11 Responses to “A Little Good News On The Unemployment Front”

1. Jim McClellan on February 7th, 2012 9:59 am

   I think we’re best served by using the unemployment numbers to gauge trends over time rather than to determine the absolute number of people out of work. This is one of those cases where it probably will never be exactly right, but it’s the best we’ve got.

2. scott on January 22nd, 2012 6:46 am

   So after reading the links to unemployment rates. It is not accurate. I stand corrected and thanks for the info. They do use unemployment claims as one of the methods for tracking rates. But I can say, if you were to go door to door throughout the entire county, then catch all the drifters and homeless etc. After completing, it would be shocking. Just dont believe the gov has it right even after reading the links. A lot of it is estimates anyway and that means there are no way of knowing a true number and it would cost to get a true number. It really hurts to see so many in trouble in this great country. Their not in trouble because they have jobs. Their in trouble because of unemployment.

3. David Huie Green on January 21st, 2012 9:35 pm

   Those who’ve never been polled assume polls don’t exist.

   Interesting if they don’t. It means the government’s been lying to us about it since FDR. A vast conspiracy spanning the decades and all subsequent administrations.

   60,000 households out of “As of 2006, the US Census Bureau reports a total of 77,402,000 family households” (give or take twenty-seven) or one out of every 1,290 households. There’s probably more households since then, so the probability of getting called drops further. They probably called to poll me but I was out working, or at least pretending to work. (Is it really work if you enjoy it?)

   David shamelessly taking a paycheck anyway

4. Jane on January 21st, 2012 7:39 pm

   So if this is based on polling, who are they polling? I don’t know of anyone who has been polled, unemployed or otherwise. And yes, viable does mean able to grow or to survive. Are we growing the economy? No. Are we surviving? Some people are barely surviving, living in shelters and cars or under the overpasses or in the woods!

5. David Huie Green on January 21st, 2012 7:09 pm

   REGARDING:
   “So correct me if I am wrong. Unemployment rates are based on the number of individuals receiving unemployment benefits”

   Since you asked, you are wrong.

   According to the bureau of labor statistics they are still polling households every month to check unemployment:

   From http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#laus
   “ — the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. For instance, beginning in 1994, the CPS estimates reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey. – - – There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State.“

   David doing as requested

6. scott on January 21st, 2012 12:21 pm

   So correct me if I am wrong. Unemployment rates are based on the number of individuals receiving unemployment benefits. If this is true and I do believe so, how do we continue to fall for these statics. I am currently employed but have many aquaintances that I personally know have drawn unemployment while grasping for straws looking for a job. They have no unemployment benefits left. They still have no job. Thay are no longer considered unemployed because.our counties do not have a system to track them after their benefits run out. I am guessing that the true unemployment rate in escambia cty is 20 percent. It is horrible out there and I feel for those without income. They predict another 6k homes to be lost this year alone. That is not a sign of employment getting better.
   I stand corrected if this info is not the way it works but I am confident I am right.

7. David Huie Green on January 21st, 2012 11:11 am

   REGARDING:
   “I believe that this drop is due to lower unemployment claims, not new jobs”

   Nope, it isn’t based on unemployment claims, rather on polling. Or it was the last time I checked which was a month or so back.

   AND
   “until it drops down to around 7% we will never have a viable economy here.”

   Viable economy? Viable, the word viable was originally restricted to the senses of “able to grow” and “able to survive.” However, it has the extended sense of “able to be done or worth doing.”

   It definitely isn’t growing, but isn’t dying, just isn’t as good as we might like. Some growth we don’t like because it would involve a reduction in quality of life, others we won’t see because others want it worse than we do.

   David for good living

8. Matt Mona on January 21st, 2012 10:27 am

   I also think peoples benefits ran out. so those numbers of peoples should be considered in these statistics before they are published. As for me my benefits ran out. I worked part time for a company that 1099’s me at the end of the year so now I will no longer qualify for renewed benefits. so these statistics are rediculously unaccurate when used to show economic growth.

9. Jane on January 21st, 2012 7:35 am

   After looking at the statistics I believe that this drop is due to lower unemployment claims, not new jobs. This area is very depressed and is way behind the rest of the nation in terms of job creation.

10. Jane on January 21st, 2012 5:39 am

    While unemployment may have dropped a bit in Escambia County, until it drops down to around 7% we will never have a viable economy here. And Pensacola is beginning to look very run down. While we are used to that you can’t attract tourists to run down areas. The unemployment rate here also contributes to crime in the area.

11. a on January 21st, 2012 12:29 am

    DUUUHHHHH… it’s not that hard to see that the reason the jobless claims dropped is because many of the unemployed has ran out of benefits and are no longer filing…. no its not better, this percentage is skewed becuase they fail to consider the hundreds of thousands of individuals who are no long filing, that does not mean that the numbers are good, they are actually worse, but they don’t want to scare the public i guess