Always fun with the unemployment data numbers, eh? LIP

catch22

More Morning Coffee,

Mr. What's in the Data (me) continues to be curious about the unemployment numbers as many in the financial area place great value in the data; and at the very least, these numbers are tools for the D.C. crowd. I am aware of the U-6 component of the Labor Dept. data, as it relates to other B.O.L data.

A snippet: "One reason the unemployment rate has fallen for five straight months is that many people have stopped looking for work. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively searching for a job."

I honestly don't know how the following plays into reported numbers regarding unemployment; but Michigan enacted recent changes that chops off the available duration of one to have unemployment benefits. One wonders where this statistic shows up in the Labor Statistics numbers. My skeptical brain side concludes that some of the numbers are skewed/perverted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-unemployment-numbers-20120209,0,6719275,print.story

Take care,
Catch

Anna

Well, as far as the latimes stuff is concerned it appears they are talking about new applicants for unemployment. As far as people dropping off due to shortening of time allowed, the BLS published the unemployment number in a variety of ways. The one the press reports is just the actively looking number. If politicians were inclined to "game the numbers", they would never extend the allowed number of weeks to collect benefits in the first place. Then, entirely because of the number the press uses, they would appear to be "decreasing unemployment" rapidly as people lose benefits earlier.

Also, the BLS warned that the Jan numbers are not comparable to the Dec 2011 numbers due to a once a year adjustment in the population numbers.