Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
That doesn't change the fact that you're trying to make an arbitrary distinction between the U3 rates over the years. It doesn't matter how it's calculated b/c the U3 rate is not supposed to measure all unemployed Americans.
|
It is not merely an arbitrary distinction.
Search the web for alternative measures of unemployment, and I don't mean blogs or newspaper articles. I'm talking about university websites where the Economics Department or a professor has displayed charts and graphs showing current UE Rates as they would appear during different Administrations. Shadowstats shows past U-3 definitions, but not by Administration.
The U-3 Rate as calculated during the Truman to Ford Administrations would show UE at 27.0+%
But that methodology was stupid.
Calculate U-3 as it was in November 1993, and your UE Rate is 16.0+%.
Why? Because you were unemployed if you had looked for work in the
last 12 months. The 1994 change to the UE Rate changed that to you are unemployed if you had looked for work in the
last 4 weeks.
I'm into what is reasonable, and someone who has only looked for work once in the last 12 months is not actively seeking work in my book. For the same reason, 4 weeks is unreasonable. I would set it at 12 weeks, but I'm willing to accept 8 weeks.
Why do you think I keep saying "
When government starts to believe the lies it tells.....?" Because government policy and economic decisions are based upon what you call "arbitrary distinctions" and if they are wrong...meaning that the information does not reflect reality... then bad decisions are made, and bad policies enacted which only exacerbate the situation.
February 14, 2011
Recent labor markets developments, including mismatches in the skills of workers and jobs, extended unemployment benefits, and very high rates of long-term joblessness, may be impeding the return to “normal” unemployment rates of around 5%. An examination of alternative measures of labor market conditions suggests that the “normal” unemployment rate may have risen as much as 1.7 percentage points to about 6.7%, although much of this increase is likely to prove temporary. Even with such an increase, sizable labor market slack is expected to persist for years.
Source:
Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | What Is the New Normal Unemployment Rate?
Except you have perennial unemployment of 10%.
Why do you think I slammed the CBO so hard? No rational sane person would forecast a UE Rate of 5% by October 2012.
It took the clowns at the Federal Reserve there 8 months to figure out what I already knew -- and told people here.
Anyway, bad data leads to bad decisions and policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
This sounds more like an issue concerning specific workers in the Census Department who need to be disciplined for their actions, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Obama or his administration.
|
I'm more concerned about a potential culture of fear. Think USPS in days gone by. I'd heard stories of several military commands having that kind of culture, and same when I interned at OSHA about different federal agencies. You have an office director or agency director that is effectively a petty tyrant, and that creates an hostile work environment, which leads to problems....like this for example. The USPS, military and most government agencies have an Office of the Inspector General (IG) that would investigate complaints like this, and the government itself has its own IG.
Whatever is going on in the Census Bureau needs to be corrected.
Distinctively....
Mircea