Especially since the real jobless rate is closer to 9%. The 5% is the "fudged" number that "disappears" a bunch of people (they're not employed, they're not unemployed, they just... aren't). Luckily the Bureau of Labor Statistics also publishes the un-fudged numbers, as "alternative measures of job affinity" (LOL!).
BTW, this isn't new. I first noticed it during the Clinton administration during all the hand-wringing about full employment and how hard it was to hire people for even menial jobs. That did not make sense to me, since I saw so many people hanging around on streetcorners with nothing to do. Turns out these people weren't employed, weren't unemployed, they just... weren't. They were written out of the national dialog -- and still are.
I've also heard that the numbers for the jobless are very poor estimates. Since I've never been to an unemployment office and have never received unemployment, I guess I've never been unemployed . . . officially.
Actually, Karlo, that's not true. The Bureau of Labor Statistics creates their "unemployment number" from the Household Survey, not from unemployment filings. But they deliberately remove you from the unemployment figure for a number of reasons -- because you haven't looked for a job within the past week, you're working part-time at a McJob while you're looking for full-time employment, you're an illegal (if you're a *working * illegal you're counted as employed, but if you're an *unemployed* illegal, you're not), etc. And since it's a Household Survey, this does miss people who, well, are unhoused. Either living in shelters, in their cars, on the streets, or sleeping on people's couches, or whatever. Which in my area is a lot of families whose adult members are indeed seeking employment but aren't employed, aren't unemployed, just... aren't.
Regardless of how folks arrive at the figures, the figures fail to see the numbers of people who are underemployed which to me means thsoe who have taken jobs at convenience stores after losing their real job with actual benefits and a living wage. How many people have just done what is necessary to try to survive?
5 comments:
Especially since the real jobless rate is closer to 9%. The 5% is the "fudged" number that "disappears" a bunch of people (they're not employed, they're not unemployed, they just... aren't). Luckily the Bureau of Labor Statistics also publishes the un-fudged numbers, as "alternative measures of job affinity" (LOL!).
BTW, this isn't new. I first noticed it during the Clinton administration during all the hand-wringing about full employment and how hard it was to hire people for even menial jobs. That did not make sense to me, since I saw so many people hanging around on streetcorners with nothing to do. Turns out these people weren't employed, weren't unemployed, they just... weren't. They were written out of the national dialog -- and still are.
- Badtux the Long-memoried Penguin
I've also heard that the numbers for the jobless are very poor estimates. Since I've never been to an unemployment office and have never received unemployment, I guess I've never been unemployed . . . officially.
Actually, Karlo, that's not true. The Bureau of Labor Statistics creates their "unemployment number" from the Household Survey, not from unemployment filings. But they deliberately remove you from the unemployment figure for a number of reasons -- because you haven't looked for a job within the past week, you're working part-time at a McJob while you're looking for full-time employment, you're an illegal (if you're a *working * illegal you're counted as employed, but if you're an *unemployed* illegal, you're not), etc. And since it's a Household Survey, this does miss people who, well, are unhoused. Either living in shelters, in their cars, on the streets, or sleeping on people's couches, or whatever. Which in my area is a lot of families whose adult members are indeed seeking employment but aren't employed, aren't unemployed, just... aren't.
Regardless of how folks arrive at the figures, the figures fail to see the numbers of people who are underemployed which to me means thsoe who have taken jobs at convenience stores after losing their real job with actual benefits and a living wage. How many people have just done what is necessary to try to survive?
That's true. It's hard to understand how a minimum wage position counts as a "job" in any real sense of the word.
Post a Comment