Quote:
Originally Posted by las vegas drunk
What, you do not believe the scumberments official numbers?
P.S. Neither do I.
|
It isn't necessarily an issue of "believing," rather it is an issue of understanding the methodology in how unemployment is calculated.
Once you understand the methodologies, then it is up to you to decide which methodology gives the best picture of the unemployment situation and hopefully that is based on what is most representative.
From the Truman Administration to the the Ford Administration, unemployment was calculated this way:
Prison Population = Unemployed
Military Personnel = Unemployed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed
During the Carter Administration, the Prison Population was removed (and rightfully so) and unemployment was calculated this way:
Prison Population =
Ignored
Military Personnel = Unemployed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed
During the Reagan Administration, military personnel were counted as employed (and again rightfully so) and unemployment was calculated this way:
Prison Population =
Ignored
Military Personnel =
Employed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed
During the Clinton Administration, a number of changes were made, mostly to hide the fact that unemployment was rising and that would have doomed Clinton's chances of re-election and unemployment was calculated this way:
Prison Population =
Ignored
Military Personnel =
Employed
Part-Time Employees =
Employed
Underemployed =
Employed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) =
Ignored
When you look at some statistics, they are calculating employment the way it was calculated during the Reagan and Bush Administrations and the first 2 years of the Clinton Administration.
In particular, ShadowStats uses the method employed during the Reagan and Bush (the Elder) Administrations.
I use a modified version of the Reagan and Bush method ignoring the "discouraged workers" (unemployed and not searching) because I agree with Clinton's definition of unemployed (which is a 3-prong Test):
1) You are available to work;
AND
2) You want to work;
AND
3) You are actively seeking employment (defined as at least two contacts per month)
I don't drink the "discouraged worker" Kool-Aid. If you
really want to work, then you'll pound pavement and fill out applications for as long as it takes.
When you go to the BLS web-site and look at the unemployment data, you need to pay particular attention to two things: the labor participation rate and the number of part-time employees, because Clinton's method of unemployment (used by Bush the Younger and Obama) really skews the whole picture.
In the 1950s, you had 5% unemployment, and 6% of households had 2 wage-earners.
By the 1970s, that had doubled to 13% of households with 2 wage-earners and unemployment was 6% (until the recession).
In 2008, you had 5% unemployment,
but 67% of households had 2 wage-earners.
What does that tell you? Your labor participation rate increased. Since wages are a function of Supply & Demand, all of those women going to work increased the Supply of Labor and kept wages from rising. That's why wages have not increased significantly in the last 30 years and there are a few threads whining and crying about how income for some has increased 250% but not for everyone.
Naturally, others and I saw that as suspect, and asked why 30 years? Why not 10 years or 50 years? Because then they couldn't lie.
Your labor participation rate increased dramatically between 1978 and 1990, and that should be obvious from the number of households that went from 1 wage-earner to 2 wage-earners (and again that kept downward pressure on wages).
Now you know one of the reasons why (it isn't the only reason, but it is the most important).
In order to return to the 2008 pre-Recession levels of employment, there are two conditions that must be met:
1) Unemployment has to be in the 5% range;
AND
2) Your labor participation rate has to be the same.
In other words, unemployment has to be 5% and at least 67% of households have to have 2 wage-earners.
If unemployment is 5% and only 30% of households have 2 wage-earners,
then your employment situation has not improved and because it has not, your economy will not grow rapidly.
And because Clinton lied, you need to look at the number of part-time workers, which has been steadily increasing and is now over 93 Million.
5% unemployment and 60% of households with one full-time wage-earner and one part-time wage-earner is
NOT the same thing as 5% unemployment and 60% of households with 2 full-time wage-earners.
As of October 1, 2011 you will need:
1) 1.1 Million jobs per month for 13 consecutive months to reduce unemployment to less than 6% and have a labor participation rate equal to 2008 by November 1, 2011 (
impossible)
2) 325,000 jobs per month for 62 consecutive months to reduce unemployment to less than 6% and have a labor participation rate equal to 2008 by December 2016 (
impossible)
3) 250,000 jobs per month for 102 consecutive months to reduce unemployment to less than 6% and have a labor participation rate equal to 2008 by
April 2022 (
possible, but not likely).
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Statisticians still ask, 'will it pass the red faced test?" as they realize statistics is as much 'art' as science
