Abbott and Costello explain Unemployment Numbers

[Kevin Lang]

I too think we should call a spade a spade. To me, the unemployment rate should be about those people are are not working, want to work, are sincerely and earnestly looking for a job, but haven't found one yet.

That sounds like calling a spade a club IMO. I'm not sure there is anything approaching a proper way to define "earnestly and sincerely" looking for a job. I'm also not sure I can agree with your last qualifier; finding any job isn't too difficult, as long as you're willing to be underemployed, but taking such a job while you wait for a job that capitalizes on all your skills could make it difficult to land that job when it opens. If I pass up locking into a job at McDonald's to actively seek out jobs that have need of my degrees, and I do so for more than 4 weeks, am I no longer unemployed? From your previous posts and your definition of the unemployment rate, I'm not sure what the answer would be.



Does anyone actually want to work? I know lots of people who want to get paid. Reminds me of that old saw about "Do what you love and get paid for it and you'll never work a day in your life", which says that "work" has taken on a negative connotation. :grin:

 

[H D]

The problem with calling a spade a spade, as you say, and basing that on a subjective quality such as "earnestly looking" is that you can't quantitatively or qualitatively define "earnestness."



You can know the number of people not working. You can also know within reason how many simply do not need or cannot work. That's real unemployment. Whether someone would "like" to be considered unemployed or not is irrelevant. If you're capable of work but not working, you're unemployed. That's pretty simple I think. Then we just decide what an acceptable amount of employment is where the FULL EFFICIENCY of the workforce is in use.



Again, politicians don't want us to know how inefficient their vote buying, er, welfare, is. It happens in both parties, so I'm not trying to single out what is typically considered the welfare friendly party. Inefficient spending in the military and tax breaks for certain individuals and companies is a vote buying tool as well; just ask anyone employed by private company with military contracts or look at the tax code.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



How do we within reason figure out those in our population that simply do not need to work and those that cannot work as you suggest?



I disagree that all those able to work that are not working are unemployed. I would agree they are jobless; I would agree they are not working. But given the official definition of "unemployed" such people may or may not fit that definition.



Again there are those that may not like the DOL definition of "unemployed" but it is what it is. Case-in-point, an able and otherwise capable mom who is home taking care of kids while her husband works is jobless, is not employed, but for the purposes of labor statistics is not unemployed.



Not employed does not equal "unemployed" to the department of labor. I think that is the disconnect here.



KL,



I agree that the '4 week' criteria isn't the best, but some definitive, quantitative measure had to be put in place to give meat to the definition of unemployed, with the intent of the definition to only count those sans jobs that are looking for work. When one considers that the overall intent of the "unemployment rate" is to get a handle on those that aren't working but seek to be then it makes more sense. Sure, we could just give a very easy to determine definition for "unemployed", something like "those not working", but that covers a lot of people that simply aren't of interest to organizations like the DOL, for very clear reasons.



TJR

 

[H D]

We know our population through the census. Take that percentage given from the census and assume that number is average. Re-adjust every 10 years. Not too hard. More honest than the current method. Maybe even consider "homemaker" as a job to aid in the calculation. I'm not claiming to have created the ultimate unemployment calculator, just that the current one is a political tool more than an actual commentary on the status of the labor market. Everyone knows there are more than 8% of the population without jobs that should have one.

Sure, we could just give a very easy to determine definition for "unemployed", something like "those not working", but that covers a lot of people that simply aren't of interest to organizations like the DOL, for very clear reasons.

That's my point. Unless we disagree about what the "clear reasons" are, and I suspect we don't, I don't have anything to argue against. I understand how it's currently done now but I think we could do it better, and more honestly.



Taking someone off of unemployment insurance and placing them on permanent welfare hardly seems like fixing the unemployment rate but that's what we do after 4 weeks.



Can I take myself out of the "employed" calculations if I simply state that I just don't feel like being employed any longer and would like to drop out of the calculations. Of course, I won't actually change my employment status, I just want the numbers to reflect my attitude, not my actual condition.



If I feel like a millionaire tomorrow (I'm off work and get to hunt and work on my truck:banana, can I be put into the national statistics as a millionaire? Just don't tax me like one!



My point is, what someone feels like or wants to do does not indicate their employment status. I guess when it comes to politics we can look back to our great leader of the 90s: "it depends on what the meaning of is is."



I "is employed" but did spend a year post-college without a job. I worked hard every day in 2009 to find a job but never reported to the DOL so I guess I wasn't counted. I was working hard looking for a job rather than trying to collect a free check, though I could have, so I guess I was never included in that statistic during that time. Wonder if I'm alone?