Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,688 posts)
17. Additional information:
Fri May 8, 2020, 08:50 AM
May 2020

Last edited Fri May 8, 2020, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Thu Apr 9, 2020: DU has a thread on the BLS payroll employment report, almost always on the first Friday of the month

There are several ways to calculate unemployment. Here's the report for March:

Nonfarm payroll employment falls by 701,000 in March; unemployment rate rises to 4.4%

There might be more here too:

Mon Feb 10, 2020: The mind-numbing rant, based on a version posted on the first Friday in September 2016:

{snip}

[center]How Do You Define Unemployment?
The Large Print Giveth, and the Fine Print Taketh Away.
[/center]

Long ago, a DUer pointed out that, if I'm going to post the link to the press release, I should include the link to all the tables that provide additional ways of examining the data. Specifically, I should post a link to Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization. Table A-15 includes those who are not considered unemployed, on the grounds that they have become discouraged about the prospects of finding a job and have given up looking. Here is that link:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Also, hat tip, Recursion: How the Government Measures Unemployment

[font color="red"]New material, added August 8, 2016:[/font]

This appeared at the top of page A2 in the Wednesday, July 27, 2016, print edition of The Wall Street Journal. as "Jobless Picture is Open to Interpretation."

Jobless Picture is Open to Interpretation

Gauges used to measure unemployment vary in how they define who is out of work {print: "Political campaigns clash over different ways of measuring unemployment"}



By Josh Zumbrun
josh.zumbrun@wsj.com
@JoshZumbrun

July 26, 2016 7:56 p.m. ET

Because political campaigns can rise and fall on the health of the economy, spats often flare over the gauges used to measure growth and unemployment.

The latest dust-up, raised by the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, focuses on the monthly employment numbers. A long streak of hiring has nudged the jobless rate down to 4.9%. ... Donald Trump Jr., the nominee’s son, recently criticized the official statistics as “artificial numbers…massaged to make the existing economy look good.”

The nominee himself has said unemployment is far higher than the Labor Department’s headline 4.9% rate would suggest, part of his message that the economy is in a dire state. After he won the New Hampshire primary in February, Mr. Trump called the official jobless figures “phony” and said the real number could be as high as 42%.

This isn’t the first time people have cast aspersions on the jobs numbers in an election year, but the Trump claim is also part of a larger discussion over how best to assess the health of the labor market.

The following link to Barron's might not work for everyone. See progree's tips. From the July 20, 2015, issue of Barron's:

Refresher Course: Inside the Jobless Numbers

Are we undercounting the unemployment numbers—or overcounting? How the BLS gathers and calculates the numbers, and why it matters.

By Gene Epstein
July 18, 2015

The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention from the markets and the media as it is now, sparked by the keen interest taken in its monthly fluctuations by policy makers at the Federal Reserve.

Despite the heightened focus, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the rate is calculated. Some people assume the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the rate from the unemployment-insurance rolls. On that basis, they fault the BLS for undercounting the unemployed. But that’s just one myth among many about this cornerstone measure of economic pain and labor-market slack.

To estimate the unemployment rate, the BLS actually relies on the monthly Current Population Survey conducted for it by the Census Bureau. While the data are highly imperfect in their own way, we think the Federal Reserve is right to view the official unemployment rate as the best available information, while also keeping its eye on ancillary measures of “labor underutilization.”

In fact, a close look at BLS methods suggests that, if anything, the official unemployment rate may be overcounting rather than undercounting the unemployed.


[font color="red"]New material:[/font] In August 2015, DUers whatthehey and progree got into a 1995 report from economists John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen. The .pdf is unfortunately an image and thus challenging as a source of quotes. Trying to find it in a format that does make for easy copying, I was led to this:

Alternative Unemployment Rates: Their Meaning and Their Measure March 12, 2014

{snip}
Right on time. From the source: mahatmakanejeeves May 2020 #1
I stayed on WaPo's front page and refreshed to try to grab it BumRushDaShow May 2020 #4
I'm waiting for the usual crowd to start up with the "I don't trust the numbers" chant. mahatmakanejeeves May 2020 #6
One of my sisters already texted that sentiment BumRushDaShow May 2020 #8
I have no doubt it's seasonally adjusted somehow. Hugin May 2020 #26
First time I have ever been sitting on the BLS website denem May 2020 #7
That's a shame. BumRushDaShow May 2020 #10
It's fun, isn't it? I don't mean this month's numbers, but the constant hitting of mahatmakanejeeves May 2020 #13
A trip down memory lane. denem May 2020 #19
"...brought employment to its lowest level since February 2011.." (?) Try June 1999, BLS. sandensea May 2020 #42
Looks right to me -- it's talking about the Establishment Survey's nonfarm payroll employment progree May 2020 #43
Yes - that's the one. Thank you. sandensea May 2020 #44
All's I "know" is from the summary and from the technical note .. progree May 2020 #46
Which is funny, b/c they usually use the Population Survey as the metric for emp/unemp data sandensea May 2020 #47
The BLS always presented it this way -- the Establishment Survey data for the number of jobs, and progree May 2020 #48
They were still cherry-picking. It's the lowest since 1999, not '2011' sandensea May 2020 #49
I don't think so. But again, if you can find something in the past progree May 2020 #50
I just gave it to you: The Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (as far back as you like) sandensea May 2020 #52
Then the survey size is of no importance? What the BLS reports on the sample size of the progree May 2020 #53
"When presidents crow about how "since taking office x million jobs have been created..." progree May 2020 #54
Interesting, nothing is available online after 2012, or at all? progree May 2020 #55
Interesting - the 2012 Statistical Abstract includes the Establishment Survey beginning progree May 2020 #56
Are we tired of winning yet? nt Atticus May 2020 #2
These are horrible numbers Gothmog May 2020 #3
And the DOW is up 300 points?!? They seeing a lot of good in 20M losing their jobs? Bengus81 May 2020 #29
The usual: "not as bad as expected", "the market is forward looking" blah blah progree May 2020 #32
Yep....highest unemployment since the Great Depression but Wall St. says..eh,could have been worse!! Bengus81 May 2020 #35
Investors expected the numbers to be worse. n/t Laelth May 2020 #33
We've been reading all day Thursday that 33 million have filed unemployment claims, and the week progree May 2020 #34
Quick....tell investors that the BLS is looking at unemployment numbers of 35% in June Bengus81 May 2020 #57
I agree, there will come a point when "horrible but not as bad as expected" no longer works n/t progree May 2020 #58
In line with expectations (15%) ? denem May 2020 #5
The highest since 1935 sandensea May 2020 #9
Links to charts and graphs from the BLS Twitter account: mahatmakanejeeves May 2020 #11
Anyone remember Trump claiming unemployment was "20 or even 30 percent" in 2016? sop May 2020 #12
HEY GOP ECONOMISTS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE! bucolic_frolic May 2020 #14
Actually it's small business that is going to suffer, gab13by13 May 2020 #23
Don't defuse the post by changing the subject bucolic_frolic May 2020 #25
My post is about supply side trickle down economics, gab13by13 May 2020 #27
Easy enough for them to answer FBaggins May 2020 #24
Coronavirus costs the U.S. 20.5 million jobs in April, unemployment soars to 14.7% UpInArms May 2020 #15
The new Herbert Hoover is trump Gothmog May 2020 #16
Additional information: mahatmakanejeeves May 2020 #17
Reference week, April 12th through April 18th. denem May 2020 #18
That will be the next data he will hide or modify to suit his reelection. They're not quite... machoneman May 2020 #20
Additional links: mahatmakanejeeves May 2020 #21
Links to earlier reports: mahatmakanejeeves May 2020 #22
Not as bad as expected, according to MarketWatch's 15 economists. S&P 500 up 1.19%, Dow up 1.36% progree May 2020 #28
We'll probably never see the peak unemployment number in a jobs report mathematic May 2020 #30
Unemployment rate may be almost 5% higher than the reported 14.7%, says BLS in so many words: progree May 2020 #31
As always, look at the U6. maddogesq May 2020 #36
Here's the graph of the U-6 unemployment rate -- the broadest measure that BLS produces progree May 2020 #39
So, according to math... TXPaganBanker May 2020 #37
Winning Baby!!!! Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2020 #38
wait for Trump to accuse the BLS of being the dreaded "deep state" conspiracists and.... steve2470 May 2020 #40
BLS cooking the books again for the Emperor Cryptoad May 2020 #41
"I will be the greatest jobs president that God has ever created," Trump, June 16th, 2015. usregimechange May 2020 #45
Lowest employment-to-population ratio in the history of the series (which goes back to 1948) progree May 2020 #51
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Jobless rate soared to 14...»Reply #17