The Unemployment Quandary

InvestorInsight.com ^ | February 6, 2004 | John Maudlin

[lelio]

Good levelheaded article. Thanks for the post.

In the household survey, "People are classified as employed if they [... ] worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.

Isn't that going to skew the numbers? IE a teenager sweeps out the family's car service garage a couple hours a week and suddenly he's counting toward employment figures?

He goes to the tax tables at the IRS and notes that self-employed taxes rose only 2.2% for 2002, which is less than GDP and inflation.
...
It is not that there is not in fact a large increase in the number of the self-employed. There is. It is just that there is not a large increase in the profitably self-employed.

Good point. How many of these self employed people are just going through the motions while looking for a job?

I suppose when I was unemployed and selling some old books on half.com (which I highly recommend doing, pocketed $2k in getting rid of books I haven't read in years) I would of counted as "employed" for a couple of weeks due to the time it took to go to the Post Office.

[Leroy S. Mort]

First, there are two different sets of employment numbers. One, the establishment survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), shows we have lost about 3,000,000 jobs since the start of the recession.

Bureau of Labor Statistics - THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JANUARY 2001: Total employment was essentially unchanged at 136.0 million, seasonally adjusted, in January.

Bureau of Labor Statistics - THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: January 2004 (see table): Total employment = 138.566 million

Maybe I'm dense but this seems like a NET gain of about two and a half million jobs in three years on Bush's watch, even using the BLS formula. What am I missing here? Sure theres been a fluctuation up and down, but the net is that there are more jobs now that there were three years ago.

[RockyMtnMan]

The Social Security office and the IRS office should get together and come up with the real employment numbers. The current process is inaccurate and can show whatever the politician wants it to show in either direction.

I can say definitively I have seen an increase in job openings in my field (tech). So currently the trend is positive, at least in my neck of the woods (Colorado front range). I don't know anyone out of work right now, but I wouldn't want to be on the market for at least a few more months. I've heard competition is still very tight in my sector.

[raybbr]

60000 households out of 270 million people represents .0022 % of the United States - hardly a repesentative sample.

[XBob]

3 - "Maybe I'm dense but this seems like a NET gain of about two and a half million jobs in three years on Bush's watch, even using the BLS formula. What am I missing here? Sure theres been a fluctuation up and down, but the net is that there are more jobs now that there were three years ago."

During the month of january we gained 112,000 jobs. We also gained 217,000 people. So, while we gained in the number of jobs, we gained 105,000 unemployed people. Like trying to keep your head above water in a fast rising flood, and gaining altitude, and still drowning.

[raloxk]

"60000 households out of 270 million people represents .0022 % of the United States - hardly a repesentative sample."

your logic is a bit flawed, you think that each household contains only one person?

also a representative sample would be one that accurately refelcts the country at large, it could be much smaller than 60,000 and still be representative.


someone sounds like they are a pessimist

[Leroy S. Mort]

During the month of january we gained 112,000 jobs. We also gained 217,000 people. So, while we gained in the number of jobs, we gained 105,000 unemployed people.

If you mean 217,000 people of employable age, net of those who took the celestial dirt nap, I guess I can grasp the math. Ya ain't countin' infants are ya?

[EGPWS]

Show Me The Jobs

Good Lord, with an attitude like that I'm surprised we ARE on a rocketing upward track to more than complacent economic contentment!

When, oh when, will the malcontents finally reach euphoria and stifle their doom and gloom gibberish?

[raybbr]

also a representative sample would be one that accurately refelcts the country at large, it could be much smaller than 60,000 and still be representative.

someone sounds like they are a pessimist

Even if you doubled the percentage it is still hardly a representative sample.

It sounds like someone is willing to believe anything.

[raloxk]

do you understand what the definition of a representative sample is? It just has to represent the US as a whole, it does not have to be above 60,000. Since Zogby accurately prediceted the popular vote outcome of the 2000 election with probably fewer than 1600 likely voters, you could say his poll was a good representative sample of actual voters intentions.

I dont think you understand what the definition of a representative sample is.

[raloxk]

"When, oh when, will the malcontents finally reach euphoria and stifle their doom and gloom gibberish?"

some people arent happy unless they and everyone else are unhappy.

[1rudeboy]

If the sample is properly ramdom, and the population clearly defined, then it is quite conceivable that a statistical study where n=60000 can be representative.

[1rudeboy]

oops
If the sample is properly random, and the population clearly defined, then it is quite conceivable that a statistical study where n=60000 can be representative.

[EGPWS]

some people aren't happy unless they and everyone else are unhappy.

As long as I am alive they will NEVER be happy then.

I wish them years and years of sorrow!

[jpsb]

60,000 in a random sample is way more then you need. 880 or something close is all you need in a random sample to get extermely accurate results.

But this from another thread

Self-Employment May Mask U.S. Job Growth

["In terms of speaking and writing and marketing and doing all that sort of stuff -- yeah, I was working."] Translation: I was working hard trying to find work.

Cool, you are now working if you are working on finding work. That should bring the unemployed numbers down to just about zero.

[Capitalist Eric]

60000 households out of 270 million people represents .0022 % of the United States - hardly a repesentative sample.

You're making the assumption that each household holds one person. More, since we don't know the relevant data of the poll, we cannot judge whether the poll was skewed or not (to say nothing of whether such a skew was intentional), therefore, we cannot confirm or deny the viability of the results.

I'm not saying what the accuracy is- I just posted the article. You want to challenge the results or data...? Then write the author.

[kcar]

So, if the BLS picks up unemployment stats of people >16, and that means that employment numbers speciously peak during the summer months, and that's when the POTUS race will be in full swing, is it forecastable that the Pubbies would be exaggerating local employment results as the tangible proof that the economy's resurging jobfully, while Rats would be trying to "expose" the lie to a population that doesn't appreciate such nuanced arguements, and the local after-summer downward stats would be aired too late for full capitalization by the Rats?

If so that would be fitting justice. The recession started well before Bush raised his right arm. I was there fore and aft, and so was my job and my retirement money.

[kcar]

Actually where you were going with that is that if >90% of the government is fixed and isn't influenced by who sits in the Oval Office, and given that there are good things and bad things that happen during any presidency, and given that the Media bias is always in favor of the Rats by > 90%, is it forecastable that a Rat president could take credit for the rising sun just by crowing, while the Media will condemn any Pubbie POTUS for anything bad that happens anywhere for any reason?

[Capitalist Eric]

Actually where you were going with that is...

I wasn't going anywhere with it. Your claims of what I am trying to say are irrelevant.

If you want to discuss the points of the article, then by all means, let's have a discussion. If, however, you wish to sling hyperbole, then forget it- my time is better served by ignoring such infantile attempts.