drmiler:
You are just blind. below are the e-mails I received from BLS staff that sight the data I am using. The info I reference is per the BLS staff and show the following:
Official Unemployment rates have not returned to the levels that existed in Dec 2000. They are 5.4% in march and they were 3.7% in Dec 2000.
The underemployment rates were 6.7% in dec 2000 and are not 9.3%.
In addition, please explain how since the economy has recovered, we are running a difference between Federal Revenue and Federal Expneses of $675 Billion THIS YEAR? This can not be explained by the recession in 2001 and 2002 (they are over) nor even by the war since that is only $100 Billion of the $675 Billion.
Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting us with this question. You can access unemployment data in both rates and numbers from our website by starting at www.bls.gov.
Click "National Unemployment Rate" under "Employment & Unemployment"
Click Get Detailed CPS Statistics"
Click "Most Requested Statistics
Make the appropriate selections i.e. "Employment Level - Civilian Labor Force - LNS12000000" & "Unemployment Rate - Civilian Labor Force - LNS14000000 " (and any others in the list) to compare employment versus unemployment.
Click "Retrieve Data"
This will provide data for the last 10 years by default. For more information on this data, contact the National Labor Force Statistics program office at 202-691-6378, or by email at cpsinfo@bls.gov.
Please contact us again with questions regarding wages, prices, employment or productivity at BLSData_staff@bls.gov or call 202-691-5200.
Sincerely,
Scott Berridge
Economist
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Publications and Special Studies
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:23 AM
To: feedback@bls.gov
Subject: Unemployment rate
I am researching data for my book. I would like to understand how the unemployment rate today is about the same as in 2001. As I learned, we have about the same number of jobs as we did in 2001. Can you give me the number of jobs in Jan 2001 and Jan 2005? I have also found that between Jan 2001 and Jan 2005 we have added about 5 million new workers because of population growth. If we have about the same number of jobs as four years ago and 5 million more workers, HOW CAN WE HAVE THE SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE?
Thank you,
Gene P. Abel
genep0041@earthlink.net
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
Gene,
Thank you for the suggestion. I have forwarded this information to the National Labor Force Statistics program office which can be contacted at 202-691-6378, or by email at cpsinfo@bls.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott Berridge
Economist
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Publications and Special Studies
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:24 AM
To: Berridge, Scott - BLS
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate
Mr. Scott Berridge, BLS
Thank you for the information. Below is a suggestion about the need to change the way we report Job Growth. I plan to include this in the revised edition of my book, Four More For George W.
Unemployment Rate does not give a clear job picture!
Added 262,000 jobs and the unemployment rate goes UP
By COL Gene
Posted Friday, March 04, 2005 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics
The employment numbers today were a step forward by producing 262,000 new jobs. Not only is that more than were expected, but it is more than economists claim are necessary to keep pace with population growth. To keep pace with our growing work force, our economy needs to produce about 125,000 new jobs each month. Thus, last month we produced more than double that amount. Most would believe that would result in a reduction of the nation's unemployment rate when in fact the unemployment rate increased from 5.2 to 5.4%.
We have seen months in the past when almost no jobs were created and the unemployment rate went down. Thus it is clear, the unemployment rate statistic is not giving us a clear picture of job condition in our country. What we should be doing is producing monthly , the number of Americans who do not have jobs that pay a living wage. It should include all people who need a living wage job that do not have such a job and compare that statistic month-to-month see how well we are doing in creating meaningful jobs for our growing population.
Dear Mr. Abel,
I work in the Division of Labor Force Statistics (group name: cpsinfo@bls.gov) and would just like to add a couple of thoughts to Mr. Berridge's. We are responsible for the national data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). First, we agree with you that the presence of economic hardship among workers is important to know. To that end, we produce a report annually on the working poor. The most recent report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2002.pdf
We also agree that just one number, the official unemployment rate, doesn't provide a full picture of labor market difficulties. You might be interested in alternative measures of labor underutilization that we produce monthly. These data are published in the Employment Situation news release, the most recent of which is found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Table A-12 shows the alternative rates.
U-6 is the broadest measure; that rate is nearly twice that of the official unemployment rate.
Finally I want to mention that the unemployment rate is calculated as the number of unemployed divided by the labor force (which is the sum of the employed plus the unemployed)--not the population. Movements in the unemployment rate depend on changes in both employment and unemployment. The unemployed are defined as those who actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks and were available to take a job, plus those who were on layoff from a job and expected to be recalled. Individuals who were not in the labor force (i.e., were neither employed nor unemployed) do not factor in to the unemployment rate.
I hope this information is helpful. To read more about CPS concepts, see the publication, How the Government Measures Unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
Sharon Cohany
Economist
Division of Labor Force Statistics, BLS
202-691-6378
cpsinfo@bls.gov
To see the historical data for A-12, just click on:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
and select the series you want. The December 2000 value is 6.9 percent.
Sharon Cohany
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:23 AM
To: Cohany, Sharon - BLS
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate
Sharon Cohany:
Thank you for the information. It was very helpful. Can you tell me what U-6 on table A-12 was in December 2000? I see the rate as of Feb 2005 is 9.3%.
Gene Abel
Dear Mr. Abel,
I believe your question would be best addressed by the Census Bureau, which maintains statistics on family income (as well as individual and household income). I spotted this table on their website: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f01.html
It appears that the second page of the table has income in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The income branch's home page is at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income.html
Questions on the income data from the CPS can be sent to this branch on 301-763-3242 or by writing to hhes-info@census.gov
I hope this information is helpful.
Sharon Cohany
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:55 AM
To: Sharon - BLS Cohany
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate
What is the best source to show how the average family has done over the past four years? I am trying to obtain data that shows if the average family income is higher, the same of less after inflation and wage increases are considered.
Gene Abel
----- Original Message -----
From: Cohany, Sharon - BLS
To: genep0041@earthlink.net
Sent: 3/10/2005 11:02:40 AM
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate
To see the historical data for A-12, just click on:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
and select the series you want. The December 2000 value is 6.9 percent.
Sharon Cohany
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:23 AM
To: Cohany, Sharon - BLS
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate
Sharon Cohany:
Thank you for the information. It was very helpful. Can you tell me what U-6 on table A-12 was in December 2000? I see the rate as of Feb 2005 is 9.3%.
Gene Abel
----- Original Message -----
From: Cohany, Sharon - BLS
To: Berridge, Scott - BLS;genep0041@earthlink.net
Cc: CPSInfo
Sent: 3/8/2005 12:25:34 PM
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate
Dear Mr. Abel,
I work in the Division of Labor Force Statistics (group name: cpsinfo@bls.gov) and would just like to add a couple of thoughts to Mr. Berridge's. We are responsible for the national data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). First, we agree with you that the presence of economic hardship among workers is important to know. To that end, we produce a report annually on the working poor. The most recent report can be found at: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2002.pdf
We also agree that just one number, the official unemployment rate, doesn't provide a full picture of labor market difficulties. You might be interested in alternative measures of labor underutilization that we produce monthly. These data are published in the Employment Situation news release, the most recent of which is found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Table A-12 shows the alternative rates.
U-6 is the broadest measure; that rate is nearly twice that of the official unemployment rate.
Finally I want to mention that the unemployment rate is calculated as the number of unemployed divided by the labor force (which is the sum of the employed plus the unemployed)--not the population. Movements in the unemployment rate depend on changes in both employment and unemployment. The unemployed are defined as those who actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks and were available to take a job, plus those who were on layoff from a job and expected to be recalled. Individuals who were not in the labor force (i.e., were neither employed nor unemployed) do not factor in to the unemployment rate.
I hope this information is helpful. To read more about CPS concepts, see the publication, How the Government Measures Unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
Sharon Cohany
Economist
Division of Labor Force Statistics, BLS
202-691-6378
cpsinfo@bls.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Berridge, Scott - BLS
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 10:38 AM
To: 'genep0041@earthlink.net'
Cc: CPSInfo
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate
Gene,
Thank you for the suggestion. I have forwarded this information to the National Labor Force Statistics program office which can be contacted at 202-691-6378, or by email at cpsinfo@bls.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott Berridge
Economist
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Publications and Special Studies
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:genep0041@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:24 AM
To: Berridge, Scott - BLS
Subject: RE: Unemployment rate
Mr. Scott Berridge, BLS
Thank you for the information. Below is a suggestion about the need to change the way we report Job Growth. I plan to include this in the revised edition of my book, Four More For George W.
Unemployment Rate does not give a clear job picture!
Added 262,000 jobs and the unemployment rate goes UP
By COL Gene
Posted Friday, March 04, 2005 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics
The employment numbers today were a step forward by producing 262,000 new jobs. Not only is that more than were expected, but it is more than economists claim are necessary to keep pace with population growth. To keep pace with our growing work force, our economy needs to produce about 125,000 new jobs each month. Thus, last month we produced more than double that amount. Most would believe that would result in a reduction of the nation's unemployment rate when in fact the unemployment rate increased from 5.2 to 5.4%.
We have seen months in the past when almost no jobs were created and the unemployment rate went down. Thus it is clear, the unemployment rate statistic is not giving us a clear picture of job condition in our country. What we should be doing is producing monthly , the number of Americans who do not have jobs th at pay a living wage. It should include all people who need a living wage job that do not have such a job and compare that statistic month-to-month see how well we are doing in creating meaningful jobs for our growing population.
