Comments on: Spinning Unemployment Statistics

By: Econbrowser

Econbrowser — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 04:35:23 +0000

The latest employment figures: implications for policy...

Stronger employment growth in February than I and many others had been expecting....

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:51:46 +0000

MrGone,

Selecting 2000 is also a bit disengenuous, IMO. Looking at the percentage of unemployed and the percentage of the population that is employed (the 4.0% and 64.4% respectively) are both global low points and high points for the data presented. As for trends it looks like 2003 was a "turning point" in that both the unemployment and percentage of the population that is employed both started to decrease and increase respectivley.

By: MrGone

MrGone — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:06:22 +0000

James, perhaps you need a refresher course in reading tables. The numbers you quote, 67.1 and 66.0, are for total labor force available. That includes employed and unemployed. The percentage for the employment numbers are 64.4% (2000) and 62.7%(2005). Please also notice that these numbers arenâ??t fluctuating around a midpoint, they trend downwards. Thus, a smaller fraction of the potential workers are employed.

Over that period, ~4.8M jobs were added but ~6.7M people entered the workforce. So now we have 1.9M more people unemployed than in 2000.

MrGone: Good catch on the table reading. I shrunk it to fit my page layout and wasn't as careful as I should have been. Corrected above for clarity. -JHJ

By: charles austin

charles austin — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:54:34 +0000

Jeez, even NPR said this morning that jobless claims went up because more people had started looking for work due to an improving job market. When you hear any date used for a statistical cutoff that is not a presidential election year or doesn't end in at least one "0", then it is pretty obvious that the statistics are being gamed. And as an aside, have you ever noticed how the revisions offered each month to the Labor Department's statistics almost always make the situation better than the headlines blared the previus month? It's the institutional equivalent of a page 16 correction. And another aside, would these be the same members of the media using a four week moving average who constantly bemoan business' emphasis on short term results?

By: Daily Pundit

Daily Pundit — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Jim Joyner questions the effects of theBush tax cuts on the employment picture, and on the overall economy in general. I, too, have had my doubts.

By: » Gone Hollywood

» Gone Hollywood — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

OTB Border Patrol Agents Smuggling Migrants ROTC Debate Could be Hillary’s Sista Soulja The Jobs Market Outlook Rogers Staffer Reprimanded in Abu Ghraib ScandalSpinning Unemployment Statistics Futility of the Liberal Blogosphere? Bush Popularity Hits New Low in AP Poll Caption Contest Winners U.A.E. Threatens Retaliation Beltway Traffic Jam