Unemployment -- the Full Story the Government Will Not Report

[Elizabeth Parella]

John Maudlin from InvestorsInsight.com puts out a wonderful posting about various and sundry financial matters affecting this country. I have replicated w rew paragraphs which I found instructive and provide some facts about the REAL unemployment numbers in America:

QUOTE:

First, the unemployment rate is now officially at 9.7%. We are approaching the official high we last saw at the end of the double-dip1982 recession. In the chart below, notice that unemployment rose throughout 1980 and then began to decline, before rising rapidly as the economy entered the second recession within two years. Also notice the rapid drop in unemployment following that recession, as opposed to the recessions of 1991-92 and 2001-02, which have been characterized as jobless recoveries. Unemployment was as low as 3.8% in 2000 and saw a cycle low of 4.4% in early 2007.

(For the record, all this data is available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. There is a treasure trove of data. They are quite open about what they do and how they do it. When I call to ask a question, they are quite helpful. How people interpret the data is not their fault.)

This headline unemployment number (9.7%) is what we see when we read the paper. What we typically don't see is the real number of unemployed. For instance, if you have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks, even if you would like one, you are not counted as unemployed. You are called a "marginally attached" or "discouraged" worker. Often there are very good reasons for this. You could be sick, dealing with a family emergency, going back to school, or not have transportation.

Right now, about one-third of marginally attached workers actively want jobs but have not bothered to look because they believe there are no jobs in their area, at least not for them. If you add that extra 758,000 to the unemployment data, you get what is called U-4 unemployment, which today is 10.2%. If you count all marginally attached workers the unemployment number is 11% (U-5 unemployment).

And if you add those who are employed part-time for economic reasons (i.e., they can't get full-time jobs) the unemployment number rises to 16.8%. (That is called U-6 unemployment.)

END QUOTE

This is why I carp like a ninny about the REAL unemployment numbers which MUST INCLUDE the UNDER-employed (those with part-time jobs, sometimes more than one, two, or even three!) people are toiling at to keep their families afloat. And it does NOT include those who have GIVEN UP looking for jobs? These folks are STILL UNEMPLOYED AND ARE NOT COUNTED?????

Do you think Joe Biden would be crowing that the "stimulus" has worked "beyond my wildest imagination" had he read this tidbit of information posted above? Methinks not...but then, again, the morons in Washington are smoking opium and wearing rose-colored glasses.... I suppose the growth of the federal government by hundreds of thousands of jobs by the time Obama-nomics has its way will provide outright GIDDINESS in Washington!

They report: Everything is going swimmingly!

I would retort in a flash: The only thing moving swimmingly are the fish of Rhode Island who received $3 million in stimulus money so that ladders could be built to help them swim upstream! We might well wonder how many THOUSANDS of out-of-work Americans were hired to perform this miraculous task.... How LONG were they employed in this most important endeavor? Were they paid UNION WAGES?

ROFL

The crowing about only 500,000-plus folks losing their jobs in the latest weekly unemployment numbers was unimaginable....when will THIS number be revised? Soon I believe...as soon as someone takes the REAL number out of the hat. How can anyone CROW about a week after week after week loss of jobs of this magnitude???

Is it no wonder that we've all become jaded when thinking about our government? Each time a new economic number comes out, like unemployment, it's revised UPWARD in a flash the following week when so-called "adjustments" are made (seasonal adjustments, and whatever other adjustments can be factored in). GDP comes out looking good and then is revised DOWNWARD. And other economic indicators come out looking fairly good....BUT WAIT, there is a READJUSTMENT which makes the numbers look bad.

WHO THE HELL IS KIDDING WHO HERE?

[christopher e. savard]

Very good post Elizabeth.In DetroitJungle inner city not the suburbs,I would say half the city is walking around and sitting on there butts waiting for the next unenjoyablement check and food stamps.
I would rather work,but thats me ,40% unemployment this is very bad what will happen next summer when it gets hot in the ghetto ,and the effects of the hyperinflation hit ,fedzilla will never be able to give away enough cash to satisfy them,hungry people will abound, and we may see another riot,,history repeats itself?? in 1967 my dad and uncle were at my Detroit shop on the roof of the building with shotguns,protecting what is ours, They talked of it only very sparcely and I think they may have had to shoot People,I hope and pray this will not have to be generational activity,,The recovery is a fake. my view Ty good post ,CES