Lying About Unemployment

Lying About Unemployment (12/22/03)

I don't often delve into statistics, because most people find them dry, boring, and ultimately uninformative.

However, there is one statistic that even people that barely watch the news, read a newspaper, or surf the net are generally aware of - the unemployment rate.

For the out-of-work, it is an hourglass of doom. For the Bush administration, it is ignored or touted as the political situation warrants. For everyone else, it is possibly one of the most misunderstood bits of math in existence.

Last reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the November unemployment rate is 5.9%. This is out of a total workforce of 147,277,000 people. This number counts both people that are employed and those actively looking for work.

Now nine years ago, in September 1994, it was also 5.9%. The workforce then was 131,421,000.

Hmm... something's different there.

In just 9 years, over 15 million workers have appeared. The United States is adding well over a million workers every year. This makes the 5.9% of today a lot worse than the 5.9% of 1994.

Y'see, just to keep the rate steady, the same number of jobs - over a million - have to be created each year to match the growth in bodies.

This, I think, is where few people realize the significance of sheer numbers. The unemployment percentage, as casually mentioned on the evening news, does not adequately reflect the number of actual people involved.

Another example, you ask? In April of 1954, the rate was also 5.9%, but with a total workforce of only 63,934,000. That left 3,749,000 out of work - almost 3.8 million.

Today, though, 5.9% of 147,277,000 means that 8,674,000 Americans who could be working are out of work � 8.67 million.

I'll say that again. 8.67 million. Over twice as many people, folks. 5.9% means a hell of a lot more than it used to, does it not?

We�re losing ground every year these days. To keep the actual number of unemployed consistent, the unemployment rate should be half of what it is. At the height of the last boom it almost got there, hitting 3.8% in April of 2000, when only 5,438,000 people were out of work.

Since that time, the unemployment rolls have risen by 3.3 million to the current 8.67 million.

The administration would like to have you believe that because the rate has been dropping a bit lately � .1% a month or so since the 6.4% high in June - that the nation is on the road to recovery.

But there�s a slight problem with that reasoning.

We began the year at 5.7%. Even if December�s rate drops from 5.9% by .2%, we're a year older but have gained a million anxious workers.

If the status quo holds, around 5.8%-6.0% as it has since late 2001, the economy may grow all it bloody wants, but it will continue to leave behind a large mass of unemployed workers that could be doing something useful.

Congress is blind to this. Federal unemployment benefits were not extended before the end of session this year, as they were the last. Republicans shout joyfully, 'Unemployment is heading down!' and sell last month's 0.1% decrease and the 8.2% economic growth like it was a soothing rainstorm in the Sahara.

These guys see light at the end of the tunnel, but fail to mention that at our current rate, we're going to be seeing that light for a long, long time.

The President, in a similar mode, has not called for any further relief, even though the unemployment trust fund has a healthy $20 billion reserve on hand. And why should he? When unemployed people lose their benefits, they cease to become part of the official workforce, and drop out of the BOLS's statistics entirely. 90,000 or so will drop into the abyss every week after this month, thanks to Congress' oversight.

This is where the unemployment rate really gets deceptive. It doesn't count all the people who have exhausted their benefits or simply given up on looking for work. Take Pennsylvania for example - a particularly depressing case. The state has seen a surface drop from 5.9% to 5.2%, but this is almost entirely because 100,000 workers have disappeared in the statistical ether via the method I just described. If they were still counted, the rate would be at least 6.7%.

Ditto South Carolina. It just dropped from 7.1% to 6.9%, a good sign, right? Wrong. It's due to a decrease in the total workforce. Here's a few more examples of this effect after a few minutes of searching my part: Ohio, Wisconsin, and especially Oregon, one of the hardest hit places in the nation.

The unemployment rate does have worth as an economic indicator - but only when the total number of unemployed people, as well as the amount of workers that have dropped off, are included.

Otherwise, the overall rate is deceptive as its abusers want it to be. Can you imagine the White House discussing the points I have raised in a million years? No? Can you imagine them embracing growth as a holy symbol of economic goodness, though? Sure you can. They do it constantly.

But it's our own unrestricted growth that's killing us.

America continues to expand, reproduce, and consume at an awesome rate, but it is simply not supplying enough jobs to keep up with its new citizens. Certainly not enough to justify the wanton pillaging of the treasury, with over 7 percent growth in government spending every year under Bush, twice the rate of Clinton.

The rewards of gargantuan size have not materialized as promised. This wondrous growth has an accompanying and disturbing leanness to it. Many that have managed to find new work have seen their annual salaries cut in half, like I have - is there really a strong economic future in a services-only economy?

The reasons for this peculiar descent are myriad - NAFTA, tariffs, and the great and terrible behemoth of globalization, along with the Bush tax cuts, the useless and expensive Iraq war, the collapse of the Internet bubble, and Al-Qaida's lovely little gift in the form of The-Date-That-Will-Not-Be-Mentioned.

Few are wise enough to see solutions to such a mess. But at minimum, this is certainly not a time for lies. Do not believe the administration when they point to the unemployment rate as a sign from the heavens blessing the reckless tax cuts, and certainly not to the growth rate. At best you will be misled, and at worse you might start to believe them.

My ultimate litmus test remains - I will declare the recession over when I get a salaried job again. The recession supposedly ended in early 2001. I didn't get laid off until after that.

Surprise, surprise. It's still going.

source = www.weeklylowdown.com...

Since our republican friends here in the mud pit want to tout the booming economy this a good take on how unemployment works. Also something you won�t ever find on fox news or any other American media controlled network well unless it makes Bush look good that is.

Well, to the contrary....polls are currently showing that roughly 55% +/- of registered voters say that Bush is handling the economy appropriately.

I did recently find this interesting article measuring the credibility of "establishment" surveys comparing household and payroll surveys:
"The Jobs Glass Is More Than Half Full"
Link:
www.capmag.com...

and a more indepth analysis:
"Measuring employment since the recovery
A comparison of the household and payroll surveys"
Link:
www.epinet.org...



In all eventuality, Bush will be re-elected, despite the continued howlings of those who are opposed and those chiming "issues" from Iraq, Saddam, economy, Osama, jobs........

The Democrats bring nothing to the table, bring nothing to make things any better than they are and are going to be...nothing but finger-pointings.


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Well, to the contrary....polls are currently showing that roughly 55% +/- of registered voters say that Bush is handling the economy appropriately.

Yea first it's a poll second it's CNN. Those articles where interesting thanks for sharing those. Really puts your views in perspective I want a piece of this dream world. Where black is white and white is black those 2 sites are like rense.com for conservatives. Typical Optimist ignores everything for the positive. The democrats will bring something to the table in the form of protectionism and the people will love it! The Democrats will end free trade and the race to the bottom. Ok I admit that was a dream they sold out to the corporate masters also but I have heard some mild hinting from Dean.

[Edited on 23-12-2003 by DiRtYDeViL]

Yes DD, I would have a tendency to agree with what you are mentioning, somewhat.

You say:
"....but I have heard some mild hinting from Dean."

Yes, I have read some of those "mild hintings" and yet to have seen any that are indepth. Politics aside, Dean may well be a very viable candidate, but as you and others have mentioned on countless ATS threads, "issues" need to be spelled out and given in a satisfactory form and with viable, competent solutions given.



regards
seekerof

Your giving me reverse psychology I will not stand for it!

I love this line
The only reality is that we don't really know. Nobody does.
www.capmag.com...
that's really a good article.

a blind, deaf and dumb quadrapligec could bring more to the table than that moron gw

Originally posted by PEACEMONGER
a blind, deaf and dumb quadrapligec could bring more to the table than that moron gw

Hell yes like universal health care!! Like every other industrialized nation.

TODAYS DICTIONARY

recession when your neighbor lost his job
depression when you lose your job

Let's see here...
When Slick Willie was Prezident, and the unemployment rate was at about 3%, the democrats touted and jeered and considered it to be 0, because that was the lowest of our time. So, if 3% of the population doesn't matter, then the unemployment rate is only2.9%, right?

2.9% isn't that low, in fact, if you go by liberal knowledege(or reasoning, whatever) the conservatives are not doing too bad.

Just something I heard once...

S'all for me!

Originally posted by joehayner
Let's see here...
When Slick Willie was Prezident, and the unemployment rate was at about 3%, the democrats touted and jeered and considered it to be 0, because that was the lowest of our time. So, if 3% of the population doesn't matter, then the unemployment rate is only2.9%, right?

2.9% isn't that low, in fact, if you go by liberal knowledege(or reasoning, whatever) the conservatives are not doing too bad.

Just something I heard once...

S'all for me!

The numbers will jump because congress didn't extend the unemployment benefits for those that lost benefits in mid-december. There's going to be something like 90,000 kicked off the rolls. So January will be a big month in employment numbers for the Bushies to sail into the State of the Union address. We're sure to have a couple of threads popping up on this board claiming this denial of benefits as a victory for Bush...I will remind you that I predicted it.

Originally posted by Seekerof


In all eventuality, Bush will be re-elected, despite the continued howlings of those who are opposed and those chiming "issues" from Iraq, Saddam, economy, Osama, jobs........

The Democrats bring nothing to the table, bring nothing to make things any better than they are and are going to be...nothing but finger-pointings.

And this makes you happy? This, a second term of GW Bush, is a victory for you & the country?
By the "finger pointing" you mention, it brings the issues front & center, hopefully awaking those of your ilk, to see that the smoke & mirrors marketing campaign on every one of those issues is just that - deception. Every viable Democratic contender has put their plan in print. At this stage, all you are going to see is synopsis - do you actually think that any candidate withou the nomination is going to be given a mass media forum for drill down!?!
But let's apply the legal prism of mutual consideration: The Bush Administration has had nearly 4 years of application on near all of the "issues" you say are being finger pointed.......where's the beef!?! For Beejebus's sake, where's the policy!?!? In almost all of the drill down review you can not find one!!!!!
I'd be pleased as piss to hear the Bush plan on promoting job creation - his own administration never has specifically said that these tax cuts would have that as a benefit.
How about the war on a Noun(terror)? Hear any plans on that lately? Ever?

DO what you need to there BT, but in all your hammering of disputes....Democrats have nothing....nothing and in roughly a years time....you, among others will be posting on here your continued poison against the Republicans....carry on...but have your tissues handy, cause your going to definitely need them....4 more years of "hell" for ya!
I'm looking forward to the torment this will bring...


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Seekerof


In all eventuality, Bush will be re-elected, despite the continued howlings of those who are opposed and those chiming "issues" from Iraq, Saddam, economy, Osama, jobs........

The Democrats bring nothing to the table, bring nothing to make things any better than they are and are going to be...nothing but finger-pointings.

And this makes you happy? This, a second term of GW Bush, is a victory for you & the country?
By the "finger pointing" you mention, it brings the issues front & center, hopefully awaking those of your ilk, to see that the smoke & mirrors marketing campaign on every one of those issues is just that - deception. Every viable Democratic contender has put their plan in print. At this stage, all you are going to see is synopsis - do you actually think that any candidate withou the nomination is going to be given a mass media forum for drill down!?!
But let's apply the legal prism of mutual consideration: The Bush Administration has had nearly 4 years of application on near all of the "issues" you say are being finger pointed.......where's the beef!?! For Beejebus's sake, where's the policy!?!? In almost all of the drill down review you can not find one!!!!!
I'd be pleased as piss to hear the Bush plan on promoting job creation - his own administration never has specifically said that these tax cuts would have that as a benefit.
How about the war on a Noun(terror)? Hear any plans on that lately? Ever?

We're reaping those years of Klintonomics.....simple as that or is it? Could it be that neither are at fault?
Wanna bitch and scream "your ilk"...do so....
Btw...seems to me that much of the "job loss" was attributed to the Dot.com/tech bubble being burst, and if thats seemingly the case.....Al Gore comes to mind....I mean, he was the one who invented the internet....right?
You can quote Hoover and such all day, it doesn't change the fact that Bush inherited a recession from the Clinton Administration that began prior to him leaving office and then worsed by the events of 9/11.
Unemployment is higher because "job creation" has not kept pace with the numbers of individuals that enter the job market monthly, besides other attributing factors.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 28-12-2003 by Seekerof]

Here's a story for you seekerof. To prove your dot com bubble theroy which is a lot of it.

Jobless Count Skips Millions
The rate hits 9.7% when the underemployed and those who have quit looking are added.
By David Streitfeld
Times Staff Writer

December 29, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO � Lisa Gluskin has had a tough three years. She works almost as hard as she did during the dot-com boom, for about 20% of the income.

When Gluskin's writing and editing business cratered in 2001, she slashed her rates, began studying for a graduate degree and started teaching part time at a Lake Tahoe community college for a meager wage.

It's been a fragmented, hand-to-mouth life, one that she sees mirrored by friends and colleagues who are waiting tables or delivering packages. In the late '90s, the 35-year-old Gluskin says, "we had careers. We had trajectories. Now we have complicated lives. We're not unemployed, but we're underemployed."

The nation's official jobless rate is 5.9%, a relatively benign level by historical standards. But economists say that figure paints only a partial � and artificially rosy � picture of the labor market.

To begin with, there are the 8.7 million unemployed, defined as those without a job who are actively looking for work. But lurking behind that group are 4.9 million part-time workers such as Gluskin who say they would rather be working full time � the highest number in a decade.
rest at
www.latimes.com...

I think we all can agree something is wrong. Who's fault it is we can't agree on that's understandable. We need a candidate to address these issues will a Democrat I don�t know but I can tell you Bush has had 3 years to do something about it and hasn�t.

Originally posted by Seekerof
We're reaping those years of Klintonomics.....simple as that or is it? Could it be that neither are at fault?
Wanna bitch and scream "your ilk"...do so....

Btw...seems to me that much of the "job loss" was attributed to the Dot.com/tech bubble being burst, and if thats seemingly the case.....Al Gore comes to mind....I mean, he was the one who invented the internet....right?

You can quote Hoover and such all day, it doesn't change the fact that Bush inherited a recession from the Clinton Administration that began prior to him leaving office and then worsed by the events of 9/11.
Unemployment is higher because "job creation" has not kept pace with the numbers of individuals that enter the job market monthly, besides other attributing factors.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 28-12-2003 by Seekerof]

Oh Bejjebus Seek, you just keep going more hardcore Right the more we exchange! What happened to you man!?!?
I've been on record as saying the "Boom" under Clinton was not all his doing; nor do I thing 100% in Bush's fault currently. 95% yes, 100% no.
You see, cycles, like recessions, actually do have a birth date. This one happened under Bush, after his team had full ownership. Clinton's economy was at a plateau, no where near a recession. But after tremendous growth, a plateau was to be expected.
Bush's fault starts with creating the problems we have now, after purposefully failing to implement corrections over minor things.
Gore inventing the Internet? Seek, nothing speaks more to a Right Wingers delusion than that failed canard!!
That Sen.Gore actually did author the legislation that brought the Internet into public domain is the basis for the myth, BTW. That's "fathering" it in a very real sense, though he never made such a claim in anywhere near the context the Right Wingers would have you believe.
That last one about job growth is a good one; can I borrow the Rose colored glasses when you're done!