Uneployment rates/state

[MaC]

http://www.dol.state.nm.us/dol_surr.html

Discuss

[Gabu]

Hurricane Katrina apparently screwed over exactly 5.5% of the population of Louisiana.

[A18]

Impressive...  3.4% in Virginia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hurricane Katrina apparently screwed over exactly 5.5% of the population of Louisiana.

No; 5.5% of the workforce. It'd be interesting to see employment rate numbers actually.

[Gabu]

Hurricane Katrina apparently screwed over exactly 5.5% of the population of Louisiana.

No; 5.5% of the workforce. It'd be interesting to see employment rate numbers actually.

I was mainly making a joke, but feel free to actually analyze that statement, if you so desire.

[Wakie]

Impressive...  3.4% in Virginia.

Mark Warner must have done something right, eh?

[A18]

Impressive...  3.4% in Virginia.

Mark Warner must have done something right, eh?

Why?

[nini2287]

[A18]

You're supposed to use one color for the whole map, not make some arbitrary cutoff that confuses the whole thing.

[opebo]

Impressive...  3.4% in Virginia.

Mark Warner must have done something right, eh?

Actually certain states are always lower than other states, and Virginia and Maryland are always among the lowest, due to the presence of the Federal Government. 

Lesson - we need more federal government.

[nini2287]

You're supposed to use one color for the whole map, not make some arbitrary cutoff that confuses the whole thing.

I cut it off at the national average (5.0%)

[A18]

Why? Why not just use a darker shade of one color for a certain amount of unemployment?

This throws off my eyes.

[opebo]

You're supposed to use one color for the whole map, not make some arbitrary cutoff that confuses the whole thing.

I cut it off at the national average (5.0%)

I don't consider that necessarily a bad idea, though Philip has a point about the eyes.  However, I think you show Ohio as having lower than average unemployment - it looks like it is 5.9% there to me..

[David S]

6.6% for Michigan is 5th highest in the nation. Since Michigan is very much a manufacturing state the affect of low cost imported goods has had an influence here.

[David S]

I must be missing something. There is no key on this map, at least not with my web browser.

[Beet]

Here's a standard deviation map. Light -> More than one std deviation. Dark -> More than two. The distribution appears positively skewed due to the hurricane.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They always undercount people. They only count people who recently had a job who are still trying to find a job.

They don't count people who
1. never had a job
2. gave up
3. got a part time job at McDonalds to replace their $100k a year job.

[Beet]

They always undercount people. They only count people who recently had a job who are still trying to find a job.

They don't count people who
1. never had a job
2. gave up
3. got a part time job at McDonalds to replace their $100k a year job.

Indeed, perhaps a better measure would be a ratio with jobs in the numerator and working age population or even total population in the denominator (which may explain Florida, for example, where senior citizens generate jobs from their consumption yet are not in the labor force themselves).

[opebo]

They always undercount people. They only count people who recently had a job who are still trying to find a job.

They don't count people who
1. never had a job
2. gave up
3. got a part time job at McDonalds to replace their $100k a year job.

Correct, jfern.  A good rough correction would be to double the reported unemployment rate.  While this would not be fully accurate, it would at least get one a decent figure to compare to Europe, where accounting is more honest.

[A18]

The unemployment rating is based on the number of unemployed persons seeking a job who have had one in the past. That sounds pretty rational to me.

And why the hell would someone be counted as 'unemployed' when he has a job, just because he used to have a better one?

The idea that we should count housewives as 'unemployed' for purposes of the unemployment rating is a joke.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They always undercount people.

Yep. It's the same everywhere. Different methods are used in different countries though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which would be a very useful statistic... were it not for the part about "recently had a job". Looking for work should be the main thing

[opebo]

The unemployment rating is based on the number of unemployed persons seeking a job who have had one in the past. That sounds pretty rational to me.

No, there is only a record of persons 'seeking a job' who are recieving unemployment benefits.  For the bulk of workers, who recieve no such benefits, there is no record of whether they are employed or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he is, one might say 75% unemployed.. or 90%, whatever figure is appropriate.

[Beet]

They always undercount people.

Yep. It's the same everywhere. Different methods are used in different countries though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which would be a very useful statistic... were it not for the part about "recently had a job". Looking for work should be the main thing

The problem is that there is a difference between trying to find a job and wanting a job. A significant number of people after looking for a job for some time and are unable to find a suitable one become discouraged and turn to other things, which may or may not be productive (such as education, or just relying on others' support). This is not to say that they don't want a job anymore, only they feel it wouldn't be worthwhile to look for one.

Also, if one is trying to measure the economy's effectiveness in creating jobs, then the proportion of people who are looking for jobs should be taken into account. If only half of the population are looking for a job, the unemployment rate could be very low even though the economy doesn't create jobs effectively.

So from both the micro and macro perspectives, the unemployment rate itself is an imperfect and incomplete picture. This is not to say it's not a useful measure of course, but there are other things to be taken into account.

[A18]

I thought it was based on a survey.

You're either employed or unemployed. There's no percentage.

[opebo]

They always undercount people.

Yep. It's the same everywhere. Different methods are used in different countries though.

It is much worse in the US because there is no social safety net - the longer-term unemployed typically become homeless or otherwise drop into the underclass of whom there is no record.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which would be a very useful statistic... were it not for the part about "recently had a job". Looking for work should be the main thing
[/quote]

I don't know, I'm not looking for work, but only because the jobs are so awful.  If nice ones were made available, I might work..  I would say it is more about the quality of positions available than whether one is 'looking'.