Understanding U.S. Unemployment Rate Numbers

[PizzaLover]

PLEASE SPEND 5 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME TO LEARN SOMETHING!!!


There appears to be some confusion amongst forum members regarding U.S. unemployment numbers.

For example, here was a recent post where JD Barleycorn accused the Obama Administration of lying about the May 2015 unemployment rate, which was reported at 5.5%.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Obama can lie and you can swallow but it does not change reality.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102734623

Here is my response.

Obama is NOT lying at all. You are simply confused.

The OFFICIAL U.S. Department of Labor UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS the U-3 rate. For May 2015, that number IS 5.5%.

The U.S. Department of Labor actually publishes a SET of unemployment rates each month. Each has a unique definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also calculates six alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6, that measure different aspects of unemployment:

U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part-time workers who want to work full-time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

Official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Reference:
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The article you quote references a DIFFERENT Labor Department Rate called the U-6 rate. That rate is a more expanded definition of unemployment.

The key with these sets of rates over time is consistency of usage if you are trying to understand a trend.

Meaning: pick one U rate and stick with it.

This is why one of these rates is deemed the OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. That is the U-3, and the U-3 for May 2015 is 5.5%.

You (or in this case the author of the CNBC article you reference) can argue the U-6 unemployment rate better represents the "true picture" of unemployment, but the fact remains the U-3 is the official unemployment rate, not the U-6 rate.

I should note that the U-3 has been the official unemployment rate for many years. The Obama Administration did not change which U rate is the official one.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE CHARTS

Here is a chart of the U-6 rate from 2000 - 2015 (the webpage has the information in both graph and table formats):
http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

You will note the U-6 rate hit a peak in 2010 but has now dropped down to near 2008 levels.

Here is a chart of the the U-3 rate from 2002-2015 (the OFFICIAL RATE):
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp

You will note that rate's graph shows the same overall trend, that U.S. unemployment hit a peak in 2010 but has now dropped down to near 2008 levels.

Conclusion: The Obama Administration is NOT LYING when they state the official unemployment rate for May 2015 is 5.5%.



P.S. If you look at either of those charts and set the beginning date back as far as possible (1994) you will see the lowest unemployment rate the U.S. had during that entire time period was in 2001, at the end of the Clinton Administration / beginning of the G.W. Bush Administration.

[WombRaider]

This is my problem with JD; he's not interested in the truth. None of these idiots are. They are interested in whatever can make Obama look the worst, whether it's twisted around, half-true or just an outright lie. They don't care. If you want to disagree with the guy on policy, do it while at least understanding what it is you're against, for fuck's sake. It does nothing but make you look like a simpering buffoon.

Aren't you people interested in knowing as many truthful things as you can? Because you all seem very ok with ingesting lie after lie.

[CuteOldGuy]

The problem is that when workers move from U3 to U4 and above, U3 goes down, but it paints an artificial and misleading appearance of growth. That is what has been happening, so the U3 rate is essentially meaningless.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by PizzaLover

PLEASE SPEND 5 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME TO LEARN SOMETHING!!!

You must be a liberal.

But you do raise an interesting "point" about the present condition of the educational system in the U.S. You and yours have modeled it after ..

.......MacDonald's "one minute" burger.

"You (or in this case the author of the CNBC article you reference) can argue the U-6 unemployment rate better represents the "true picture" of unemployment, but the fact remains the U-3 is the official unemployment rate, not the U-6 rate."

The "official" football has x pounds of air in it, but today ...

.... we are going to play with footballs with x-5 pounds of air ..

.... and hope no one notices.

Gruber has been talking to you for years. I notice you've been listening.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

This is my problem with JD; he's not interested in the truth. None of these idiots are. They are interested in whatever can make Obama look the worst, whether it's twisted around, half-true or just an outright lie. They don't care. If you want to disagree with the guy on policy, do it while at least understanding what it is you're against, for fuck's sake. It does nothing but make you look like a simpering buffoon.

Aren't you people interested in knowing as many truthful things as you can? Because you all seem very ok with ingesting lie after lie.

" And if you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it ! " " And if you like your Doctor, you can keep him ! " And how 'bout that $2500 "promise" from YOUR emperor, you friggen liberal Gruberite ? ! Keep going for your dream of being the town Bukake king !

[Guest123018-4]

Our government manipulates the numbers whenever they need to make things appear different from what they actually are.
The most common example is the ever changing way that the government calculates inflation. The change to the calculation makes it "official" but does not change the fact that inflation is higher than the "official" rate. Primary reason for doing so is to keep COLA to a minimum for those on SS or government pensions.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Our government manipulates the numbers whenever they need to make things appear different from what they actually are.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Fall of 2000. It even pissed off the AFLCIO.

"Discontinued" data bases:

http://www.bls.gov/data/archived.htm

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

" And if you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it ! " " And if you like your Doctor, you can keep him ! " And how 'bout that $2500 "promise" from YOUR emperor, you friggen liberal Gruberite ? !eep going for your dream of being the town Bukake king !

I still have my doctor. And just say 'fucking'. Frigging is fucking stupid. And it's 'bukkake'.

[PizzaLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Y
The "official" football has x pounds of air in it, but today ...

.... we are going to play with footballs with x-5 pounds of air ..

.... and hope no one notices.

WRONG!

You obviously do not understand (or refuse to).

You can argue the U-6 rate is a better representation of unemployment, but NONE of these numbers have been manipulated. They have all been calculated using standard U.S. Dept. of Labor methods.

The point is the Obama Administration IS NOT LYING when they say the unemployment rate for May 2015 is 5.5%. That is a fact.

The U-3 rate is the official rate, so why is it wrong for the Obama Administration to publish this rate when IT IS THE SAME RATE that was deemed "official" during the Administrations of G.W. Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, etc.?

Why is it you never questioned the U-3 rate as the official rate during the G.W. Bush Administration? or the Clinton Administration? or the H.W. Bush Administration? or the Reagan Administration?

I would suggest IT IS YOU who are the "gruber", since you seem to refuse to accept proven, factual information.

If you want to assert that you prefer the U-6 rate when talking about unemployment, then fine. Let's look at the U-6 rate:
http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

What do you see?

YOU SEE THE U-6 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE PEAKED IN 2010, AND IT HAS DROPPED STEADILY SINCE THEN.
YOU SEE THE U-6 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS ALMOST DOWN TO 2008 LEVELS, MEANING THE RATE IS DROPPED DOWN NEARLY TO THE POINT IT WAS AT BEFORE THE GREAT RECESSION!!!

[PizzaLover]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Our government manipulates the numbers whenever they need to make things appear different from what they actually are.

Please provide PROOF the U.S. Department of Labor manipulates their unemployment rate statistics.

PROVIDE PROOF!! Otherwise your statement is nothing but opinion.

Here is the OFFICIAL unemployment rates from the U.S. Department of Labor from 1988-2015.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...88&toYear=2015

Are you suggesting the U.S. government manipulated these numbers during the Obama, G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan Administrations?

GET REAL!!

[PizzaLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The problem is that when workers move from U3 to U4 and above, U3 goes down, but it paints an artificial and misleading appearance of growth. That is what has been happening, so the U3 rate is essentially meaningless.

WRONG!!

The definition of these unemployment rates do not change.

Compare the U-6 rate chart with the U-3 rate chart and what do you see?

The curves of these rates are nearly identical. If your assertion was correct, the U-6 rate would be increasing faster than the U-3 rate. But it hasn't.

Therefore your assertion the U-3 is "meaningless" is DISPROVEN.

[PizzaLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Fall of 2000. It even pissed off the AFLCIO.

"Discontinued" data bases:

http://www.bls.gov/data/archived.htm

WRONG!! Those are periodic SURVEYS. They are not part of the set of official numbers calculated.

Are you suggesting that the BLS be required to never create any type of survey if they don't plan on creating that survey indefinitely?

SHOW ME HOW THE OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (U-3) has been manipulated. You can't.

[PizzaLover]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The most common example is the ever changing way that the government calculates inflation. The change to the calculation makes it "official" but does not change the fact that inflation is higher than the "official" rate. Primary reason for doing so is to keep COLA to a minimum for those on SS or government pensions.

WRONG AGAIN!!

The official BLS inflation calculator uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for any given year.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

You can argue the CPI does not represent inflation accurately, BUT THE OFFICIAL METHOD FOR CALCULATING INFLATION HAS NOT CHANGED. The U.S. Government has not manipulated anything.

Please provide PROOF that the U.S. Government has changed the way they calculate the Consumer Price Index.

I really don't see where you people are getting your mis-information.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by PizzaLover

WRONG!!

The definition of these unemployment rates do not change.

Compare the U-6 rate chart with the U-3 rate chart and what do you see?

The curves of these rates are nearly identical. If your assertion was correct, the U-6 rate would be increasing faster than the U-3 rate. But it hasn't.

Therefore your assertion the U-3 is "meaningless" is DISPROVEN.

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you, PizzaFace? Please explain how 93,000,000 people out of the workforce is a sign of a growing, robust economy.

[PizzaLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you, PizzaFace? Please explain how 93,000,000 people out of the workforce is a sign of a growing, robust economy.

Stop trying to shift your argument. I have made no comments in this thread about a "robust economy". WE ARE TALKING ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT IN THIS THREAD.

Here is your post and my response from another thread.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The problem is that when workers move from U3 to U4 and above, U3 goes down, but it paints an artificial and misleading appearance of growth. That is what has been happening, so the U3 rate is essentially meaningless.

No.

Here is a graph that shows the U-3 (official), U-5, and U-6 rates all on the same chart:
http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate


ALL these rates peak in early 2010, and ALL have dropped down to near where they were at the beginning of the Great Recession.


IF YOUR ASSERTION WERE CORRECT, you would expect to see the U-6 rate get larger in comparison to the U-3 rate. It hasn't.

In fact, the spread between the U-6 and the U-3 has DECREASED. This shows that underemployment (the movement you discuss) HAS ACTUALLY DECREASED in comparison to the U-3 rate.



Sorry, but as this chart shows, you are 100% incorrect.


If you were a REAL MAN, you would admit you were 100% wrong.