From The Hill: A Republican lawmaker is intensifying his push for legislation that would change how the government measures the unemployment rate. Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to move his bill to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims. . . . . . His one-page legislation, the “REAL Unemployment Calculation Act” would require “the federal government [to] cite, as its official unemployment calculation, the figure that takes into account those who are no longer looking for work,” not only those individuals actively seeking jobs. . . . . . . . . read the full story here.
Editor's notes: just for the record, the numbers reported by the conservative "watch dog" media are numbers we all get from "government" at some point. True, these numbers are not reported, but they are official numbers, nonetheless. While I believe that Hunter is trying to do the right thing, here, the fact of the matter is this: the need to dig into such reporting will remain the case, even if Hunter's proposal was to be become law. There are too many employment/unemployment variables to report, to take "guessing" completely out of the equation. As an example, here is part of the complicated process I have gone through to arrive at some of my employment facts:
Using official Census numbers, we know that 211,000 people were born each month, on average, in 1994. That number is important, because it translates [potentially] into 211,000 jobs needed 18 years later, in 2012. Problem: 25% of this population will not be added to the workforce because they are attending college or have died. Another 50% are living with their parents and are not a full-time consideration in the "workforce." The remaining number of 18 year olds (63,300 per month) can be said to have been added to the workforce. Of course, there is room to argue this number, but, at least, there is a logical assumption for its use. The end result [using my methodology] is this: the break-even number for counting unemployment is 63,300. The economy has be to creating this number of new work related positions each month, or it is falling behind in terms of employment demands.
In conservative news reporting, i.e. Fox News, we often hear the claim that "120,000 per month seems to be the 'break even' number for figuring unemployment." Fine. They mean well. And Liberal reporting? Well, they are too busy eating pizza and snorting snow to think all this is even important. In the end, the actual 'break even' number for all who are sober enough to care, is really closer to 63,300 than to 120,000.
So, that is the process used at this Review for establishing a "break-even" number. But, what about the "seasonally adjusted" number? I personally believe this is the larger scam, when it comes to reporting the truth as to employment. Gallup does not use "seasonally adjusted" at all, preferring a 30 day rolling average. And, Gallup consistently reports a higher unemployment number than does the Department of Labor. There is the question, "what, exactly, is 'part time' employment?" Is it 5 hours a week or 30 or 39 hours? An what about the underground economy? Currently, there are 7.5 million fewer people in the workforce than in the beginning of 2009. Where did they go? They are still alive. They are still with us. So, where the heck are they ?? If we counted those folks in the monthly report, the current unemployment number would be 10.9% instead of 8.2% !!
Point of post: in the end, the "middle man" (found in the caring and concerned bloggosphere) cannot be taken out of the reporting process. As stated above, there are too many variables to take "guessing" out of the equation. Is Duncan Hunter wrong headed in seeking to clarify a very convoluted system of reporting? Absolutely not. But, in the end, those who want to hide from the truth will continue to have plenty of "cover." The numbers are "out there," just waiting to be found. We are given U3 numbers and U6 and U5 numbers to report each and every month. The problem is not with the numbers so much as it is an issue of reporting those numbers.
It would not hurt, if those politicians parroting these reports, demanded the numbers be verified and justified before they were putrefied for the sake of political gamesmanship.
No comments:
Post a Comment