Unemployment rates in the US

[Ixion]

I rarely post in this subforum, but I thought this was interesting and wanted to share. I am not even 100% that it belongs in this subforum, but I wasn't sure exactly where to put it. Anyways, after hearing Obama's State of the Union address and his mention of unemployment, I found this video which demonstrates the unemployment rates across the U.S. per county, from January 2007 to November 2009. It is sad to see such a drop in employment, presumably due to different aspects of the recession. Alaska, Alabama, and Michigan seem to already start with high unemployment during this time period.

Here is the link to the video:
http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

It takes a bit to load, but is not too intensive on computers. The data was taken from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nevertheless, it may harbor some inaccuracies. I cannot be sure.

 

[Francesca R]

It's probably correct.

Bad elsewhere too:

Source

 

[Michael Redman]

Interesting. I had no idea Ireland was that bad off.

And 2% in Iceland in 1999?

 

[GreyICE]

BTW, can anyone explain Spain for me?

Seriously, what have they done wrong?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Damn you Norway and Korea *shakes first*.

 

[Toke]

BTW, can anyone explain Spain for me?

Seriously, what have they done wrong?

They have had a long building boom, there could be a connection.
As for Iceland, they have been partying on borrowed money for the last 10-15 years.

 

[Orphia Nay]

At a wooish forum I visit, someone posted this story which claims the US jobless figure is currently ~22%.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate/19556146/

The analysts that reached that conclusion were counting people with degrees doing menial tasks, and people who'd given up looking for work.

Have they calculated that figure by changing the definition of 'unemployed'?

 

[ThermionicScott]

Interesting that France's has been so high. Wasn't that 35-hr (or whatever) work week supposed to help unemployment?

- Scott

 

[Puppycow]

At a wooish forum I visit, someone posted this story which claims the US jobless figure is currently ~22%.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate/19556146/

The analysts that reached that conclusion were counting people with degrees doing menial tasks, and people who'd given up looking for work.

Have they calculated that figure by changing the definition of 'unemployed'?

I made a long answer but I accidentally closed the tab.

In summary, yes, the definition has been changed over time.
Yes, if you defined it differently it could be higher.

Check out the labor force participation rate.
you can see that it has fallen by about 3% since 2000. If it were the same as it had been, unemployment would indeed be higher.

 

[Puppycow]

Here is some more historical data from the Census. Although it only goes back to 1980. Labor force participation by women is up, while that by men is down. Overall, it peaked around 2000 and has been declining since.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0575.pdf

 

[Orphia Nay]

I made a long answer but I accidentally closed the tab.

In summary, yes, the definition has been changed over time.
Yes, if you defined it differently it could be higher.

Thanks, Puppycow.

Check out the labor force participation rate.
you can see that it has fallen by about 3% since 2000. If it were the same as it had been, unemployment would indeed be higher.

Wouldn't unemployment be lower?

 

[Puppycow]

Wouldn't unemployment be lower?

Assuming that the number of people with jobs stays the same, a larger labor force means a higher unemployment rate. Because the number of unemployed people is the labor force minus the people with jobs.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Assuming that the number of people with jobs stays the same, a larger labor force means a higher unemployment rate. Because the number of unemployed people is the labor force minus the people with jobs.

Ah, I think I get it. Thanks.

So, back to the article at the wooish forum, could the same sort of number-crunching / redefining of "unemployment" be done in, say, Germany, to show a higher unemployment rate than the official statistics show?

 

[Puppycow]

Ah, I think I get it. Thanks.

So, back to the article at the wooish forum, could the same sort of number-crunching / redefining of "unemployment" be done in, say, Germany, to show a higher unemployment rate than the official statistics show?

I assume so. I don't know how Germany defines it and if it is the same or almost the same as how the US defines it.

It always gets tricky comparing statistics of different countries. You would need to do a lot of checking to make sure that you are comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. The default assumption should be that they aren't comparable I would think.

 

[Just thinking]

The problem is just how do different countries define their unemployed. In the USA alone there are several categories, defined by U3, U4 ... U6. The most important being U3 and U6. To me, the most realistic method is that of U6, yet the number we always get is the U3 value (currently at 9.5%, with U6 somewhere around 17%). Since it's likely the exact definition/criteria differs from nation to nation, the above chart may be somewhat disingenuous.

 

[drkitten]

Ah, I think I get it. Thanks.

So, back to the article at the wooish forum, could the same sort of number-crunching / redefining of "unemployment" be done in, say, Germany, to show a higher unemployment rate than the official statistics show?

Yes, easily.

As was pointed out, the real problem is with the media, not the economists; the economists have a very nuanced set of definitions of various types of employment status -- including "unavailable for work," "unemployed, available for work, and and actively looking," "unemployed but not looking," "underemployed," and so forth. But the media needs a single number to report, and (in the US, at least) has focused on the "unemployed, available, and looking" number. Formally called U3, this of course understates the other measures U4-U6 that are basically defined as "U3 + [some additional group]."

But even U6, the most inclusive, has its problems; it defines "underemployed" as "part-time work but wanting full-time work." In my experience, "underemployment" also means "full-time work at a level below what the person's credentials and/or experience would support." A general commanding a platoon is underemployed in my book, or a former regional manager running a single store. My partner has a master's degree but is currently working a job demanding a high school diploma -- that's underemployment even if the job is full-time.

And this particular (unmeasured) underemployment is one of the real problems with the modern college system; we are turning out thousands of graduates who find they can't get jobs in the fields or at the levels they were trained for. This, of course, has always been a problem in the fine arts -- the acting school graduates waiting tables are a stock figure of the New York theater scene, but there's a bigger problem when qualified lawyers and pharmacists have to wait tables as well.

 

[BeAChooser]

Bad elsewhere too:

I imagine these are all unemployment rates in the sense that they measure the percent of people who are still looking for work and can't find a job. But many people have stopped looking for work. And I imagine that in many of the more socialist countries the number of people who don't bother to look for work was even higher to begin with because they feel the nanny state will take care of them. So those countries real unemployment rate may be higher than what is in your table.

At this link, http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24192 , for example, there is a post by someone who lists employment rates in 2005 for various countries for people between 16 and 64 who are working and paying taxes.

The US percentage is listed as 71.2%,
France is listed as 63.1%,
Germany is 65.4%,
and in Spain it's 63.3%.

Thus, perhaps the real unemployment rate in countries like France, Germany and Spain is as much as 6 to 8% higher than the comparable number in the US, simply because many more people are choosing to live on the dole?

Just a thought.

 

[mikehh]

At a wooish forum I visit, someone posted this story which claims the US jobless figure is currently ~22%.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate/19556146/

The analysts that reached that conclusion were counting people with degrees doing menial tasks, and people who'd given up looking for work.

Have they calculated that figure by changing the definition of 'unemployed'?

I believe this is the U6 number- someone with an advanced econ degree may want to correct me

this contains unemployed, under employed and those who have given up looking

 

[Orphia Nay]

I believe this is the U6 number- someone with an advanced econ degree may want to correct me

this contains unemployed, under employed and those who have given up looking

Ah, thanks, yes, I read the article again, and found this:

Indeed, if all of the truly unemployed were counted, the rate would be significantly higher. The BLS, in a data point titled "U-6," says it counted the total unemployment rate in June at 16.5%

 

[Corsair 115]

Thus, perhaps the real unemployment rate in countries like France, Germany and Spain is as much as 6 to 8% higher than the comparable number in the US, simply because many more people are choosing to live on the dole?

Does the dole actually provide enough money to live off of? I don't know about those countries, but in my locale it does not, unless one is living in a shelter or on the street.