Matt Yglesias

26 Responses to “Unemployment Up”

1. jibeaux Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am

   But didn’t you hear McCain feeling our paiUSA! USA! USA! last night? I think it’s going to be o.k. because Republicans are finally recognizing that there are people out there who are hurUSA! USA! USA! and can’t pay theirUSA! USA! USA! and we have a plan to USA! USA! USA! and I feel pretty reassured by all that.

2. Walker Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am

   The country has seem substantially higher unemployment numbers in the past,

   Employment in the past was measured differently. So it is hard to tell whether it was higher or not (though even with all the changed only crazy people would claim that this is higher than the 30s).

   We have to stop making comparisons of our economy to the past. The government has changed their numbers so many times (sometimes for good, sometimes for worse) that these comparisons are meaningless.

3. JPiretti Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 10:29 am

   When looking at the latest GDP numbers, you notice that they used a deflator of less than 2%. This is curious since year over year CPI is above 5%. In other words, by understating inflation they have overstated real growth. The latest GPB numbers are useless and the consumer confidence numbers reflect the real world.

4. Hankest Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 10:34 am

   The GDP growth number is a farce. It is calculated using a lower than real inflation rate (which doesn’t even include inflation from fuel/oil, but does include income from those sales). In other words, GDP incorporates the extra nominal income from inflation without subracting due to inflation.

   There is no GDP growth….if they used real dollar values it would show GDP going down.

5. howard Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am

   i realize that it makes a soul-satisfying tale to say that the gdp deflator sucks, but it’s not the job of the gdp deflator to be the cpi. if you’d like to know more, read this:

   http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/the-gdp-deflato.html

   as for unemployment, yes, the unemployment rate is subject to lots of definitional isues, but the ratio of employed-to-adult population isn’t, and that number clearly shows the relative weakness of the bush years.

6. hey norm Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am

   can we finally admit that cutting taxes on the 99th percentile does not create jobs? if i was a democrat running against john bush (thanks tom ridge) i would hit this with all my might.

7. low-tech cyclist Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am

   But…but Robert J. Samuelson says people are really doing better! Of course, he does that by comparing 2007 and 1997 median incomes, his reasoning being that the late 1990s tech bubble shouldn’t count (but apparently the housing bubble should).

   Of course, that just proves Robert J. Samuelson’s a dork.

8. nukev Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am

   To be honest I think the unemployment rate is understated in many ways. How many of us have expended our benefits? How many have taken crappy jobs to at least pay rent? How many were lucky enough to get out before the housing bubble burst? Me, I’m living off the bundle I made in the 90’s. There are no jobs in Wisconsin outside of healthcare.

9. nukev Says:
   September 5th, 2008 at 11:26 am

   …and I’m still holding out for one of John McCains $50 an hour lettuce picking jobs.

10. jeff Says:
    September 5th, 2008 at 11:52 am

    Seconding Walker,

    Employment figures today are pure sophistry. From any number of metrics, these numbers grossly understate unemployment, which is more in the neighborhood of 8-9%.

    Probably the most significant change in employment statistics to skew these numbers is the exclusion of workforce dropouts. or those “no-longer” seeking employment. Not only does this alteration systematically expunge the most important group of the unemployed–the non working poor–but also grossly deflates the numbers.

    This is only one of many ways that these numbers are cosmetically altered to create the employment illusion.

    Moreover, employment/unemployment numbers are hardly a very good determinant of the labor force. With the continued loss of good-paying jobs with poor-paying service sector replacements, the quality of work is considerably different from the past.

    So yeah, the shit is worse than these statistics my say.

11. bob in fla Says:
    September 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    Once in a great while, if one digs far enough into the news, one might find a figure that supposedly represents the total number of people drawing Unemployment Insurance. Yesterday I learned that those figures do not count those who have run out of regular benefits but are currently awaiting or receiving extended benefits.

    Figures don’t lie, but liars certainly do figure, don’t they?

12. JonF Says:
    September 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Re: Employment in the past was measured differently.

    This is not true. There have been major and very dubious changes in the way inflation is calculated, but the unemployment rate is still calculated from the same household survey used thirty years ago. In today’s economy unemplpyment tends not to go as high as in the past because companies tend not to overhire in the first place. Many businesses have replaced workers with technology so that a lot of the workers that are left are essential personnel who cannot be easily let go without closing the doors outright. Many others are temps or part-timers whose hours can be slashed but who are still kept around for the occasional busy time (especially in retail and service industry jobs). One downside of these trends is that unemployment tends to remain stubbornly high after the recession officially ends since, again, businesses do not overhire these days.

    Re: How many of us have expended our benefits?

    Irrelevant. The unemplopyment rate is in no way based on who is collecting benefits.

    Re: How many have taken crappy jobs to at least pay rent?

    A lot more relevant: a person counts as employed if s/he is working as little as one hour a week.

    Re: Probably the most significant change in employment statistics to skew these numbers is the exclusion of workforce dropouts. or those “no-longer” seeking employment.

    Such people have always been excluded from the count. The household survey asks two simple questions, which have not changed: “Are you working at least one hour a week for wage or salary?” And if the answer to that is “No”, then: “Are you actively looking for work?” Answering No to the first question and Yes to the second puts you in the unemployted category.
    Now of course what the unemployment rate leaves out is underemployment: a lot of people are indeed working, but fewer hours than they would like. There are some good estimates of unemployment plus underemployment and that rate does indeed come out to be in the 8% - 9% range.

    Re: . Yesterday I learned that those figures do not count those who have run out of regular benefits but are currently awaiting or receiving extended benefits.

    Right. But those people still count as unemployed in the stats as long as they are still looking for work.

13. BruceMcF Says:
    September 5th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Note that the broad unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, is 10.7%, up 0.4% from the seasonally adjusted July figure and above the September 2003 peak that followed the 2001 recession.

    The raw figure is 10.8% for July and 10.7% for August … with the start of University, August turns out to be a neutral month for the seasonal adjustment.

14. David Hardingham Says:
    February 12th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    Every one says the Housing market is the top issue however the only people I know who have lost there house or in forclosure was due to job losses were they could not find a job or only a part time crapy job wich simply did not cover there the paymets so fell behind in forclosure.
    the other sad thing about that is kids that get free/reduced lunch in tampa florda went over 50% of the population a 26% rise over 10 years ago

15. Political Forum Says:
    February 21st, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    I REALLY liked your post and blog! It took me a little bit to find your site…but I book marked it. Would you mind if I but a link back to my site at whiterabbitcult.com?

16. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 5:15 am

    I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

17. Wisconsin unemployment Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    Hi i would like to place an article in your website in relation to our website design and ecommerce services.

18. Matty Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 3:13 am

    You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people agree with your blog.

19. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am

    tramadol
    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

20. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 8:27 am

    Thanks for the review! viagra

21. viagra cheap Says:
    April 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am

    I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
    viagra