an hour job to China, India or somewhere else.

Then there are those where the pay has been cut from what is was before. Many companies lay people off or force senior employees out of their jibs for whatever reason and then re-hire at lower wages. The trucking industry is doing that right now and they were grossly underpaid to begin with.