Tim McMahon, Editor of UnemploymentData.com

My grandfather lived through the Hyperinflation in Weimar, Germany--to say he was an original “gold bug” would be an understatement. I began reading his “hard money” newsletters at the age of 16 and the dividends from gold stocks helped put me through college. I began publishing the Financial Trend Forecaster paper newsletter in 1995 upon the death of James Moore editor of Your Window into the Future and the creator of the Moore Inflation Predictor©. FTF specializes in trends in the stock market, gold, inflation and bonds. In January of 2003, I began publishing InflationData.com to specialize in all forms of information about the nature of Inflation. In 2009, we added Elliott Wave University to help teach you the principles of Elliott Wave analysis. In January 2013, we began publishing OptioMoney. Connect with Tim on Google+.

Housing Relief for Those Underwater or Unemployed

May 29, 2013 by Tim McMahon

For many people across the country, being unemployed and underwater on their mortgage appears like a never ending hole. Not only are you unemployed, but you owe more than your house is worth. Although recently the housing market has begun stabilizing, there are still countless people who are in financial distress due to unemployment and owing more on their mortgage than the house is worth. If you are currently in this financial dilemma, do not despair because there are options available to help alleviate both problems.

Dealing with Unemployment

Losing your job and struggling to make your mortgage payment often go together if you haven’t set aside a savings cushion for emergencies like this. If you were living on your full salary before, living on reduced unemployment benefits certainly is going to result in making ends meet even more difficult, let alone making your mortgage payment every month.

However, if you are facing these dire circumstances, you may very well be in a position to obtain housing relief. A government backed program called the Home Assistance Refinance Program (HARP for short) allows you to restructure your existing loan into a new loan with a lower principal balance along with a lower interest rate.

HARP can give you a monthly mortgage payment that works well within your budget if you are unemployed. Apply today with your lender, explain your situation and get the ball rolling on a completely modified loan.

How to Deal With Underwater Mortgages

First and foremost, it is important to understand [Read more…] about Housing Relief for Those Underwater or Unemployed

BLS Changes Employment Numbers

April 5, 2013 by Tim McMahon

For a few months now I’ve been ranting about how there is no way that the Unemployment numbers are right because they don’t match up with the employment numbers. A while back, I got an angry email from a subscriber saying that he “worked for the Treasury Department for 35 years and there was no way the BLS fudged any numbers.” So I responded and said I’d be happy to post his rebuttal if he could explain how those numbers could possibly match up… I’m still waiting for his response.

In February, I got an answer, not directly mind you, but when I looked at the January Employment numbers they have magically changed all the way back to July of 1991. Yes, “unadjusted” employment numbers have been adjusted, changed, fudged, manipulated whatever you want to call it.

In July 1991 and preceding, the numbers are the same. In August 1991, the difference is minuscule only 1000 mysterious jobs have been added. But the difference continues to grow. And by December of 2012 the old number was 134.822 million and the new number is 135.545 million so somehow magically the BLS has created 723,000 jobs out of thin air.

Who do they think they are to create Jobs out of thin air, the FED?

We know the FED can create money out of thin air, so maybe the BLS can do the same with jobs?

By the way the BLS does say that the numbers are “Preliminary” for 2 months so theoretically they could legitimately adjust the November and December numbers… but going all the way back to 1991 is a bit much! But, if I were to fudge numbers that is exactly what I would do …gradually adjust them from way back so there isn’t a sharp disconnect between the old series and the new.

Here is a chart of the old employment vs. new fudged numbers since 2000.

Note where the 738,000 jobs difference occurs.

Click for larger image

I contacted the Bureau of Labor Statistics and asked why the numbers were changed. I received a curt reply pointing me to the “answer” on their website. It starts out with all this mumbo-jumbo about this minor change from April 2010 – March 2011 and goes on for a couple of paragraphs about it and then they slide in one key sentence with no fanfare “oh by the way we changed all the employment numbers back to 1991 too.”

Here is the BLS Response:

Reconstructed data

In order to provide a continuous and comparable employment time series, CES decided to reconstruct the history for one CES series, 55-524126 Direct property and casualty insurers, impacted by the changes to noncovered employment incorporated with the 2011 benchmark (see www.bls.gov/ces/cesbmart11.pdf). CES determined that the history of this series did not capture a significant amount of noncovered employment and instead showed a level shift in the series from April 2010 to March 2011, where the noncovered employment, calculated from County Business Patterns (CBP) data, was first included. CES uses CBP data to calculate the majority of noncovered employment. The CBP — which draws from Social Security filings and other records which do include those employees not covered by UI tax laws — is lagged in its publication by approximately two years (e.g. in 2012 the 2010 CBP data was published). For more information about calculating noncovered employment, see bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn.htm#NCE

CBP data was used to reconstruct AE data for CES series 55-524126 back to 1991 in order to incorporate the noncovered employment in the history. From the reconstructed AE data, the remaining published data types were produced using the previously published sample ratios.

This reconstruction also resulted in revisions back to 1991 for the associated aggregate series, including but not limited to Total nonfarm, in the associated data types.

So even though according to the BLS they survey employers to find out how many people are employed they somehow figure they aren’t counting everyone, so they need to fudge the numbers except they call it “reconstructing” because they somehow aren’t counting all the “Property and Casualty insurers”. So back in 1991 this was 1000 and now they are missing 3/4 of a million of them. Sounds like the Property and Casualty business must be booming to go from 1,000 to 738,000 since 1991. (Emphasis mine- the BLS did not bold the statement.)

The following table includes all the original numbers and the new changed employment numbers from July 1991 through the current data. Note that in July 1991 and prior the numbers are identical. This data series is called “Not Seasonally Adjusted Numbers” Series CEU0000000001 but it seems a bit hypocritical to call them unadjusted at this point.

Date	New Data In Millions	Original Data In Millions	Difference
Jul-1991	107.982	107.982	0
Aug-1991	108.074	108.073	1,000
Sep-1991	108.791	108.785	6,000
Oct-1991	109.160	109.153	7,000
Nov-1991	109.175	109.166	9,000
Dec-1991	109.058	109.047	11,000
Jan-1992	106.671	106.659	12,000
Feb-1992	106.921	106.906	15,000
Mar-1992	107.440	107.424	16,000
Apr-1992	108.276	108.259	17,000
May-1992	109.083	109.065	18,000
Jun-1992	109.571	109.554	17,000
Jul-1992	108.554	108.537	17,000
Aug-1992	108.610	108.591	19,000
Sep-1992	109.394	109.372	22,000
Oct-1992	109.981	109.959	22,000
Nov-1992	110.223	110.200	23,000
Dec-1992	110.212	110.188	24,000
Jan-1993	108.047	108.021	26,000
Feb-1993	108.650	108.625	25,000
Mar-1993	109.083	109.057	26,000
Apr-1993	110.087	110.060	27,000
May-1993	111.050	111.021	29,000
Jun-1993	111.640	111.611	29,000
Jul-1993	110.771	110.742	29,000
Aug-1993	110.880	110.847	33,000
Sep-1993	111.868	111.831	37,000
Oct-1993	112.530	112.493	37,000
Nov-1993	112.878	112.837	41,000
Dec-1993	113.025	112.980	45,000
Jan-1994	110.777	110.730	47,000
Feb-1994	111.357	111.308	49,000
Mar-1994	112.332	112.283	49,000
Apr-1994	113.412	113.363	49,000
May-1994	114.423	114.376	47,000
Jun-1994	115.211	115.170	41,000
Jul-1994	114.265	114.226	39,000
Aug-1994	114.573	114.535	38,000
Sep-1994	115.631	115.591	40,000
Oct-1994	116.256	116.217	39,000
Nov-1994	116.863	116.826	37,000
Dec-1994	116.900	116.861	39,000
Jan-1995	114.591	114.552	39,000
Feb-1995	115.249	115.212	37,000
Mar-1995	116.005	115.971	34,000
Apr-1995	116.838	116.802	36,000
May-1995	117.562	117.524	38,000
Jun-1995	118.277	118.242	35,000
Jul-1995	117.044	117.008	36,000
Aug-1995	117.307	117.269	38,000
Sep-1995	118.221	118.180	41,000
Oct-1995	118.822	118.780	42,000
Nov-1995	119.060	119.016	44,000
Dec-1995	119.058	119.015	43,000
Jan-1996	116.358	116.315	43,000
Feb-1996	117.296	117.252	44,000
Mar-1996	118.099	118.055	44,000
Apr-1996	118.936	118.890	46,000
May-1996	120.063	120.016	47,000
Jun-1996	120.726	120.681	45,000
Jul-1996	119.689	119.643	46,000
Aug-1996	119.981	119.932	49,000
Sep-1996	120.724	120.672	52,000
Oct-1996	121.441	121.384	57,000
Nov-1996	121.899	121.841	58,000
Dec-1996	121.875	121.815	60,000
Jan-1997	119.331	119.269	62,000
Feb-1997	120.191	120.126	65,000
Mar-1997	121.073	121.007	66,000
Apr-1997	122.047	121.979	68,000
May-1997	123.125	123.053	72,000
Jun-1997	123.772	123.700	72,000
Jul-1997	122.786	122.710	76,000
Aug-1997	122.853	122.772	81,000
Sep-1997	123.857	123.770	87,000
Oct-1997	124.760	124.673	87,000
Nov-1997	125.153	125.063	90,000
Dec-1997	125.289	125.195	94,000
Jan-1998	122.736	122.636	100,000
Feb-1998	123.508	123.405	103,000
Mar-1998	124.227	124.122	105,000
Apr-1998	125.265	125.160	105,000
May-1998	126.345	126.240	105,000
Jun-1998	127.005	126.902	103,000
Jul-1998	125.931	125.832	99,000
Aug-1998	126.170	126.069	101,000
Sep-1998	126.977	126.874	103,000
Oct-1998	127.754	127.650	104,000
Nov-1998	128.155	128.051	104,000
Dec-1998	128.322	128.215	107,000
Jan-1999	125.570	125.460	110,000
Feb-1999	126.557	126.445	112,000
Mar-1999	127.269	127.158	111,000
Apr-1999	128.415	128.305	110,000
May-1999	129.284	129.176	108,000
Jun-1999	130.010	129.906	104,000
Jul-1999	129.140	129.039	101,000
Aug-1999	129.194	129.093	101,000
Sep-1999	129.970	129.866	104,000
Oct-1999	130.904	130.803	101,000
Nov-1999	131.364	131.263	101,000
Dec-1999	131.501	131.402	99,000
Jan-2000	128.862	128.763	99,000
Feb-2000	129.525	129.427	98,000
Mar-2000	130.624	130.526	98,000
Apr-2000	131.622	131.526	96,000
May-2000	132.577	132.481	96,000
Jun-2000	133.089	132.998	91,000
Jul-2000	131.869	131.776	93,000
Aug-2000	131.880	131.786	94,000
Sep-2000	132.547	132.449	98,000
Oct-2000	133.104	133.007	97,000
Nov-2000	133.467	133.371	96,000
Dec-2000	133.405	133.308	97,000
Jan-2001	130.527	130.433	94,000
Feb-2001	131.190	131.097	93,000
Mar-2001	131.780	131.689	91,000
Apr-2001	132.185	132.094	91,000
May-2001	132.890	132.800	90,000
Jun-2001	133.267	133.179	88,000
Jul-2001	131.776	131.687	89,000
Aug-2001	131.704	131.614	90,000
Sep-2001	131.968	131.872	96,000
Oct-2001	132.168	132.072	96,000
Nov-2001	131.976	131.880	96,000
Dec-2001	131.591	131.491	100,000
Jan-2002	128.706	128.602	104,000
Feb-2002	129.174	129.069	105,000
Mar-2002	129.778	129.672	106,000
Apr-2002	130.364	130.257	107,000
May-2002	131.131	131.023	108,000
Jun-2002	131.511	131.404	107,000
Jul-2002	130.068	129.960	108,000
Aug-2002	130.153	130.044	109,000
Sep-2002	130.670	130.557	113,000
Oct-2002	131.339	131.227	112,000
Nov-2002	131.458	131.345	113,000
Dec-2002	131.045	130.932	113,000
Jan-2003	128.358	128.248	110,000
Feb-2003	128.769	128.660	109,000
Mar-2003	129.258	129.148	110,000
Apr-2003	129.908	129.801	107,000
May-2003	130.663	130.559	104,000
Jun-2003	130.989	130.890	99,000
Jul-2003	129.646	129.550	96,000
Aug-2003	129.697	129.601	96,000
Sep-2003	130.351	130.253	98,000
Oct-2003	131.142	131.045	97,000
Nov-2003	131.302	131.208	94,000
Dec-2003	131.120	131.026	94,000
Jan-2004	128.458	128.365	93,000
Feb-2004	129.067	128.976	91,000
Mar-2004	130.107	130.019	88,000
Apr-2004	131.224	131.139	85,000
May-2004	132.127	132.047	80,000
Jun-2004	132.569	132.495	74,000
Jul-2004	131.405	131.334	71,000
Aug-2004	131.421	131.351	70,000
Sep-2004	132.133	132.068	65,000
Oct-2004	133.111	133.050	61,000
Nov-2004	133.360	133.301	59,000
Dec-2004	133.129	133.074	55,000
Jan-2005	130.423	130.369	54,000
Feb-2005	131.245	131.195	50,000
Mar-2005	132.083	132.038	45,000
Apr-2005	133.294	133.247	47,000
May-2005	134.104	134.058	46,000
Jun-2005	134.769	134.728	41,000
Jul-2005	133.705	133.665	40,000
Aug-2005	133.951	133.910	41,000
Sep-2005	134.576	134.533	43,000
Oct-2005	135.302	135.260	42,000
Nov-2005	135.857	135.817	40,000
Dec-2005	135.655	135.614	41,000
Jan-2006	133.000	132.961	39,000
Feb-2006	133.924	133.887	37,000
Mar-2006	134.903	134.868	35,000
Apr-2006	135.816	135.780	36,000
May-2006	136.621	136.584	37,000
Jun-2006	137.121	137.083	38,000
Jul-2006	135.945	135.908	37,000
Aug-2006	136.149	136.110	39,000
Sep-2006	136.817	136.777	40,000
Oct-2006	137.516	137.475	41,000
Nov-2006	137.898	137.857	41,000
Dec-2006	137.786	137.747	39,000
Jan-2007	134.994	134.952	42,000
Feb-2007	135.683	135.641	42,000
Mar-2007	136.576	136.533	43,000
Apr-2007	137.381	137.335	46,000
May-2007	138.323	138.277	46,000
Jun-2007	138.825	138.779	46,000
Jul-2007	137.425	137.379	46,000
Aug-2007	137.534	137.488	46,000
Sep-2007	138.096	138.046	50,000
Oct-2007	138.835	138.786	49,000
Nov-2007	139.143	139.090	53,000
Dec-2007	138.929	138.875	54,000
Jan-2008	135.896	135.840	56,000
Feb-2008	136.414	136.356	58,000
Mar-2008	137.003	136.944	59,000
Apr-2008	137.535	137.475	60,000
May-2008	138.105	138.045	60,000
Jun-2008	138.296	138.237	59,000
Jul-2008	136.811	136.751	60,000
Aug-2008	136.697	136.635	62,000
Sep-2008	136.748	136.686	62,000
Oct-2008	137.038	136.973	65,000
Nov-2008	136.355	136.288	67,000
Dec-2008	135.321	135.254	67,000
Jan-2009	131.627	131.555	72,000
Feb-2009	131.387	131.314	73,000
Mar-2009	131.249	131.175	74,000
Apr-2009	131.429	131.357	72,000
May-2009	131.697	131.626	71,000
Jun-2009	131.510	131.442	68,000
Jul-2009	129.910	129.844	66,000
Aug-2009	129.786	129.719	67,000
Sep-2009	130.144	130.077	67,000
Oct-2009	130.741	130.673	68,000
Nov-2009	130.787	130.720	67,000
Dec-2009	130.242	130.178	64,000
Jan-2010	127.374	127.309	65,000
Feb-2010	127.811	127.746	65,000
Mar-2010	128.646	128.584	62,000
Apr-2010	129.770	129.698	72,000
May-2010	130.886	130.801	85,000
Jun-2010	131.004	130.908	96,000
Jul-2010	129.664	129.569	95,000
Aug-2010	129.728	129.624	104,000
Sep-2010	130.221	130.090	131,000
Oct-2010	131.195	131.071	124,000
Nov-2010	131.502	131.371	131,000
Dec-2010	131.199	131.050	149,000
Jan-2011	128.338	128.183	155,000
Feb-2011	129.154	128.994	160,000
Mar-2011	130.061	129.899	162,000
Apr-2011	131.279	131.072	207,000
May-2011	131.963	131.707	256,000
Jun-2011	132.453	132.144	309,000
Jul-2011	131.181	130.821	360,000
Aug-2011	131.457	131.058	399,000
Sep-2011	132.204	131.746	458,000
Oct-2011	133.125	132.870	255,000
Nov-2011	133.456	133.172	284,000
Dec-2011	133.292	132.965	327,000
Jan-2012	130.657	130.297	360,000
Feb-2012	131.604	131.210	394,000
Mar-2012	132.505	132.081	424,000
Apr-2012	133.400	132.945	455,000
May-2012	134.213	133.723	490,000
Jun-2012	134.556	134.072	484,000
Jul-2012	133.368	132.868	500,000
Aug-2012	133.753	133.092	661,000
Sep-2012	134.374	133.797	577,000
Oct-2012	135.241	134.792	449,000
Nov-2012	135.636	135.069	567,000
Dec-2012	135.560	134.822	738,000

So there you have it, the BLS decided to “reconstruct” the employment numbers. Gives you lots of confidence in their reporting doesn’t it? Plus this new fudge factor is now “baked in the cake” so all new numbers after January will have it already fudged in so we will never know what the real numbers are.

Webmasters: Feel free to repost this article, all we ask is that you link back to this original article on UnemploymentData.com.

Image courtesy of Salvatore Vuono / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Florida’s FLUID Unemployment Program

March 12, 2013 by Tim McMahon

What is Fluid Unemployment?

Fluid unemployment has nothing to do with changing jobs frequently or the changing rate of unemployment. FLUID stands for the FLorida Unemployment Internet Direct Claims program (FLUID).

The state of Florida has begun a program to change its image and rebrand itself not as an agency of “UNEMPLOYMENT” but rather as an agency of “REEMPLOYMENT” thus on July 1, 2012, the Unemployment Compensation Program administered by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity was renamed the Reemployment Assistance Program they also renamed the Unemployment Appeals Commission the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (RAAC). Although these name changes sound nice the agency has also instituted a program called “FLUID” to help individuals get easier access to their unemployment benefits.

Thus the FLorida Unemployment Internet Direct Claims program. (FLUID). The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity provides a website that allows you to file claims online. Here is a link to the Florida Internet Claims Filing System. Their phone number is (850) 245-7105.

The FLUID system requires [Read more…] about Florida’s FLUID Unemployment Program

Protect Yourself Against Retirement Fraud

March 6, 2013 by Tim McMahon

People who retire have worked many years to earn what they have. Retirement accounts such as pensions, 401Ks and IRAs are carefully funded and managed over the employee’s working life to ensure there will be enough money in them to provide for the person’s retirement. Unfortunately, there are many people out in the world whose goal is to take the very money these workers have spent so many years earning and saving.

After all, they reason, why spend years accumulating it when you can steal it all in a few minutes? Retirement fraud is big business to some, and they will stop at nothing to get other peoples’ hard-earned money. Senior citizens have long been targets of scams. So after retiring, there are many scams you should be wary of, so that you are not left broke and wondering what to do next. Here are some tips to help you avoid becoming a victim.

Don’t Be Rushed

Don’t allow anyone to [Read more…] about Protect Yourself Against Retirement Fraud

Keeping Your Small Business Taxes Organized

February 8, 2013 by Tim McMahon

Tax season is coming up, and if you’re a small business owner and haven’t been keeping careful track of your business expenses this year, you could have a lot of work ahead of you. As you gather everything for 2012, you should also take the time to get 2013 on the right track and get yourself organized. A little bit of planning now will go a long way when next January rolls around.

Keep all Business Receipts

As a small business owner, it’s absolutely imperative that you keep every receipt connected to your business expenses. Looking at old bank statements, trying to remember why you spent seventy dollars and eighty-three cents at Home Depot a year ago, and if it was a business expense or not, is frustrating in the extreme. Keeping a file for receipts for all business purchases you make throughout the year will allow you to start 2014 without the anxiety. On top of that, if you can do a once a week categorizing of all of the receipts will help you keep organized, and at the end of the year, will give you a list of total expenses, rather than having to go back through all those receipts. If you want to get really high tech you could try using the NeatReceipts Mobile Scanner and Digital Filing System.

Small Business Tax Deductions- Vehicle and Property Costs

If you use a vehicle for work or [Read more…] about Keeping Your Small Business Taxes Organized

Government Salaries 35% Higher than Private Industry in 2012

January 31, 2013 by Tim McMahon

EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX – DECEMBER 2012

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released their employment cost index for the 2012 year on January 31st, 2013. It included both annual data and information on salary costs for the last quarter for Civilian workers which is composed of two major sectors i.e. Private Industry Workers and State and Local Government Workers. Seasonally adjusted compensation costs for civilian workers for the 3-month period ending December 2012, increased 0.5%. Wages and salaries (which make up about 70% of compensation costs) increased 0.3%, and benefits (which make up the remaining 30% of compensation) increased 0.6%.

US compensation costs 2012

Annual Compensation Costs

For the period of January through December 2012, compensation costs for civilian workers [Read more…] about Government Salaries 35% Higher than Private Industry in 2012

Use Facebook for your Job Search?

December 20, 2012 by Tim McMahon

Need a job? Have you considered using Facebook to find work?

Social networking sites today are not just for sharing informal information. Facebook, can also be a powerful tool that can lead you to a job. Because millions of people use Facebook, take advantage of it and put your job search efforts on a success track. With a good handle on how to use Facebook for your job search, you can gain a competitive edge in your job hunt.

Leverage your Facebook Friends for Job Searches

If you let your Facebook friends know that you need a job, they can refer you to their employers or friends that are in a position to hire you. Or, they can point you to valuable resources. Further, your friends can leverage their Facebook network – friends of friends – and help you land a job. The old saying about 6 degrees of separation applies here. According to Wikipedia, Six degrees of separation is the idea that everyone is six or fewer introductions away from any other person in the world, so that a chain of “a friend of a friend” can connect any two people in six steps or less.

Why Facebook for your Job Search?

A job ad in [Read more…] about Use Facebook for your Job Search?

5 Best Male Nursing Jobs

December 14, 2012 by Tim McMahon

Are Male Nursing Jobs Different?-

You may think that men enjoy different jobs than women when it comes to nursing. In reality, people love the different nursing careers because of their personality, not because of their gender. If you’re a man and are considering entering the nursing profession, there is no better time than now. The demand for male nurses is at an all-time high; here are five of the best careers in nursing currently available:

1.Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA)-

While less than ten percent of the nursing profession is made up of men, only about 50 percent of CRNAs are women. As a CRNA, you will help provide anesthetics to people undergoing a wealth of procedures; from major surgeries to minor tune-ups. As a male CRNA you may find work in a bustling hospital in the city or in a small, quaint hospital in the country. CRNAs are well-respected in the medical profession, working in conjunction with anesthesiologists and doctors.

2.Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners-

Male psychiatric nurse practitioners work in a wide variety of settings, including mental health clinics, hospitals, prisons and even for themselves in their own practice. As a psychiatric nurse practitioner, you can reasonably expect to make up to $85,000 per year helping people deal with various mental disorders and diseases. In your professional life, you’ll be asked to [Read more…] about 5 Best Male Nursing Jobs

State Employment and Unemployment Rates- September 2012

October 29, 2012 by Tim McMahon

Unemployment Rates by State-

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has released the individual state unemployment rates and once again NORTH DAKOTA has the lowest unemployment rates… literally begging for employees. They have “man camps” where men from all over the country are showing up and parking RV’s and cashing in on the high paying jobs available in the pipeline industry. And because the pay is so good it is driving up the wages everywhere else as Denny’s and McDonalds have to pay $15/hr in order to attract employees. Stories abound of labor being so scarce that Walmart quit stocking shelves and just places the pallets straight on the floor in the aisles and people grab the stock straight from the pallet.

On the other end of the spectrum we have Nevada where the gambling industry is hurting and they have 11.8% unemployment. This is followed by Rhode Island, California and New Jersey at 10.5%, 10.2% and 9.8% respectively.

Source: BLS Data is based on Unemployment rates for selected states, seasonally adjusted, September 2012

The full Unemployment Data for all 50 States plus D.C. is:

Unemployment, Part-time Workers and Obamacare

October 26, 2012 by Tim McMahon

When the most recent unemployment data was released just a couple of days after the second Presidential debate, there was some speculation that the numbers were “rigged” or “fudged”. We’ve been saying for a long time that even though they should be two sides of the same coin, the “Employment” numbers don’t track with the “Unemployment” numbers.

See: Employment vs. UnEmployment.

Basically, what the comparison chart shows is that unemployment is falling faster than employment is rising. Historically, in a recovery employment rises faster than unemployment falls.

But this time somehow “magically” unemployment is falling faster than employment is rising. How can that be?

Discouraged Workers are not the Answer

Some possible explanations up until this point were that people had given up looking for work (became “discouraged workers”) and so they were no longer counted as unemployed under the standard U-3 definition. This would of course make the U-3 number look better but wouldn’t indicate an improving economy. However logical this possibility sounds, the data does not hold up. If we look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers for Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment we can see that the number of people unemployed for more than 27 weeks in September 2011 was 6,217,000 but in September 2012 that number had fallen to 4,835,000 so the long term unemployed had fallen considerably.

In the table below we see the number of “discouraged workers” in thousands according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Once again we see [Read more…] about Unemployment, Part-time Workers and Obamacare