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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (103683)	2/10/2009 10:55:29 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542011

We counted people that where no longer looking for jobs as unemployed since 1967. There have been changes since that big change, but they have been relatively minor, and the rates are reasonably comparable. So you can just take the headline rate and compare it to the recessions of the 70s and early 80s (and the smaller ones since then). More at Message 25324682 (esp. at the bottom of that post where the information is from the BLS, earlier its from different people commenting on the their opinions of the changes, rather than directly from the source) The YoY change in employment stat can be compared all the way back. As for the 13.9% rate that's U-6, which isn't really an unemployment rate. Its "Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers." Using simpler words it people who are officially unemployed (in the work force, seeking jobs, but unemployed), those who are no longer seeking jobs, and those who are involuntarily working only part time. The last group is not unemployed. You could consider U-6 a combination of an extended unemployment rate, plus an "underemployment rate". Its not a rate that could reasonably be compared to the headline figures since 1967. Or even before 1967 because while the headline employment rates at that time counted people who have been discouraged from seeking work, they didn't count part time workers as unemployed. Also if you look at the workforce participation rates (people working plus those seeking jobs), you'll find that while they have decreased recently they are still higher than in the past (before the mid 80s). Mostly because women are in the work force to a much greater extent now. In the past, even when you didn't have "discouraged workers" or "marginally attached" categories, many non-working women would not be counted as unemployed. This factor means that you need a larger percentage of Americans having a job, to reach any particular headline (U-3) unemployment rate, it compensates to a large degree for the changes made in 67. And for years after 67 you probably need a larger percentage of adult Americans to have a job to get a particular unemployment rate (at least after 67 and before the mid eighties, not so much for after the mid 80s) Edit Here is some more data for comparison nypost.com Not the only data, and other data points look worse now, but I'd say its more "we're in for tough times", and less "the sky is falling"