The following post is an attempt to explain the unemployment figures that were released last Friday.
By FLOYD NORRIS
Mitt Romney said on Friday
that there were 23 million Americans struggling to find work. It looks
as if he got that wrong, by engaging in a little double counting. The
real number is around 21 million.
The just-released Labor Department report for September says there are 12,088,000 people classified as unemployed, meaning they looked for a job during the previous month and did not find one. That is the seasonally adjusted figure. The actual number the department estimated was 11,742,000.
There are no seasonally adjusted numbers for the other groups that could conceivably fit into the category — people not in the labor force who say they would like work if they could find it and people classified as “marginally attached” to the labor force.
There are 6,427,000 people counted as out of the labor force but wanting to work, and 2,517,000 classified as marginally attached.
Add them together, and use the higher (seasonally adjusted) figure for unemployment, and you get 21,032,000. If you were trying to be fair and compare apples to apples, you’d used all numbers before seasonal adjustment, and get 20,686,000.
Either way, that is a long way from 23 million.
So where did the rest come from? My guess is that Mr. Romney’s aides looked at Table A-16 of the release. That shows the 2,517,000 “marginally attached,” and breaks them into two groups. The first is 802,000 discouraged workers, and the rest — 1,715,000 — are classified as people who are deemed to be marginally attached but are not discouraged workers. That includes people who were ill or had school or family responsibilities that kept them from looking for work. If you add those two groups to the whole, then the number gets to be over 23 million. But that would represent a misreading of the figures.
Even if Mr. Romney had done his arithmetic correctly, it would be a stretch to say there were 21 million people “struggling to find work.” Of the 6.4 million who said they were not in the labor force but would work if they could, 3.3 million said they had not actually tried to find a job in the last year.
The just-released Labor Department report for September says there are 12,088,000 people classified as unemployed, meaning they looked for a job during the previous month and did not find one. That is the seasonally adjusted figure. The actual number the department estimated was 11,742,000.
There are no seasonally adjusted numbers for the other groups that could conceivably fit into the category — people not in the labor force who say they would like work if they could find it and people classified as “marginally attached” to the labor force.
There are 6,427,000 people counted as out of the labor force but wanting to work, and 2,517,000 classified as marginally attached.
Add them together, and use the higher (seasonally adjusted) figure for unemployment, and you get 21,032,000. If you were trying to be fair and compare apples to apples, you’d used all numbers before seasonal adjustment, and get 20,686,000.
Either way, that is a long way from 23 million.
So where did the rest come from? My guess is that Mr. Romney’s aides looked at Table A-16 of the release. That shows the 2,517,000 “marginally attached,” and breaks them into two groups. The first is 802,000 discouraged workers, and the rest — 1,715,000 — are classified as people who are deemed to be marginally attached but are not discouraged workers. That includes people who were ill or had school or family responsibilities that kept them from looking for work. If you add those two groups to the whole, then the number gets to be over 23 million. But that would represent a misreading of the figures.
Even if Mr. Romney had done his arithmetic correctly, it would be a stretch to say there were 21 million people “struggling to find work.” Of the 6.4 million who said they were not in the labor force but would work if they could, 3.3 million said they had not actually tried to find a job in the last year.
17 comments:
It is interesting to see Romney say that the number of unemployed is 23 million. But then once you see all the different types of unemployment and the numbers for each one, you can see that the 23 million is inaccurate. That 3.3 million people who haven't tried to find a job in the last year, but are under the category of people who are out of work but would work if they could find a job, those 3.3 million people should not be included in the unemployment category. The unemployment category should be for people who are out of work but are working hard to try to find a job but they just can't find anything. But anyone who is just sitting around, not trying to find work because they are happy with the money they are getting from the government should not be included. But the fact that Romney said the wrong number is quite interesting. His people probably should have gone through the numbers again or probably should have gotten rid of some of the categories that don't necessarily belong under unemployment.
In my opinion, I think that it was a stretch for Romney to include those people. However, I see his logic and I see where he is coming from. Looking for jobs or not, they are unemployed. Nevertheless, these people are out of work and add to the unemployment of our country. I do believe he should have specified the different types of employment so that it is clear to the public which portion are not steadily searching for jobs.
From reading the article I believe that Romney was wrong for adding people that "he" thought added to the unemployment number. I don't should of added 1,715,000 to the unemployment number because they had a reason that they could not find a job. If they are a student and cannot find a job, I believe that is ok because they are building assets for themselves which should not be counted for unemployed. Romney should of classified his "marginal attached" people more specifically or not at all.
In my opinion Mitt Romney was stretching the truth in order to try and discourage people to vote for Obama. Either that or he just simply made a mistake. There are 12,088,000 people classified as unemployed and another estimated 9 million more people that are not in the labor force but wanting work. These numbers together equal out to about 21 million people unemployed however this is a long way away from 23 million. The extra 3.3 million people that did not try and find work last year should not be considered unemployed because they had not tried to find work.
For the past few years unemployment has been a crucial issue for Americans. According to the article about 3 million Americans would like to work but due to the economic turmoil and restrain on company budgets, finding a job has become difficult. I do agree that Romney was over exaggerating about unemployment to make Obama seem incompetent when it comes to improving unemployment rates. However, the dictionary does define unemployment as “the state of being unemployed” so that would technically include all unemployed Americans whether they are trying to find a job or not.
Nothing in politics is done without reasoning. Romney's exaggeration of the unemployment rate being at 23 million was just to show obama as a bad president so he could win the election. However, one is not to say unemployment is not real, in fact it is very bad right now with many people out of work. There are three different types of unemployment: frictional, structural, and cyclical. Cyclical being unemployment caused by the recession and many people are experiencing this difficulty due to economic problems, and companies not being able to afford more workers making it hard to find a job. Others are now out of work due to a lack of their skills which is called structural unemployment and these people may need to change their environment in order to get a job. Now the final type being frictional unemployment refers to those graduates, or people switching work which don't currently have a job. All three together make up the 23 million Romney speaks of and though it is confusing and controversial in the way he states it and many may believe he should separate the three, he was using this big number as a tactic to have people favor him and elect him as new president.
It's unclear how this post on unemployment has anything to do with any subjects we've been discussing up until Chapter 5 or why its speculative, partisan nature is appropriate for students. I can only speculate what the motivation is to leave such a post 4 weeks away from the most divisive election since I first voted in 1996 and the first election for almost all of the students in the class. In reading the 6 previous posts left by the students, it is clear that their opinions have been skewed by the partisan language and attitude of the article - instead of being taught how to understand the Bureau of Labor Statistics's complicated tables. The New York Times article from which this post is derived indicates Romney did not say there were 23 million unemployed, but that 23 million were "struggling for work", this quote from Romney's statement, and the basis for Norris' article. Norris can do math all day long, grabbing numbers from this chart and borrowing numbers from another chart, but he cannot objectively prove that Romney is wrong, that 23 million are "struggling" to find work - and this is why the article is partisan and not useful as an objective piece of learning. Even if Norris were right, and for sake of argument, let's say he is, does it matter? Should students be exposed to an article that definitively discusses how Romney actually composed his figures, or to one rife with opinion, speculation, and outright partisan leaning? A concrete analysis is clearly more appropriate and useful in the classroom. I, for one, am not going to rise to the partisan bait and discuss presidential employment policy or the state of unemployment in this country. If we are to have an educated discussion and analysis of employment and how employment figures and statistics are derived, I would be happy to be a part of that discussion.
After reading this article I realize that a lot of the things politicians say cannot be taken as true. Estimating an approximate 23 million people who are unemployed in America as of September is a stretch when the actual number isn't even at 21 million. This shows how important it is to be aware of facts and information before believing what someone says or even choosing them as the next president of the United States. Unemployment is one of the more serious issues America is facing right now but people need to realize exactly what point it has reached.
Unemployment is a huge topic for the upcoming debate. Obviously Romney will stretch the truth in order for Obama to look bad. THis is the reason why he said 23 million people. But, personally i feel that if you do not have a job you are unemployed. It doesn't matter if you're not looking for you. Even so, the unemployment rates are too high
I believe Mitt Romney stated that there were 23 million Americans struggling to find work because if he were elected, then he could claim that a decrease of unemployed Americans occured while he was in office. I do not think it is fair to include discouraged workers with those who are struggling to find work. Discouraged workers are people who were ill or had school or family responsibilities that kept them from looking for work. Therefore, the likelihood that they are even trying to work is slim.
It's amazing how much politics focuses on the economy. At this state, we are trying to improve the nation's economy as a whole. That being said, it includes the nation's GDP. If the nation is not employing at its full capacity, then we cannot improve the nation's GDP. I think Romney's take on the employment is very important. Although his numbers can be misunderstood, the point is that this nation is not employing millions of people. I think that Romney was trying to satisfy the people by addressing the issue. Of course, his numbers may have been a bit exaggerated depending on his variables. However, this is an issue that needs to be addressed to each individual as well. If people want to see a change in the economy, even those who have been discouraged or disinterested in work need to make an effort to find jobs. Even with a little effort,it increases their opportunity to find employment. Thus, as a presidential candidate Romney is trying to find solutions for the economy. However, individuals within the economy have to continue to try to find employment, even those who are discouraged or disinterested to. We also have to consider the part-time workers that are accounted for in the labor force. The economy must look for the best ways to use our labor force. Or else, this economy will remain stagnant.
I think that Romney was just making another attempt to shift public opinion in his favor. In some ways you can argue it was clever because "technically" the number is close which all his supporters will just jump right on. The accidental almost 2 million could also persuade ill informed on the fence voters who shift back and forth how they feel. It sure seems like a big number to people who are not really interested in the true facts and would just vote for him instead of Obama. Or it could have been a real error, which given his position in the debate as the challenger, is not a good reflection on him. He missteps or overreaches, those debates are relatively scripted as far as responses so I think it may expose his oversight of facts to pursue his interests
Personally I think that Mitt Romney was just trying to stretch the truth with the purpose of discouraging people to vote for Obama. To be honest most people in the United States wouldn’t even know that he’s stretching the truth. Because of that he probably had the confidence that for the most part he could get away with exaggerating how many people are truly unemployed which is 21 million people. In today’s world unfortunately, and I hate to be cliché but ignorance is bliss and most people won’t know that he is lying to them and essentially he got away with it because those people already heard his comment and now of course that’s what the people are going to believe.
Technically speaking, these people are part of the unemployed in our country. Clearly, Romney was trying to boost the numbers to try and make AObama sound more incompetent. However, we all know we have a serious unemployment issue in this country and whether or not these people are actively looking for work, it is negatively impacting our ecoonomy. Perhaps, those not looking is a separate issue that each of the candidates needs to have with the American public so that we can truly see where they stand on this issue.
This article, which breaks down for the reader the actual figures of unemployment in this country, instead of the misleading number that Mitt Romney presented to the world, comes as no surprise. Mitt Romney in my opinion is one to fabricate the truth and be very general about his points. This is not to say that unemployment in this country is not one of the main issues that we are dealing with, along with health care, but there needs to be some understanding that comes from his part, instead of pointing the finger. I think that the way that they calculate the unemployment rate is one that is theoretical, just like the many other theories of economics because unemployment rate does that calculate the people who are employed but are not maximizing their skills because they cant find any work in their original fields. The don't calculate the people who are discouraged because they can not find work and stop. The people who stop looking for work because they decide to be home carers or even the people who work illegally..in the black market. There needs to be a reformation of how this country calculates unemployment because we are going to keep on coming up with outlandish numbers like that of which Mitt Romney did.
It would appear that Mitt Romney (or at least someone in his campaign office)made a mathmatical mistake. Whether it was intentionally done to make people favor him over Obama or an honest accident, I can't say. However, what I can say is that I dont blame Romney (or his aides)for the mistake. The real mistake is the method used by the government for these calculations. Why the government has to complicate everything by splitting it up into sections and subsections is a mystery to me. The method used should simply be the number of people who are not in the work force, end of story. By breaking it up into so many little groups it over-complicates the issue and makes it difficult to interprete. Romney may have been wrong, but so was the system in place. the method used is just poorly designed, nothing more can be said.
I see where Mr Romney is trying to prove, but those numbers seem a little stretched. He is trying to become the next president so he will likely exaggerate any numbers when it comes to trying to make Obama look bad. I want to see real figures and judge for myself.
Post a Comment