November Jobs Report

[CountDeMoney]

Unemployed is unemployed, that people have given up being on the list of folks actively looking for work shouldn't make the unemployment rate drop and make everyone go "hurrah!"

Then we should include stay at home moms and trustifarians as unemployed.

Did they include you all that time?

[Admiral Yi]

Probably not.

Of course you should.  They're capable of work, but not employed.

[alfred russel]

Apparently, 315k people dropped out of the workforce last month. Makes more sense now.

I hate such playing with the figures.
Apparently Japan does that a lot. Benefits expire after half a year and then you're no longer counted in unemployment statistics.

How is this playing with the figures?  There is a definition to unemployment rate, several in fact.  Those definitions are merely being adhered to. 

Also, regarding benefits, I don't know about Japan, but in US, whether you receive unemployment benefits or not matters not at all whether you're counted as unemployed.  It's one of those myths that just won't die.

Unemployed is unemployed, that people have given up being on the list of folks actively looking for work shouldn't make the unemployment rate drop and make everyone go "hurrah!"

Tyr, all the statistics are reported. The labor force participation rate in connection with the unemployment rate are both monitored and (I presume) up on the BLS website along with a zillion other statistics.

[DGuller]

Interestingly enough, in my workplace, government statistics are regarded as gold standard in terms of quality.

[Ideologue]

Don't all answer my reasonable question at once.

[Neil]

Probably not.

Of course you should.  They're capable of work, but not employed.

But they're also unemployable.

[Josquius]

Tyr, all the statistics are reported. The labor force participation rate in connection with the unemployment rate are both monitored and (I presume) up on the BLS website along with a zillion other statistics.

Mim says 315,000 dropped out.
And in the UK I know it is people on the dole and not on training which they release figures for.

[alfred russel]

Don't all answer my reasonable question at once.

The definitions should be on the BLS website; I don't know the specifics offhand.

[Razgovory]

Probably not.

Of course you should.  They're capable of work, but not employed.

What about people who are incapable of work, but still employed?

[CountDeMoney]

Probably not.

Of course you should.  They're capable of work, but not employed.

What about people who are incapable of work, but still employed?

Raz, don't let yourself get pulled in to an argument with Yi and Neil.  Yi's an unrepentant fuck-the-unemployed-they're-all-lazy-black-single-moms-anyway Reaganaut and Neil's Canadian, where the government pays off his mortgage or some shit if he's unemployed.

You have a soul, and they don't.

[Razgovory]

That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me.  I'm touched.

[CountDeMoney]

That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me.  I'm touched.

Take a bath and get a job.

[Neil]

Raz, don't let yourself get swayed by CdM.  He spends his every waking moment wishing he was me.

[Ideologue]

Don't all answer my reasonable question at once.

The definitions should be on the BLS website; I don't know the specifics offhand.

I'm not sure the BLS answers it.  The number of new graduates is easy to get ahold of*, but it would be incorrect to say that all graduates (at every level) are part of the labor force, as many of them enroll in further education immediately.  So what, if any, number do they use to add to the labor force every spring?  Hopefully not only employed graduates, considering unemployed graduates who have not been in the labor force while students to remain unattached to it after completing their program.

They do have a "new entrants" listing, but do not further define it or describe how they arrived at about an average of 1,200,000 for each month of 2011.  I'd suspect 2011's total number of graduates not seeking higher education must dwarf that number (hell, I can account for about 4% of that number just with 2011's J.D.s); perhaps that's accounted for when they stop being "new," but I don't know when that is.

*Actually, I couldn't find it.  Granted, I did not try extra-hard, but it should have been very easy to find.

[alfred russel]

Don't all answer my reasonable question at once.

The definitions should be on the BLS website; I don't know the specifics offhand.

I'm not sure the BLS answers it.  The number of new graduates is easy to get ahold of*, but it would be incorrect to say that all graduates (at every level) are part of the labor force, as many of them enroll in further education immediately.  So what, if any, number do they use to add to the labor force every spring?  Hopefully not only employed graduates, considering unemployed graduates who have not been in the labor force while students to remain unattached to it after completing their program.

They do have a "new entrants" listing, but do not further define it or describe how they arrived at about an average of 1,200,000 for each month of 2011.  I'd suspect 2011's total number of graduates not seeking higher education must dwarf that number (hell, I can account for about 4% of that number just with 2011's J.D.s); perhaps that's accounted for when they stop being "new," but I don't know when that is.

*Actually, I couldn't find it.  Granted, I did not try extra-hard, but it should have been very easy to find.

I don't know the methodology, though I know it is published. I would think a graduate going into further education is not joining the workforce, a graduate that is looking for a job but hasn't found one is unemployed, and a graduate with a job is employed. I assume that the surveys they do are detailed enough to figure out which of these groups someone is in.

Most of the unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted, and I guess that means they are somehow smoothing the glut of unemployed graduates each may/june so the number doesn't spike, but I don't know the details.