![]() ![]() In 2000 the percentage of working age Americans "participating in the workforce" was nearly 67%. Change the number of people "participating in the workforce" and the U-3 percentage may not change, yet the actual number of people who are not holding down a job and contributing to the economy can go through the roof.įor instance: current headlines. That's where the confusion, deliberate or otherwise, sets in. It is a simple percentage of people unemployed when taken from the total number of people "participating in the workforce" The U-3 number is the one posted in the news all the time. Second - in Dec 2000 the workforce was 141m, not 58m and the number unemployed was 5.8m, not 23m. ![]() The BLS uses the adult civilian non-institutional population - which does not exclude everyone over 60. Why are you making "guessitmates" that are completely wrong when the real data is readily available?įirst off - the upper age limit of 60 is something you have just invented. None of these numbers is even close to correct. Thus a 4.1 percent unemployment meant you had a total of 23 million people officially unemployed." So in 2000 with a 67% participation rate you had a workforce of approx. Let's say that 1/3 of America is of the age to work, i.e. "In terms of total numbers let's look at a guestimate of numbers. How long they have been in that situation is simply not a factor. If one is either working or not working but looking and available for work, they are a member of the workforce. In 2000, 2010 and now there was and is no limit to how long someone can remain in the workforce. In 2010, 2 yrs into the Obama admin that was increased to 260 weeks" "In 2000 you were dropped out of work force participation if you had not found a job in 99 weeks. The last change in any measurement was in 1994 - and even then that did not in any way impact the frontline U3 rate that is most often quoted (including by the BLS) as the unemployment rate. "It is also worth noting that the BLS regularly updates how they measure unemployment" - no they do not. Now in response to some misinformation that has come from other answers. The last significant change in the BLS employment situation summary was in 1994 and even then it did not impact the frontline unemployment rate (U3). The way data is collected will change from time to time with technology but the way it is calculated has not. In answer to the original question - not there has not been any change in the way unemployment is calculated. It is also worth noting that the BLS regularly updates how they measure unemployment. ![]() Take your friends' words with a grain of salt, and when you hear any president make a claim about the unemployment rate, you can look up the BLS's numbers yourselves and see how they are measured and which one the president is citing. Just that when incidents happen, we hear about it non-stop, and it reinforces the public's view that political workers are untrustworthy as a whole, allowing for weird specious claims from the left and right. Most politicians are not part of insidious, cynical political schemes, as the media may make them out to be. Although the official rate may be under 5% as in the BLS's September 2016 release here, many people may not feel like the economy is much better, and partisans can argue over which measure of employment or labor force participation rate is most useful. The U-6 measure of unemployment with seasonal adjustment stands at 9.7%. The BLS has 6 alternative categories of labor under-utilization. The most likely explanation for discrepancies that political partisans like to pick at is that presidents like to cite different measures of unemployment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |