Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (9171)	6/17/2004 12:32:25 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

Orca, I'm sorry for any confusion you may have had from my post. Anyway, I believe that my post was clear, that those who had lost UI benefits were not taken off the BLS's unemployed numbers - which was the point you had made earlier. "As I understand it, the reported unemployment rate is the number of new jobless claims. It reports the percentage of people applying for unemployment benefits. Once the benefits have been exhausted and people are no longer getting unemployment, they are no longer reported." Message 20226795 Sorry, payroll employment numbers (the one that is quoted when the news says that there were 300,000 new jobs), are not accurate to 230,000 people. The survey that calculates the Employment and Unemployment rate, is not the same survey that calculates the number of new payroll jobs created. The Survey (that calculates payroll employment), gets its payroll numbers from government and businesses (400,000 worksites) not households, and cover about 1/3 of all nonfarm payroll workers - it should have greater resolution than the household survey. re: "The unemployment...or employed figure depending on how you look at it is only accurate to 230,000 people unemployed. Then when we hear that 300,000 jobs are created...it's almost equal to the error factor in counting the unemployed. Interesting."