Did 7.8% Unempl figure come from large numbers of people giving up looking for jobs?

[Little-Acorn]

A few days ago it was announced that unemployment had fallen from 8.1% to 7.8%.

In the recent past such drops have often come, not from lots of people getting new jobs, but from people giving up even LOOKING for jobs, and so not being counted anymore as "unemployed".

This new 7.8% figure has a lot of people puzzled, since only 114,000 jobs were created that month, and it usually takes around 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment figures from RISING. We didn't even get that many, so why did the Unemployment number fall?

Has anyone seen the numbers for how many people gave up looking for jobs during this latest period? Got a link to where those numbers can be found?

Another rumor has been that part-time workers (people working anywhere from 1 hour/week to 35 hours/week) didn't used to be counted in the "employed" numbers, but in the latest period that was changed and they ARE now being counted, thus inflating the number more than it used to be. I've seen no evidence that is true. Anybody know whether they used to be counted, and/or whether they are being counted now? Again, any links to the info?

[Robert A Whit]

A few days ago it was announced that unemployment had fallen from 8.1% to 7.8%.

In the recent past such drops have often come, not from lots of people getting new jobs, but from people giving up even LOOKING for jobs, and so not being counted anymore as "unemployed".

This new 7.8% figure has a lot of people puzzled, since only 114,000 jobs were created that month, and it usually takes around 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment figures from RISING. We didn't even get that many, so why did the Unemployment number fall?

Has anyone seen the numbers for how many people gave up looking for jobs during this latest period? Got a link to where those numbers can be found?

Another rumor has been that part-time workers (people working anywhere from 1 hour/week to 35 hours/week) didn't used to be counted in the "employed" numbers, but in the latest period that was changed and they ARE now being counted, thus inflating the number more than it used to be. I've seen no evidence that is true. Anybody know whether they used to be counted, and/or whether they are being counted now? Again, any links to the info?


Good luck trying to understand the Fed figures by going to their site. Somebody posted the link.

I have looked and looked, even back to the Clinton era and danged if i can make heads and or tails with that data. The way it's broken up seems to me to be a way to hide things.

[KarlMarx]

A few days ago it was announced that unemployment had fallen from 8.1% to 7.8%.

In the recent past such drops have often come, not from lots of people getting new jobs, but from people giving up even LOOKING for jobs, and so not being counted anymore as "unemployed".

This new 7.8% figure has a lot of people puzzled, since only 114,000 jobs were created that month, and it usually takes around 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment figures from RISING. We didn't even get that many, so why did the Unemployment number fall?

Has anyone seen the numbers for how many people gave up looking for jobs during this latest period? Got a link to where those numbers can be found?

Another rumor has been that part-time workers (people working anywhere from 1 hour/week to 35 hours/week) didn't used to be counted in the "employed" numbers, but in the latest period that was changed and they ARE now being counted, thus inflating the number more than it used to be. I've seen no evidence that is true. Anybody know whether they used to be counted, and/or whether they are being counted now? Again, any links to the info?

I think it isn't a question of whether it's due to a large number of people dropping out of the unemployment statistics because they used up their unemployment benefits. It's a fact. Nothing about the economy has improved significantly enough to account for the drop.

I don't think it was a political maneuver by the Obama Administration (even though I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt) but rather a coincidence. Considering how much the Administration is crowing about a 7.8 percent unemployment rate, it's tantamount to getting a ribbon for coming in 1,117th in the Boston Marathon. Obama's economic policies are a disaster, that much can be said with certainty.

[Little-Acorn]

I think it isn't a question of whether it's due to a large number of people dropping out of the unemployment statistics because they used up their unemployment benefits. It's a fact. Nothing about the economy has improved significantly enough to account for the drop.

I don't think it was a political maneuver by the Obama Administration (even though I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt) but rather a coincidence.

What caused the unemployment number to drop?

[Little-Acorn]

After some more digging, found these official U.S. Govt figures:

Unemployed persons plus people who have given up looking for work etc.:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Unemployed plus people who have given up etc., by state:
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm (scroll down)

[Little-Acorn]

Unemployed persons plus people who have given up looking for work etc.:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm


So the "official" unemployment rate (U-3) went from 8.1% to 7.8%

The "official" rate plus the people who have given up (U-5) did the same, from 9.6% to 9.3%. This means that the rate of ONLY people who have given up, stayed the same while the "official" rate went down.

But the "official" rate, plus people who have given up, plus people who lost full-time jobs and had to go to part-time jobs involuntarily (U-6), STAYED THE SAME, 14.7% to 14.7%.

That means that the people who lost full-time jobs and had to go to part-time without wanting to, went UP by the same amount that the "official" unemployment rate went down.

Interesting.

In other words, the percentage of people with full-time jobs went DOWN, but people forced into part-time jobs went UP.

Nothing changed, except a bunch of people were forced to switch from full-time to part-time. But people with part-time jobs aren't counted as "available for work", just like people who have given up looking aren't counted as "available for work".

So the "official" unemployment rate (percentage of people "available for work", who don't have jobs) went down... because a lot of people LOST their full-time jobs and had to go to part-time, thus removing themselves from the statistics completely!

Weird. This table seems to say, that if you have a full-time job, you are "available for work", but if you have a part-time job, you aren't!

Can somebody please check my math, and my interpretations of this table?

[Little-Acorn]

A hypothetical example to illustrate what the table seems to say:

You have 100 people. 92 of them have full-time jobs. 8 people have no jobs, but are looking for full-time jobs. The table says 100 people are "available for work", so unemployment rate is 8/100 or 8%.

Then 11 of the people with full-time jobs get fired, and they take part-time jobs instead. And 1 of the 8 that used to have no jobs, also takes a part-time job. The other 7 still don't have any jobs.

So now, out of the 100 people, only 81 have full-time jobs, 12 now have part-time jobs, and 7 have no job. Has the overall situation gotten better or worse? I suggest it is worse, since all the part-timers really want full-time jobs (they are trying to support their families).

Now you still have 100 people, of course. And 81 of them still have full-time jobs. But you only have 88 people "available for work", since the govt says the 12 who went part-time no longer count for the "official" unemployment rate. And only 7 people are still looking now. So now the "official" unemployment rate is 7/88 or 7.95%.

Wow.

When 92 people worked full-time, the unemployment rate was 8.00%.

But when only 81 worked full-time and 12 are part-time, unemployment is 7.95%.

The number says that's an improvement. But is it? I don't think so.

[Abbey Marie]

After some more digging, found these official U.S. Govt figures:

Unemployed persons plus people who have given up looking for work etc.:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Unemployed plus people who have given up etc., by state:
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm (scroll down)

Here's your link:

<tbody>
Measure

Not seasonally adjusted

Seasonally adjusted



Sept.
2011

Aug.
2012

Sept.
2012

Sept.
2011

May
2012

June
2012

July
2012

Aug.
2012

Sept.
2012



U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

5.2

4.3

4.2

5.3

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.3



U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

5.0

4.4

4.0

5.2

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.2



U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

8.8

8.2

7.6

9.0

8.2

8.2

8.3

8.1

7.8



U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

9.4

8.7

8.0

9.6

8.7

8.7

8.8

8.6

8.3



U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

10.2

9.7

9.0

10.5

9.6

9.7

9.7

9.6

9.3



U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

15.7

14.6

14.2

16.4

14.8

14.9

15.0

14.7

14.7


</tbody>

[Robert A Whit]

After some more digging, found these official U.S. Govt figures:

Unemployed persons plus people who have given up looking for work etc.:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Unemployed plus people who have given up etc., by state:
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm (scroll down)

You see that figure called U6? That is what the public feels. I wish Romney explained that in the next debate. Were I Romney, that figure would be in all the ads.

[Robert A Whit]

Here's your link:

<TBODY>
Measure

Not seasonally adjusted

Seasonally adjusted



Sept.
2011

Aug.
2012

Sept.
2012

Sept.
2011

May
2012

June
2012

July
2012

Aug.
2012

Sept.
2012



U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

5.2

4.3

4.2

5.3

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.3



U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

5.0

4.4

4.0

5.2

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.2



U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

8.8

8.2

7.6

9.0

8.2

8.2

8.3

8.1

7.8



U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

9.4

8.7

8.0

9.6

8.7

8.7

8.8

8.6

8.3



U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

10.2

9.7

9.0

10.5

9.6

9.7

9.7

9.6

9.3



U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

15.7

14.6

14.2

16.4

14.8

14.9

15.0

14.7

14.7


</TBODY>


U6 by far is the most important figure. Spin that Obama.

[avatar4321]

Id say most of it came from number manipulation.