Uneployment rates/state

[opebo]

I thought it was based on a survey.

I thought it was based on unemployment claims.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hah, we'll see if you feel that way when you're laid off at 50!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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).

Jobs Density? Yeah, that'd be a useful statistic to have, although it shouldn't replace unemployment counting. You need as many different indicators as possible. Example:

[As of the last Nomis update. All figures refer to working age population] the Economically Active rate in the U.K is 78.3%, the Employment Rate is 74.5%, the Unemployment Rate (based on those looking for work) is 4.8%, the Claimant Count (the old way to measure unemployment) is 2.4% and the Jobs Density ratio is 0.8 [ratio of total jobs to working age population].

[A18]

If I'm laid off, and that's my only job, I'm obviously unemployed. What are you getting at?

[Blue Rectangle]

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.

GDP per capita roughly accounts for those factors: if you never had a job or stopped looking for one, then you count towards capitation, but not GDP; if you make less money than you used to, then you contribute less to GDP.

[opebo]

If I'm laid off, and that's my only job, I'm obviously unemployed. What are you getting at?

Oh, I forgot to fill in the rest of the story - you go to work at McDonalds, lose your house, and live in the Dumpster behind the 'restaurant'.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The problem is that there is a difference between trying to find a job and wanting a job.

True. Which is why other ways of measuring employment are needed (employment rate and jobs ratio are both very useful).

[A18]

The problem is that there is a difference between trying to find a job and wanting a job.

True. Which is why other ways of measuring employment are needed (employment rate and jobs ratio are both very useful).

For what? Why would any sane person count a rich guy who retired early as 'unemployed'?

If I'm laid off, and that's my only job, I'm obviously unemployed. What are you getting at?

Oh, I forgot to fill in the rest of the story - you go to work at McDonalds, lose your house, and live in the Dumpster behind the 'restaurant'.

That's not unemployed. I'm sorry you don't understand basic English.

[Blue Rectangle]

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'.

What would you consider a "nice" job?  What is your education and experience?

[Beet]

The problem is that there is a difference between trying to find a job and wanting a job.

True. Which is why other ways of measuring employment are needed (employment rate and jobs ratio are both very useful).

Precisely, we're in agreement.

[A18]

Again, useful for what? Seeing how many housewives and retirees there are?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For what?

To find out trends in the labour market and the wider economy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No idea. And I'm not arguing for that either...

[opebo]

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'.

What would you consider a "nice" job?  What is your education and experience?

A living wage - say over $50,000/year, perhaps double that in the expensive states.  I have the usual undergraduate and master's degrees, but of course no experience with working.   And you?

[opebo]

Again, useful for what? Seeing how many housewives and retirees there are?

The idea is, Philip, to get a more realistic view of how many are unemployed, since the official figures so grossly understate the problem.

[Beet]

Well, an issue is finding studies out there that have tried to measure discouraged workers. From a macro perspective, jobs ratio is useful in determining how effective an economy is at creating jobs, and hence economic opportunity. From a micro perspective, one would need to separate the discouraged workers from those that are not participating for other reasons.

Edit: The Census Bureau calls these workers "marginally attached". In December 2005 for example, the official unemployment rate was 4.9%, the unemployment rate including the marginally attached was 5.9%. Once those that are part time employed because they cannot find full time work are included this rises to 8.6%.

[Blue Rectangle]

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'.

What would you consider a "nice" job?  What is your education and experience?

A living wage - say over $50,000/year, perhaps double that in the expensive states.  I have the usual undergraduate and master's degrees, but of course no experience with working.   And you?

I think you would have no trouble finding a $50k-$100k job with a master's degree--but you would have to start at the low end with no experience.

I'm still in that pay range, and I have a Ph.D., but only three years of experience.  Also, as should be obvious by my presence here, I don't work all that much.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Again, useful for what?

To find out trends (local, regional, national, the works) in the labour market and the wider economy.

Example: in Wear Valley, Co. Durham, the unemployment rate is 4.9% (only slightly higher than the national average). But at 75.8% the economically active rate is notably lower than the national average. Same goes for the employment rate of 70.3%. More people claim JSA than average as well and the Jobs Density of 0.6 is notably low.

If only the unemployment rate is looked at, we get the misleading impression that economically the district is doing well; the rest of the data indicates strongly that this is not the case.

[A18]

Why is an area not doing well, just because it has a lot of retirees?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why is an area not doing well, just because it has a lot of retirees?

None of those figures have anything to do with the number of pensioners whatsoever; all of those figures refer to people of working age only.

[Beet]

Why is an area not doing well, just because it has a lot of retirees?

If by retirees you mean people over the age of 65, I think the point is that these people create jobs through their consumption but do not demand jobs themselves, thus suppressing the unemployment rate. It doesn't mean the area is not doing well.

Al's point I think was more about economic participation. If the economic participation rate is low, this could be due to what the census bureau calls the marginally attached workers, which throws off the unemployment rate if you are looking for certain conclusions. But even disregarding that, a low economic participation rate means that the unemployment rate can be low even though the economy itself is not adept at creating jobs.

[opebo]

I think you would have no trouble finding a $50k-$100k job with a master's degree--but you would have to start at the low end with no experience.

Wow.  I never heard such optimism.  It seems to me like most people with master's degrees are waiting tables and suchlike.  Maybe you're in the technical field.. I am speaking of liberal arts degrees.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What sort of job?

Again, useful for what?

The main purpose of these investigations is to find out how poor most people are, or how many poor there are, in order to better devise government programs, Philip.

[Gustaf]

A bit of trivia...red states are states with above average employment that voted Kerry, blue are those with below average unemployment that voted Bush.

[Gustaf]

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.

Lol, it really isn't. In Sweden, people who are in state funded trainee programs and other schemes to help unemployed get work again are excluded. This means that there's a distinction between openly umemployed (about 5%) and total unemployment (about 7%). Not to mention all those unemployed who are on sick leave from their unemployment or hae retired at 30 because they supposedly can't work. The actual of the Swedish adults not working is around 20-25%.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

GDP per capita roughly accounts for those factors: if you never had a job or stopped looking for one, then you count towards capitation, but not GDP; if you make less money than you used to, then you contribute less to GDP.

Not when the rich are growing richer much faster than anyone else. If you ignore that, you'd still have to take into account both inflation and labor pool growth.

[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%)

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..

Sheesh you two are picky   But I suppose if Philip and opebo agree on something, it must be worth doing, though I did make it green to piss you guys off a bit:



>90% 7.2 and higher
>80% 6.5-7.1
>70% 5.8-6.4
>60% 5.1-5.7
>50% 4.4-5.0
>40% 3.7-4.3
>30% 3.6 and lower

[opebo]

Nice, NiNI!  The green is cool.. restful..