Unemployment Rate Facts

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 13:19
VIEWED: 54220
PAGE 10 of 94

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?

---

I wouldn't know. There's a lot of adults working jobs that children used to work these days. Many of them pay national minimum wage or very close to it. Most of them aren't full time and provide zero benefits. I've worked enough shitty jobs to know this.

I think maybe you need to slum it for a while and walk a mile in another man's shoes before you speak about things.


Either that, or start bitching about where your tax dollars are going other than to provide food for people who need it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

I said breadwinners. Such as Head of Families.

---

What is a breadwinner these days? That term doesn't hold any meaning if you've got two parents working part time, near minimum wage jobs, or a single parent trying to balance 2 or 3 of them. Quite a few of the people I've worked with manage to eek out more than 40 hours a week at almost worthless pay by having more than one job. That in itself is a stress I'm grateful not to have myself. No employer wants to work around another employer's schedule.

Quote:

---

If a person has no income and chooses to pile on expenses like housing and cable, how is that your fault or mine?

---

I agree about the cable, and also high priced cell plans, and a lot of other bad financial choices. But what about housing? What do you mean by that? Should people working these jobs and their children be homeless? Apartment rent isn't cheap either, and in many cases even in 2018 a monthly mortgage is less than rent.

I'll let you throw out an average justifiable monthly cost of housing. Multiply that by 12 and subtract it from these part time wages for a year, and then imagine how far the rest of that money goes.

Quote:

---

Do you really feel more than 3 Million American Citizens fall into that boat?

---

That would be less than 1%. If you include children, which you should because we're talking about how many people can or can't afford to eat without subsidies, then yes I absolutely do.

Quote:

---

You must have not read any of my posts here since 2007. For Tea Party Patriots like myself, few topics are bitched about more than wasteful Government Spending, Federal Debt, Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and I am certain I have posted about it here.

---

I don't label myself Tea Party or anything else, but I'd probably agree with you on 90% or more of other topics surrounding wasteful spending. Food, for many reasons, just isn't one of them.

I'm not going to deny that there are cases where this system is abused. Unfortunately, once in the program a lot of the stuff is automated without a ton of oversight. It's kind of a necessity that it is though because it's expensive to do intense moderating of these programs and at some point you'd be spending more on the oversight than you would on providing the benefits themselves.


As I originally stated, at the very least it takes away any need for anyone to be burglarizing houses or pulling a weapon on you out in the street for your wallet because they (or thier kids) haven't eaten in 3 days.

Even at 65 billion dollars a year, that doesn't seem like that high a price to pay when you compare it to other massive wastes of taxpayer dollars out there that in no way benefit anybody.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

ADDENDUM:

Now... since we're on the topic I feel that I should state that the limit to what you can buy with the food stamp program should be much more tightly regulated, and I'm not at all buying any of the bullshit excuses about why they haven't yet done it.

Firstly, you absolutely cannot buy any product that is non-consumable. You also cannot buy cigarettes and booze with the food stamps. This has been set in stone and because of computers you simply cannot find a way around it. There is no instances of employees "cutting somebody a break" and giving them restricted items with the foodstamps.

There is ZERO reason why this shouldn't be applied to many other things that are commonly bought with food stamps. It would not cost much upfront to implement because all it would require is a few database changes that would add more stuff to the restricted items lists. (Most companies base their products by Category, so instead of having to manually restrict hundreds or thousands of items individually and continue to manually do it when a new product comes in, they can simply say that any item that falls under "Category 43" cannot be purchased with food stamps, for example).

Here's a few that I'd restrict, effective immediately, if I had the power to do so:

1. Soda. Any type. Any flavor. Diet or non diet. All carbonated beverages. This especially includes the expensive Monster and Red Bull type "energy" drinks that has god knows what in them.

2. Coffee.

3. Candy of any type.

4. Cookies, cupcakes, cake, etc.

5. Chips/Cheetos, etc.

6. Bottled water.

With the exception of the water, none of these things are good for you and none of these things are necessary for sustenance. As with smoking or drinking or any other unhealthy behaviors, the poorest of people are the most likely to indulge in overeating of bad foods.

If we're going to tax the hell out of the privilege of smoking cigarettes, there is no reason we shouldn't be trying to force people who get food from the government to eat healthier (and ultimately lower future health care/disability costs).


As for the water, unless they live in a place like Flynt Michigan, there is no need to be paying for something that is already free.

They can still buy these things themselves of course, but they have to do it with their own earned income. At that point they can ask themselves if cable TV or Hostess Cupcakes are more important to them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Unquoted for clarity:

---

Adding to this Table of Data, which seems to best show the components of U6:

Quote:

---

I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow. The documented shenanigans of Obamabots deliberately refusing to Report jobless data in the months before the 2012 Election are a different matter, I will just use the Fake Data they produced and pretend it was real.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. For example, the current Rate of 4.1% (for 4 months straight) is SeasAdj, and the real Rate is 4.5% for Jan 2018. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the unemployed. The 2nd column is the Rate.
The 3rd column is what is called Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, which is included in the Want A Job Now category but NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category. The 5th column is the sum of Unemployed plus Marginally Attached - which more accurately represents the Actual Unemployed. The 6th column is the Rate for column 5 figure.
The 7th column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT. The 8th column is the sum of the 5th column plus 7th column. 9th column is the Rate for column 8 figure.
The 10th column is the Civilian Population. 11th column is Labor Force, 12th column is Participation Rate. 13th column is the published U-6 figure.

---

Figures in thousands.

Mo/Yr Unemp Pcnt MrgAt Pcnt SubTtl Prcnt InvPT Pcnt Total Percnt CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U6%
Jan94 09492 07.3 2120 1.6 11612 09.0 4963 3.8 16575 12.8% 195953 129393 66.0
Jan95 08101 06.2 1783 1.4 09884 07.6 4620 3.5 14504 11.1% 197753 130698 66.1
Jan96 08270 06.3 1737 1.3 10007 07.6 4103 3.1 14110 10.7% 199634 131396 65.8 10.8
Jan97 07933 05.9 1615 1.2 09548 07.1 4338 3.2 13886 10.3% 202285 134317 66.4 10.4
Jan98 07069 05.2 1479 1.1 08548 06.3 4090 3.0 12638 09.3% 204238 135951 66.6 09.3
Jan99 06604 04.8 1358 1.0 07962 05.8 3645 2.6 11607 08.4% 206719 137943 66.7 08.5
Jan00 06316 04.5 1197 0.9 07513 05.4 3355 2.4 10868 07.8% 208782 139621 66.9 07.8
Jan01 06647 04.7 1290 0.9 07937 05.6 3559 2.5 11496 08.2% 210889 141049 66.9 08.1
Jan02 08935 06.3 1509 1.1 10444 07.4 4249 3.0 14693 10.4% 213089 141074 66.2 10.5

Jan02 09051 06.3 1532 1.1 10583 07.4 4453 3.1 15036 10.5% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5
Jan03 09395 06.5 1598 1.1 10993 07.6 5003 3.4 15996 11.0% 219897 145301 66.1 11.0
Jan04 09144 06.3 1670 1.1 10814 07.4 5152 3.5 15966 10.9% 222161 146068 65.7 10.9
Jan05 08444 05.7 1804 1.2 10248 07.0 4793 3.3 15041 10.2% 224837 147125 65.4 10.2
Jan06 07608 05.1 1644 1.1 09252 06.2 4513 3.0 13765 09.2% 227553 149090 65.5 09.2
Jan07 07649 05.0 1577 1.0 09226 06.1 4620 3.0 13846 09.1% 230650 151924 65.9 09.1
Jan08 08221 05.4 1729 1.1 09950 06.5 5235 3.4 15185 09.9% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 08.5 2130 1.4 15139 09.9 8675 5.6 23814 15.5% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 10.6 2539 1.6 18686 12.2 9161 6.0 27847 18.2% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 09.8 2800 1.8 17737 11.6 9027 5.9 26764 17.5% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 08.8 2809 1.9 16350 10.7 8747 5.7 25097 16.4% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 08.5 2443 1.6 15624 10.1 8506 5.5 24130 15.6% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 07.0 2592 1.7 13447 08.7 7617 4.9 21064 13.6% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 06.1 2234 1.4 11732 07.5 7125 4.6 18857 12.1% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 05.3 2089 1.3 10398 06.6 6234 4.0 16632 10.6% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 05.1 1752 1.1 09901 06.2 6127 3.9 16028 10.1% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Ja18 07189 04.5 1653 1.0 08842 05.5 5380 3.4 14222 08.9 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

Feb18 07091 04.4 1602

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
ADDENDUM:

Firstly, you absolutely cannot buy any product that is non-consumable. You also cannot buy cigarettes and booze with the food stamps. This has been set in stone and because of computers you simply cannot find a way around it. There is no instances of employees "cutting somebody a break" and giving them restricted items with the foodstamps.

---

I am not convinced that you are delusional enough to actually believe this. Maybe you are fatigued or off your meds. Or do you never read the news?

Quote:

---

There is ZERO reason why this shouldn't be applied to many other things that are commonly bought with food stamps. It would not cost much upfront to implement because all it would require is a few database changes that would add more stuff to the restricted items lists. (Most companies base their products by Category, so instead of having to manually restrict hundreds or thousands of items individually and continue to manually do it when a new product comes in, they can simply say that any item that falls under "Category 43" cannot be purchased with food stamps, for example).

Here's a few that I'd restrict, effective immediately, if I had the power to do so:

1. Soda. Any type. Any flavor. Diet or non diet. All carbonated beverages. This especially includes the expensive Monster and Red Bull type "energy" drinks that has god knows what in them.

2. Coffee.

3. Candy of any type.

4. Cookies, cupcakes, cake, etc.

5. Chips/Cheetos, etc.

6. Bottled water.

With the exception of the water, none of these things are good for you and none of these things are necessary for sustenance. As with smoking or drinking or any other unhealthy behaviors, the poorest of people are the most likely to indulge in overeating of bad foods.

If we're going to tax the hell out of the privilege of smoking cigarettes, there is no reason we shouldn't be trying to force people who get food from the government to eat healthier (and ultimately lower future health care/disability costs).


As for the water, unless they live in a place like Flynt Michigan, there is no need to be paying for something that is already free.

They can still buy these things themselves of course, but they have to do it with their own earned income. At that point they can ask themselves if cable TV or Hostess Cupcakes are more important to them.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

I agree with 1, 3, 4, 5. I had thought they were already prohibited. Although Bakery products might be in the category of bread, which is a necessary staple.

Aren't these items controlled by each individual State?

I do not consume coffee, except as a flavor such as Mocha. But in an endeavor to support the goals of work, employment, productivity, I might consider it depravation to withhold a caffeine source, after already deleting soda. Certainly no need for Starbucks or Keurig, but the cheapest economy size of non-gourmet coffee seems reasonable.

Your stereotyping of poor people as being different from others merely because of the greater availability of tobacco and alcohol compared to your favorites of pot and coke is cringeworthy. You seem to mistake indulgence with cheap and readily available.

Have you any idea how many communities procure substandard water quality to their residents? Quality so bad they are required to disclose to the public, albeit in obfuscated media and methods.
And guess which neighborhoods the worst water is supplied to - not the wealthiest!

If I had the authority, my opinion would include prohibition of anything with High Fructose Corn Syrup or Sucralose. Other possibilities include Industrial byproduct Vanillin, carcinogen Saccharine, and paralytic Aspartame.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?

---

I wouldn't know. There's a lot of adults working jobs that children used to work these days. Many of them pay national minimum wage or very close to it. Most of them aren't full time and provide zero benefits. I've worked enough shitty jobs to know this.

I think maybe you need to slum it for a while and walk a mile in another man's shoes before you speak about things.


Either that, or start bitching about where your tax dollars are going other than to provide food for people who need it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

I said breadwinners. Such as Head of Families.

---

What is a breadwinner these days? That term doesn't hold any meaning if you've got two parents working part time, near minimum wage jobs, or a single parent trying to balance 2 or 3 of them.

Quote:

---

If a person has no income and chooses to pile on expenses like housing and cable, how is that your fault or mine?

---

I agree about the cable, and also high priced cell plans, and a lot of other bad financial choices. But what about housing? What do you mean by that? Should people working these jobs and their children be homeless? Apartment rent isn't cheap either, and in many cases even in 2018 a monthly mortgage is less than rent.

I'll let you throw out an average justifiable monthly cost of housing. Multiply that by 12 and subtract it from these part time wages for a year, and then imagine how far the rest of that money goes.

Quote:

---

Do you really feel more than 3 Million American Citizens fall into that boat?

---

That would be less than 1%. If you include children, which you should because we're talking about how many people can or can't afford to eat without subsidies, then yes I absolutely do.

Quote:

---

You must have not read any of my posts here since 2007. For Tea Party Patriots like myself, few topics are bitched about more than wasteful Government Spending, Federal Debt, Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and I am certain I have posted about it here.

---

I don't label myself Tea Party or anything else, but I'd probably agree with you on 90% or more of other topics surrounding wasteful spending. Food, for many reasons, just isn't one of them.

I'm not going to deny that there are cases where this system is abused. Unfortunately, once in the program a lot of the stuff is automated without a ton of oversight. It's kind of a necessity that it is though because it's expensive to do intense moderating of these programs and at some point you'd be spending more on the oversight than you would on providing the benefits themselves.


As I originally stated, at the very least it takes away any need for anyone to be burglarizing houses or pulling a weapon on you out in the street for your wallet because they (or thier kids) haven't eaten in 3 days.

Even at 65 billion dollars a year, that doesn't seem like that high a price to pay when you compare it to other massive wastes of taxpayer dollars out there that in no way benefit anybody.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Breadwinner supplies funds for the family unit. Stay at home mom or dad is not breadwinner.

Many refuse to accept living with their parents or other family, instead insisting upon paying for housing which they know for certain they cannot afford.

The Food Stamp program estimates the validly needy population at 1%, so you are in disagreement with the Food Stamp authority. You are steadfastly refusing to identify any level of Participation that is reasonable. Food St

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Adding to this Table of Data, which includes Not Fully Employed Rate.

I will refer to this set of data as Table JSF-URF-3

I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the Unemployed.
The 2nd column is what is called Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, which is included in the Want A Job Now category but NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category.
The 3rd column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT. The 4th column of numbers is the sum of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns. 5th column is the Rate for column 4 figure, divided by Labor Force.
The 6th column of numbers is the Subtotal of columns 1 and 3, Unemployed plus Involuntary Part-Time.
The 7th column is Labor Force minus column 6. This is also Employed minus column 3 Involuntary Part-Time. This is not a figure identified by BLS, so I will call it Actually Fully Employed. This is Employed Full-time plus Voluntary Part-Time.
Not listed, but Civilian noninstitutional Population minus Actually Fully Employed is also a figure avoided by BLS, and I will call it Not Fully Employed, which is Unemployed plus Involuntary Part-Time plus Marginally Attached plus Not In Labor Force. The 8th column is Not Fully Employed Rate, which is divided by Civilian noninstitutional Population.
The 9th column is the Civilian Population. 10th column is Labor Force, 11th column is Participation Rate. 12th column is the published U-6 figure.

Figures in thousands.

Mo/Yr Unem MrgAt InvPT Total Prcnt SubTtl AcEmpl NtEm CivPop LbrForc Prtc% U6%
Jan94 09492 2120 4963 16575 12.8% 14455 114938 41.3% 195953 129393 66.0
Jan95 08101 1783 4620 14504 11.1% 12721 117923 40.4% 197753 130698 66.1
Jan96 08270 1737 4103 14110 10.7% 12373 119023 40.4% 199634 131396 65.8 10.8
Jan97 07933 1615 4338 13886 10.3% 12271 122046 39.7% 202285 134317 66.4 10.4
Jan98 07069 1479 4090 12638 09.3% 11159 124798 38.9% 204238 135951 66.6 09.3
Jan99 06604 1358 3645 11607 08.4% 10249 127694 38.2% 206719 137943 66.7 08.5
Jan00 06316 1197 3355 10868 07.8% 09671 129950 37.8% 208782 139621 66.9 07.8
Jan01 06647 1290 3559 11496 08.2% 10206 130843 38.0% 210889 141049 66.9 08.1
Jan02 08935 1509 4249 14693 10.4% 13184 127890 40.0% 213089 141074 66.2 10.5

Jan02 09051 1532 4453 15036 10.5% 13504 129724 40.1% 216506 143228 66.2 10.5
Jan03 09395 1598 5003 15996 11.0% 14398 130903 40.5% 219897 145301 66.1 11.0
Jan04 09144 1670 5152 15966 10.9% 14296 131772 40.7% 222161 146068 65.7 10.9
Jan05 08444 1804 4793 15041 10.2% 13237 133888 40.5% 224837 147125 65.4 10.2
Jan06 07608 1644 4513 13765 09.2% 12122 136978 39.8% 227553 149090 65.5 09.2
Jan07 07649 1577 4620 13846 09.1% 12269 139655 39.5% 230650 151924 65.9 09.1
Jan08 08221 1729 5235 15185 09.9% 13456 139372 40.1% 232616 152828 65.7 09.9
Jan09 13009 2130 8675 23814 15.5% 21684 131761 43.9% 234739 153445 65.4 15.4
Jan10 16147 2539 9161 27847 18.2% 25308 127649 46.1% 236832 152957 64.6 18.0
Jan11 14937 2800 9027 26764 17.5% 23964 128572 46.1% 238704 152536 63.9 17.3
Jan12 13541 2809 8747 25097 16.4% 22288 131197 45.8% 242269 153485 63.4 16.2
Jan13 13181 2443 8506 24130 15.6% 21687 133107 45.6% 244663 154794 63.3 15.4
Jan14 10855 2592 7617 21064 13.6% 18472 135909 45.0% 246915 154381 62.5 13.5
Jan15 09498 2234 7125 18857 12.1% 16623 139427 44.2% 249723 156050 62.5 12.0
Jan16 08309 2089 6234 16632 10.6% 14543 142804 43.4% 252397 157347 62.3 10.5
Jan17 08149 1752 6127 16028 10.1% 14276 144400 43.2% 254082 158676 62.5 10.1
Jan18 07189 1653 5380 14222 08.9% 12569 147468 42.6% 256780 160037 62.3 08.9

F

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Explain the Fake News Story that the Stock Market Crashed in March 2000.

---

Not fake news.

The Dotcom Crash - March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002

The Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11.

https://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Holy Cow, you must be a genius!!!
A specialized subpart of a corner of The Stock Market has a decline over 30 months so IT MUST BE A CRASH!!!

From Jan 2000 at 11,700 Dow until May 2001 with a couple hundred less Dow, that is just crystal clarity in focusing your laser sharp identification of massive drops in STOCK MARKET VALUE. Dropping a whole couple percent in only a span of 16 months, that is such a total CRASH, totally fer sure.
By this standard of measurement, the huge CRASH from July 1997 to October 2002 resulted in the drop from 8,038 down to a whopping 7,286 in only a period of 63 months, a loss of almost 10%, or almost 1% per 9 months.

I'm really disappointed you believe such pablum.


A decrease from May 2001 to October 2002 of 4,100 DOW? That's a drop of 36% in 17 months, or over 2% per month average of the Broader Market, so probably doesn't suit your definition of a Crash.

In MArch 2000 it looks like Dow was under 10,000. So then it gained about 1,600 by May 2001. With a gain of about 16% from the onset of your defined CRASH, that much gain indicates such a horrible crash, everybody must have known about it!! But the News of the time did not report this 16% growth as a crash.

---

I have wondered why anybody would believe any of this.
Perhaps a perspective refresher can help casual readers focus.

NASDAQ was a fledgling index 16 years ago, and largely inconsequential.
It started in 1971 under ticker symbol NASD. Remember how impressive Google was back then? Apple? Netflix? Amazon? Napster? Microsoft? Yahoo? BetaMax, VHS, or CDs (Phillips)? Juno? AOL? Norton? PKZip? Atari, Nintendo? Dell? This was at least 15 years before algore invented the Internet.

During 2000 and 2001 the newly hatched NDAQ had a series of selloffs, divesting NASD from NDAQ. While being propped up by these collapsible stilts of new unstable fickle tech stocks, some people imagine that such a major transfer of core funds of this volatile index as being indicative of some persistent loss of value and crash.
Anybody want to guess where Amazon was in 2000? Which color iFruit were tech-savvy buyers choosing? Netflix? Facebook? Tweeter? SnapChamp? Instagrinder? Wikipedia?

Some people have so little understanding that they think Microsoft is a tech company instead of a social engineering outfit.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Adding to this Table of Data, where I included the Margin of Gain for Labor Force, and Margin of Gain for Actually Fully Employed:

I will refer to this set of data as Table JSF-URF-4

I will post some actual numbers and let the comparisons and discussion follow.

The BLS uses both Seasonally Adjusted figures and Unadjusted figures, and interchanges them without clearly identifying so. I will use only the Unadjusted numbers, to help maintain clarity and transparency.

Some numbers may have a 0 placed as first digit, to maintain column form in this format.

The 1st column of numbers is the unemployed.
The 2nd column is what is called Marginally Attached to the Labor Force, which is included in the Want A Job Now category but NOT included in the Labor Force category and therefore excluded from the reported Unemployment category.
The 3rd column is the Involuntary Part-Time workers, who are Not Employed Full Time due to poor Economy, and want, are able to work FT.
The 4th column is the sum of the first 3 columns. 5th column is the Rate for column 4 figure, with Labor Force as the denominator.
The 6th column of numbers is the Subtotal of columns 1 and 3, Unemployed plus Involuntary Part-Time.
The 7th column is Labor Force minus column 6. This is also Employed minus column 3 Involuntary Part-Time. This is not a figure identified by BLS, so I will call it Actually Fully Employed. This is Employed Full-time plus Voluntary Part-Time.
Not listed, but Civilian noninstitutional Population minus Actually Fully Employed is also a figure avoided by BLS, and I will call it Not Fully Employed, which is Unemployed plus Involuntary Part-Time plus Marginally Attached plus Not In Labor Force. The 8th column is Not Fully Employed Rate, which is divided by Civilian noninstitutional Population.
The 9th column is the Civilian Population. 10th column is Labor Force, 11th column is Participation Rate.
The 12th column is Marginal Labor Force Rate. This is the gain of the Labor Force divided by the gain of the Civilian noninstitutional Population.
The 13th column is the Marginal Actual Fully Employed Rate. This is the gain in the Actual Fully Employed divided by the gain of the Civilian noninstitutional Population.

Figures in thousands.

MoYr Unem MrgAt InvPT Total Prct SubTtl AcEmpl NtEm CivPop LbrForc Prtc% MgLF MgAE
Ja94 09492 2120 4963 16575 12.8 14455 114938 41.3% 195953 129393 66.0
Ja95 08101 1783 4620 14504 11.1 12721 117923 40.4% 197753 130698 66.1 +072.5 +165.8
Ja96 08270 1737 4103 14110 10.7 12373 119023 40.4% 199634 131396 65.8 +037.1 +058.5
Ja97 07933 1615 4338 13886 10.3 12271 122046 39.7% 202285 134317 66.4 +110.2 +114.1
Ja98 07069 1479 4090 12638 09.3 11159 124798 38.9% 204238 135951 66.6 +083.7 +140.9
Ja99 06604 1358 3645 11607 08.4 10249 127694 38.2% 206719 137943 66.7 +080.3 +116.7
Ja00 06316 1197 3355 10868 07.8 09671 129950 37.8% 208782 139621 66.9 +081.3 +109.4
Ja01 06647 1290 3559 11496 08.2 10206 130843 38.0% 210889 141049 66.9 +067.8 +042.4
Ja02 08935 1509 4249 14693 10.4 13184 127890 40.0% 213089 141074 66.2 +001.1 --134.2

Ja02 09051 1532 4453 15036 10.5 13504 129724 40.1% 216506 143228 66.2 +038.8 --019.9
Ja03 09395 1598 5003 15996 11.0 14398 130903 40.5% 219897 145301 66.1 +061.1 +034.8
Ja04 09144 1670 5152 15966 10.9 14296 131772 40.7% 222161 146068 65.7 +033.9 +038.4
Ja05 08444 1804 4793 15041 10.2 13237 133888 40.5% 224837 147125 65.4 +039.5 +079.1
Ja06 07608 1644 4513 13765 09.2 12122 136978 39.8% 227553 149090 65.5 +072.3 +113.8
Ja07 07649 1577 4620 13846 09.1 12269 139655 39.5% 230650 151924 65.9 +091.5 +086.4
Ja08 08221 1729 5235 15185 09.9 13456 139372 40.1% 232616 152828 65.7 +046.0 --014.4
Ja09 13009 2130 8675 23814 15.5 21684 131761 43.9% 234739 153445 65.4 +029.1 --358.5
Ja10 16147 2539 9161 27847 18.2 25308 127649 46.1% 236832 152957 64.6 --023.3 --196.5
Ja11 14937 2800 9027 26764 17.5 23964 128572 46

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME