Vegas Free-for-All - Unemployment inaccurate?

pjstroh

Nov 20, 2013
12:17pm

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
They had to get unemployment below 8%, . . . so they did.

Ref: The New York Post

yeah, it was called the Recovery Act and the CBO estimated it created millions of jobs....and almost every Republican voted against it.

Oh, wait, you were referring to the guy who manipulated the employment numbers despite not being in a position of access to do any such thing? Ok then. And I thought We hit rock bottom with citations of James Okeefe transcripts

dfwgambler

Nov 20, 2013
12:36pm

Block User

Chillcoot:

1. Data for the Bureau of Labor Statistics underwent massive change in 2007 and 2011.

2007: The 2007 revision to the scope of the Quarterly Concensus of Employment and Wages data (QCEW) took the 186 NAICS codes and made them obsolete and created 76 new codes.

2011: The 2011 Q1 statistics were required to use the new NAICS 2012 promulgated changes. This too was a massive change.

Thus years previous statistics bear no relation to todays statistics.

2. The Texas Workforce Commission reports unemployment statistics to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. (See their website). They state that after a job seekers unemployment benefits run out and the job seeker no longer utilizes their facilities they are not counted as unemployed.

wrosie

Nov 20, 2013
1:43pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: dfwgambler
Chillcoot:

2. The Texas Workforce Commission reports unemployment statistics to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. (See their website). They state that after a job seekers unemployment benefits run out and the job seeker no longer utilizes their facilities they are not counted as unemployed.

I can vouch for this as I was told this exact thing while using the Texas Workforce Commissions offices to fax resumes out.

wrosie

Nov 20, 2013
1:50pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote
Originally posted by: wrosie
I was fired and appealed NOT being able to draw unemployment last November. In March of this year, I won my appeal. A month later I got a letter stating I had to re-appeal my victory. However, I re-appealed two days late and was denied unemployment benefits.

I didn't understand that I had to re-appeal to get my benefits a month after winning my original appeal. Something seems wrong with the system to me.

HUH? was that the army or something? Makes no sense

J

I agree, it didn't/doesn't make any sense to me. What I was told that it was a new year (March?) and I needed to reapply for benefits. WHAT, WHY, it's the system. And now I'm on the verge of being homeless because I'm overqualified for minimum wage jobs and don't hear back from jobs I feel I'm qualified for.

Works well if the government doesn't want to pay unemployment benefits and get the numbers down.

jatki

Nov 20, 2013
2:09pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: wrosie

Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: wrosie
I was fired and appealed NOT being able to draw unemployment last November. In March of this year, I won my appeal. A month later I got a letter stating I had to re-appeal my victory. However, I re-appealed two days late and was denied unemployment benefits.

I didn't understand that I had to re-appeal to get my benefits a month after winning my original appeal. Something seems wrong with the system to me.

HUH? was that the army or something? Makes no sense

J

I'm really sorry to hear of the tough going you're having right now, I sincerely hope things turn around and start looking up for you wrosie.

JOHN

Dan Svatass

Nov 20, 2013
3:35pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: dfwgambler
Chillcoot:

1. Data for the Bureau of Labor Statistics underwent massive change in 2007 and 2011.

2007: The 2007 revision to the scope of the Quarterly Concensus of Employment and Wages data (QCEW) took the 186 NAICS codes and made them obsolete and created 76 new codes.

2011: The 2011 Q1 statistics were required to use the new NAICS 2012 promulgated changes. This too was a massive change.

Thus years previous statistics bear no relation to todays statistics.

This has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Quote
Originally posted by: dfwgambler
2. The Texas Workforce Commission reports unemployment statistics to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. (See their website). They state that after a job seekers unemployment benefits run out and the job seeker no longer utilizes their facilities they are not counted as unemployed.

You should tell that to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, because their current website makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. I wonder why BLS has a website that says you're wrong? They're so mean to you!

Here, again, is what BLS says:

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

There's nothing at all in there about people who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits being excluded from the definition of "unemployed". If you don't have a job but can work and are actively looking for work, you're counted.

Seriously, you need to get BLS to believe you, what they're doing to your reputation is not nice!

wrosie

Nov 20, 2013
9:24pm

Block User

Chilcoot,

And exactly how does the government monitor and count these quoted from your link? I especially like the contacting friends or relatives, sending out resume and my absolute favorite "Some other means of active job search"?

Copied from your link:

"Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Sending out resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search"

hoops2

Nov 20, 2013
10:23pm

Block User

The govt counts as employed 1 person working 1 hour per month.

This is why stats such as the U6 rate & the adult participation rates are better baromoters

Dan Svatass

Nov 21, 2013
3:51am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: wrosie
Chilcoot,

And exactly how does the government monitor and count these quoted from your link?

Every month, 2,200 BLS employees survey 60,000 households.

Here's BLS's explanation of how it calculates the figure. Note this paragraph, which blows one of the many dumb statements made in this thread out of the water:

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Dan Svatass

Nov 21, 2013
4:05am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The govt counts as employed 1 person working 1 hour per month.

If this was just stupid, I'd probably just ignore it. But this is funny stupid.

Every month is based on what's called the "survey week", which is usually the week that includes the 12th day of the month. If the person was employed during that week, they're counted as employed. If the person was not employed that week, they're counted as unemployed.

If a person works one hour in the typical 720 hour month, and it happened to be the final hour of that month's survey week, that person could be counted as employed, because the week ended with the person employed.

However, if that hour was one of the other 719 hours that month, they'd be unemployed.

I don't think there are many people who work just that one magic hour each month that we need to worry about it affecting the unemployment rate.

«‹3 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now