2 replies to this topic

[gm_general]

I recall several cases where people told me the unemployment calculations are basically the same as they have been in the past. Then I run into this information, from several sources, regarding changes made in 1994. Back then, the result was not so severe (600K less), but now it is really drastically different.

Note this article is from 2012, so it is a bit out of date, but the point holds very well.

Article link

[colion]

The "little" adjustments not only affect unemployment figures but a number of other government figures. "Shadow Government Statistics" has been watching this for a long time. You might be interested in their charts, etc.:

Alternate Data

[*JB*]

I recall several cases where people told me the unemployment calculations are basically the same as they have been in the past. Then I run into this information, from several sources, regarding changes made in 1994. Back then, the result was not so severe (600K less), but now it is really drastically different.

Note this article is from 2012, so it is a bit out of date, but the point holds very well.

Article link

Even if no "changes" in calculations have been made -- to put it simply -- the "headline numbers" are based on much different employment status less than a decade ago. As an example, in the June jobs report -- (last I looked at in depth) -- 500,000 full time jobs were lost -- 779,000 part-time created... thus reported as 279,000 jobs created.

Now, PART time jobs comprise the greatest number of jobs created. There are about 2 million fewer full time job than 6 years ago.