E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe government said Friday that the unemployment rate held steady at 8.2 percent, but you might hear some people say that the "real" jobless rate is more like 15 percent.
Chances are, they’re talking about what the government calls an “alternative measure of labor underutilization.” It’s intended to be a more comprehensive look at people who are out of work plus those who have a job but would like a better one.
The broadest measure of labor underutilization hit 14.9 percent in June. That's up slightly from 14.8 percent in May and 14.5 percent in April. Still, it’s an improvement from this time last year, when that measure was at 16.2 percent.
All figures are adjusted for seasonal workforce variations.
That measure includes the more than 12 million people who are classified as unemployed, meaning they don’t have a job but are available for work and actively looking for employment.
But it also includes people who the government describes as “marginally attached” to the labor force. That means that they want a job but haven’t looked for one recently because they don’t think there are jobs out there for them.
Related: Gloomy jobs report raises pressure on the Fed
In addition, it factors in people who are involuntarily working part time. That means they’d like to find a full-time job, or to get more hours at their current job, but they haven’t been able to do either of those things.
Are you feeling discouraged by the job market these days? Tell us about it in the comments below or on our Facebook page.
Leave a Comment:
finally someone is putting out some real numbers. for a long time i have said they dont count small buisness owners and self employed who dont pay in on themselves so they cant collect.
Problem is, even those aren't the real numbers. It is much worse. I think the real under-utilization numbers are closer to 30%
I look at who is unemployed period. Those who can get unemployment and those who who no longer qualify. I lost my job 2 months ago and I can only get 21 weeks. The clock is ticking, I am scared out of my wits and the misconception out there is that I can get 99 weeks so they think I have time.
Probably around 16-20 percent. An easy way to is to count who is actually employed:
www.kondratieffwavecycle.com/unemployment/
Cannot believe they printing this article, they usually stay with Barry's spin completely. The stats are not good esp for those that have exhausted UE and still cannot find work but of course they don't count.
Barry's spin of UE is a lie by omission and lies by omission are still lies.
The unemployment or underemployment (U6) rate has marginally improved. However, the unemployment amongst african americans has increased to 14.4%. It has increased for latinos to 11%. It has increased for all people 18-25 to near 24%. These three groups made the difference in the election in 2008. I don't care what the poll numbers are today...if these three groups are not motivated to vote like they did in 2008, Romney will win. But, there are 3 more jobs reports before the election and other global political events that could potentially impact the November election.
Unfortunately buried about as deep as they could bury it!
Buried in the front page of the business section. How could they? must be the lamestream media trying to fool us into thinking Obama's the Messiah again. Next thing you know they'll try to tell us the climate is getting warmer.
As Ebeneezer Goode pointed out, we need better educated people. One minor problem, (actually multiple problems). Our Public School system focuses more on rights than education. There is more emphasis on Busing than curriculum. There is more concern on the Breakfast program, the Lunch Program, the soon coming Dinner Program, the Teachers Unions, the No Child Left Behind, while education falls into place after all of these more important issues. When the Government discovers a way to pro-create and deliver the children without need for Parents things will really be different.
Is anyone paying attention?
Um, our schools around here are focused entirely on curriculum. It's areas where they focus on vouchers and private schools where the public institutions get into trouble.
It's areas where they focus on keeping kids out of college by eliminating Pell grants, financial aid, and inceasing college tuition that's the problem.
Lunch programs are GREAT - especially when you want to educate children whose parents can't afford to get them out of poverty and feed them. Teacher's unions are GREAT - when they help insure that school systems are staffed by people who at least get a living wage (have you SEEN what teachers are paid? It ain't the lap of luxury - not when many I know take second jobs as car salesmen and real estate salesmen during the summers)
No Child Left Behind was an abject failure - but Bussing was not. In Louisville, KY it has lead to specialization of high school curricula, and higher performance over all. And in areas where integration was a problem - it's CRITICAL.
Even today, race DOES play a role in education - when my son gets alternatively called a @!$%# or Spic because he's biracial - and one of only a few "specks of pepper" in the student body - we NEED more integration and diversity and not less.
Otherwise we will be doomed to repeat the history that we so desperately want to forget.
Ebeneezer, sounds like you live in socialist utopia. What are your graduation rates? What is your ACT or SAT in comparison to the national average? What percentage of your little geniuses graduate college within 4 years after graduating high school?
I can't believe someone is bringing the topic of bussing children and race into this topic.
Last I checked, the color of someone's skin has nothing to do with their ability to learn. Also, since public education is free, and so is the public school you attend, money is not the factor.
You can be successful no matter what color and no matter where you are educated. Those are just easy things to blame.
1. Attend school and pay attention in school and read the book and study the notes. Do ALL of it. Ask the teacher for help and don't be shy about it. Focus hard and ignore all distractions and school drama, just ignore it if it isn't about learning. Focus on learning.
2. Join a group or club that is productive and will lead you to a better education.
3. Don't hang out with people who are not on the path to success. Hang out with smart people.
4. Study hard for college entrance exams. Take them multiple times.
5. Get into a college. If money is tight and loans are hard to get, then try a community college for 2 years and transfer to a 4 year college.
6. This is a BIG one here *** Major in something that the world needs *** Major in something that involves Math, Science, Medicine, or Technology. If you choose outside of this category then you will not get a return on you college investment and life will always be a struggle.
7. If you choose to chase your dream instead of step number 6, then you have a 90% chance of not making it and you will struggle and spend the rest of your life chasing that dream. Have a backup plan and go back to college.
8. Network with smart people. Join professional organizations that allow you to get in front of people and/or companies that you wish to work for.
These are the building blocks folks. I cannot stress enough that you have to learn to play the game and follow the above rules in order to have success, otherwise life will suck.
I know that this may sound obnoxious but it is the harsh reality and it is how this nation works. Don't sit back and wait for anyone to rescue you, because it is unlikely to happen. You have to rescue yourself. People like people who do for themselves and who do not blame others.
PURE NRG,
Well said. The tools are available for ANYONE to be successful. Your points #5 and #6 are especially important. Lots of successful people started out at a community college and then transferred to a big name school. The first couple of years are mostly generic coursework anyway. Expanding on #6, I would say that if you choose a major that is not in demand, then at least have a backup plan. That could be another major or a trade school.
PURE NRG and KowRipper,
Agree with most of your coments. I'd add just a couple of things to think about.
1. Not everyone is intellectually capable of succeeding in college, but luckily going to college is not the only road to success. Success is a combination of intelligence (comes in many forms), support, and passion. We need teachers, guidance counselors and parents who are more interested in the success of each student than on college acceptance rates, standardized test scores and other tangential measures of group success.
2. As a society we NEED art, music, literature, drama and philosophy, not just science and math. These things are essential to the development our our humanity. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our society values football more than Beethoven and NASCAR more than Nietzsche. The artist has always "struggled", often financially and usually psychologically. Perhaps that's part of the artistic process. Success is about more than money and college is about more than learing a trade.
Pure NRG--say it ain't so!!! Deal with reality??? Excellent points! My son is majoring in Chemistry and my daughter in Speech Pathology. In a generation where everybody gets a trophy and parents stressing to their children that if you get a college degree (regardless of discipline), you can get a good job...I have manged to raise children to pick a STEM major.
@JoeMike--As Pure NRG as stated, choose a liberal arts discipline at your own discretion. But, know what the likely outcome will be when you graduate. There is no argument that we need graduates in those disciplines. But, the market is extremely saturated with them already. Even graduates with masters degrees in a liberal arts discipline cannot find jobs in this market.
Regarding your comparison of pro sports and NASCAR to Beethoven and Nietzsche comes down to individual choice. Worldwide the majority chooses sports over the arts. Although music and acting are holding their own.
It is true that success is more about money. But, would you rather be honest with your children about the consequences of their choices or wait until they graduate with a liberal arts degree and are moving back home working part time trying to pay off a mountain of student loans?
Comment from this employer:: I hope all those clowns with the carny tatoos, ear extenders and wild crazy muti-colored hairdoos are all counted as well! They have a snowballs chance in hell to get a job in my neighborhood. Come on in for an interview...we have plenty of jobs...but not for the freaks!!! Any comments from the freaks out there...about their job prospects/strategies are always entertaining.
Dear Chazman:
I'm replying not because I'm like some of the people that you are describing but I don't believe this article is talking about the freaks. In your birds-eye view, you probably believe there is no unemployment for the "normal" people.
Red Wolf,
Agreed, article not about freaks, but some of the "normals" lack business skills, social interaction and attention to details that are just the basics that are required. The remaining normal unemployed unfortunately just have not connected to jobs that meet their skills. Sadly, I am also waiting for the November election results to plan for business expansion or withdraw/hold my business hiring plans.
Then you aren't very bright.
You should be looking toward what people will buy and how they will buy it. The election has nothing to do with anything unless you are selling yachts to the super rich.
Red and MJ, welcome to the real business world. Why would he hire people most of the public would feel uneasy around? Why would he expand when there is so much uncertainty regarding mandated worker benefits such as health care and social security? He could be looking at the future and not liking what he thinks will happen.
John,
1. Because some of those "freaks" are incredibly intelligent, talented and skilled - his loss.
2. Because if he's not expanding, he's dying.
3. The truly successful finds ways to be successful regardless of the circumstances.
joe mike...thanks.
THE SUCESSFUL DO WHAT THE UNSUCESSFUL WON'T
I'm sure Bill Gates and Steve Jobs weren't afraid to hire someone with a tatoo. And they didn't whine about lack of business skills, they invested in their employees and trained them, they invest in public education and they get the skills they want out of that. How's your business doing relative to how theirs' did?
The dynamic of business has changed. Most employers are actually using every excuse they can find to avoid hiring (no way do today's employers deserve the "job creator" title). It used to be a sign of success when you were expanding and a sign that your company had promise when you were willing to invest in training your employees to give them the needed business skills (those people deserved the "job creator" title). In today's world the face of success seems to be someone who enjoys laying off employees (including many with the right business skills) and piling all the extra work on those that are retained. This is called "increasing productivity" and it is seen as the goal (hence the "job creator" title no longer applies). The retained employees are afraid to squawk because they don't want to lose their jobs; if they don't know how to do the "extra jobs" they are doing they struggle, those who do know the job are too busy with their extra work that they don't have the time time to train anyone who doesn't, not to mention fear of becoming redundant makes training others against their best interest. Then today's employers (who should instead now take the title "job misery creators") whine that they can't find trained workers at the same time they are refusing to pay any more in taxes at the same time they are whining that taxpayer-funded education system isn't doing what should be the employer's job - investing in training to have the business skills they need. This is the vicious cycle that describes the company I work for and that's why it's a loser company. I'll bet it describes Chazman too, who should stop whining and start doing HIS job - train your own employees and stop whining that the perfect employees aren't running to your doorstep, or if you want the public education system to send you the perfect employees, then fine, pay for that and stop whining about your taxes.
It sounds like the real truth has come out about the real numbers of unemployed people out there. I feel stuck in my job because of the high unemployment. Also, when I've taken other jobs that were low paying just to have a job, it's even years before you can get out of that rut. I'm old now and can't do without employer provided health insurance that I have with my present employer.
To get an accurate picture to ensure adequate focusing of attention and resources:
We need an unemployed index that tells us the total number of people not working who would be searching for work, if the economy had appropriate jobs available for them. That, added to the number of employed people is the total workforce. The present index doesn't include the people who are for example, unemployed, but gave up looking, because they couldn't find work.
We need a separate index for those who are under employed and another for those who want to switch jobs.
We need an index of the number of jobs available.
We need an index of the minimum number of unemployed and another of the minimum number of unfilled jobs that are due simply to the nature of the process of supply meeting demand and vice versa.
(c) 2012
rather then investing in more indices, why don't we invest in creating jobs? Or are you suggesting that we could create more jobs for people who study how many people are unemployed?
Without the stimulus this # would be 26.87%.
This shows how well the president's programs have worked.
Obama / Biden in 2012.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Yes, without the stimulus it would be much worse, but at last our "Just Say No" Congress has passed the President's Transportation Bill, which will employ 3 million to rebuild our decaying infrastructure. (They did this only because they want to hold onto the House and congressional approval is at a low 17%.)
Corporations are sitting on 2 TRILLION dollars, hoping to sweat the economy long enough for Romney to win so they can deregulate everything again--and have another catastrophe as we did in 2008.
Dee: So why don't you open a business and hire some people who need a job. Corporations are cutting back also-didn't you read about Bank of America cutting 20,000 and Goldman Sach cutting 10,000. In today's news Best Buy is also cutting 5,000. So if they're soooo rich with money why wouldn't they be hiring more people. The real fact is that 75% of those employed are employed by small business owners (under 500 employees) and small business owners are being stifled by the regulations that the Obama Administration has in place. President Obama is anti-business and pro- big government.
The only thing that stimulus/deficit spending has done is gotten us deeper into debt. Here are the results of the 'growth' we have achieved from deficit spending in the last few years...and they are not pretty:
GDP – US$
2007: 14,028.7 B
2008: 14,369.1 B
2009: 13,939.0 B
2010: 14,526.5 B
2011: 15,094.0 B
2012: 15,601.5 B (US budget)
Annual federal deficit in US$:
2008: 458.55 B
2009: 1,412.69 B
2010: 1,293.49 B
2011: 1,299.59 B
2012: 1,326.95 B (US budget)
%GDP Increase (annual):
2008: +2.43%
2009: -2.99%
2010: +4.21%
2011: +3.91%
2012: +3.36%
%GDP Stimulus (annual; federal deficit $/avg. GDP):
2008: +3.23%
2009: +9.98%
2010: +9.09%
2011: +8.77%
2012: +8.65%
%GDP Net ‘Growth’ (%GDP increase - %GDP Stimulus):
2008: -0.80%
2009: -12.97%
2010: -4.88%
2011: -4.86%
2012: -5.29%
The above Net GDP ‘Growth’ assumes zero growth from the private sector. Our stimulus ‘investment’ has earned us a negative return.
Jay, you don't get it. the deficit is due to an imbalance between revenue and spending. you can't blame it on spending alone. people like you allow politicians to keep kicking this can down the road, blaming the other side, which is why nothing changes. I bet you don't even realize that nearly 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts, not spending, which of course added to the deficit. Now Romney and the repubs want to cut taxes even more, which will course add to the deficit. And dems are no better. wake up.
You are way off base, Joe. Not the least of which is fighting facts with rhetoric...
Jay, did you include the tax breaks that were part of the stimulus as spending? If so, your analysis is total BS as a political statement
Stimulus = Fiscal deficit spending. If you don't understand this you aren't worth my time...
Wow if revenue is down it is not good business sense to spend more...the corporations that are holding on the cash are smart enough to know that..but people that are uneducated are running them down...they are doing what is best for their company...get it....profit..that is what made this country....not a welfare state.
As believe in America states, America's large corporations are cutting back on # of employees. At the same time they are piling the extra work onto those who are retained, with no substantial increase in pay. That's' called "increasing productivity" and is the goal of most large "macho" corporate leaders today. Whatever you call them, don't call them "job creators". Their employees who have retained their jobs are grateful to have jobs and may feel like they are working longer hours and harder than others out of fear that they will be the next to go, but in fact they are not more productive, they are in fact getting less done, have less time to be innovative, less loyal, and ultimately productivity is going down and this business model will be unsuccessful. More importantly the overworked "wage earners" are spending all of their time working and have little or no free time and no increased wages, so just like they unemployed they are not putting money back into the economy. So in parallel to failing to improve their own businesses, the non-job-creating productivity-focused business leaders will cause the economy to fail.
Today's business leaders are not job creators, they are job misery creators, they are certainly no Henry Fords!
@Fired Up--Henry Ford didn't have politicians signing global trade agreements. If trade agreements existed in the day of Henry Ford, Ford would have went the way of the Edsel.
Yep. The real figures are around 16%, maybe as high as 20%. Almost depression type of figures. The recession has lasted so long we're used to it now as a new "norm". If we get into a real depression, they'll probably label it a mid sized recession instead. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton. Presidents don't create jobs and even have trouble setting the stage for them to be created.
Not true. If you remember Carter to Reagan. When Reagan took office unemployment was 10% within 2 years it went down to 4% because Americans didn't believe in Carter but believed in Reagan. Same thing happening today.
I was in Houston during that time in busines and did well by hodling onto loads of cash instead of expanding...kind of the same thing many bizs are doing now...waiting for stable times.
For four years our corporate masters have been laying off many workers. Those left behind are told, OR ORDERED, to pile up all the additional work on top of the shoulders of those that were not layed off.
The cost of food, rent, electricity, water, garbage, every fricken bill has gone up in costs.
The only thing that has NOT gone up is the amount of money I earn. I'm no longer a member of the middle class according to the United States government by how much money I earn AFTER TAXES.
According to the measureing tape of the United States Government, I'm now a member of the Lower Middle-Class. As a citizen i've been downgraded by the U.S. government, and IRS. I no longer earn as much money as I SHOULD, according to the United States Government.
To my corporate masters, @!$%# YOU! More work, less pay, all so your board of directors and CEO's can pay for your special trips to Fiji and Las Vegas, your yacht, your four cars and SUV's. Your Filet Mignon. I hope you choke on the garbage you @!$%#s can afford.
Yes, KeyOrion, the average CEO now takes home 9.6 MILLION a year--does anybody truly think one individual's work is worth 368 TIMES another's?
Corporations--and Big Bank corporations--are extracting the wealth of First World nations, creating a robber-baron class far worse than during the Industrial Revolution; today's robber-barons have no sense of giving anything back. For example. today's filthy rich are not building a national library system, as Andrew Carnegie did. They are not giving huge endowments to universities to establish scholarships for worthy students.
Half the people in this country apparently believe a President Romney, with his hidden bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and his business record of destroying jobs at home & sending more overseas--will somehow fix things for us, the disappearing middle class. Hah!
Wake up, America. Gotta get moneyed corruption out of our government--the government is supposed to be US--not corporations. They've even bought the Supreme Court, which has now set itself up as a third Federal legislature without any checks or balances, violating the Separation of Powers Clause of the Constitution they took an oath to uphold. Treason & corruption reign.
Yes and according to President Obama "The private sector is doing just fine" I think he should have made it more clear that the big corporations and the big banks are doing just fine. Under this administration "big" has flourished and the small business owners and middleclass has all but disappeared and there are more people in poverty than ever before.
All of this is nothing more than b.s. The Governor in Pa brags that the unemployment in PA is down to 8.1%. This is crap, Philadelphia county has the highest unemployment rate out of the other counties. I hate that politicians are clumping all counties together in order to cover up the problem. And the temp agencies, OMG those morons are busy undercutting each other by trying to pump information from another temp agencies temp. It also depends on each state, city, and county when it comes to the unemployment numbers.
I feel very fortunate as I have a great job and work for the leader in my field.
Your nose might be brown, Ritch.
So if you don't like your job, you're "unemployed?" Sorry - not buying it.
So you're a trained neuclear physicist, but you're working as a welldigger. Look for a better job, if you wish - good luck & more power to you. But as long as Welldiggers, Inc. is handing you a paycheck, well guess what, Charlie Brown - YOU HAVE A JOB! And guess what, statisicians - HE'S NOT UNEMPLOYED!
If "unemployment" is simply a matter of saying "My job sucks," then the unemployment rate is probably over 50%. THERE'S a politically-inflated number for you.
Bryon - 16 - 20% is the more true figure of unemployed to include underemployed with little chance of advancement due to LACK OF JOBS. When you have a good job and are able to keep it during a recession, all of the news about the unemployed is just background noise to you as you drive down the highway to your next vacation spot. When it hits home (and it will some day) then you will certainly see what it's like.
TB98 -
I accept the truth of what you say, but I'm going to stick to my ground. Unemployment and job satisfaction/dissatisfaction are different concepts, and using the one to pump up the other represents "logic" only a politican could love. My welldigger might want to find work in a nuke plant, but dollars to doughnuts says that there's someone out there who would jump at any employment at all - THAT'S the man who knows what "unemployment" really is.
Here's the problem I have with my own logic - I'm counting as "unemployed" people who go through the motions of job-seeking, but really have no intention of leaving mommy's spare couch.
There are a lot of us that have PT jobs paying *way* below what we used to make. The time adds up to FT, but PT jobs pay no benefits bringing hourly pay down even farther. At least I can barely cover my bills. But save for retirement anymore--HAH!
I work for a well known company. We have quite a few job openings avail in our office, but can not open them to the public because the parent company has us under a firing freeze... Does that make any sence to you?? Now who has the ability to create jobs...
you meant "hiring" freeze right?
Yes thank you.
I suspect that many companies have a "hiring freeze" in place right now. Most companies will hire new employees only when they are convinced they need the additional staffing for the next 2-5 years, and our economy that far out looks bleak with far too much uncertainty.
The job dissatisfaction is huge. Walking around in a grocery store I can read it on people's faces. Even kids are showing it.
I personaly would put the figure at 19-20%. Stats are minimized to keep morale up?
Too many people I know, lost their jobs and now work for less than half of what they once earned. Even with additional P/T jobs, money is very tight. Thankfully, these are intelligent people who saved first, then spent what was left. Savings are very depleted. No hope or change under Obama.
And yet Obama states the economy is headed in the right direction.
You can bet I will not be voting for him in 2012 as I did in 2008.
This poll is flawed. It assumes that all voters are job-takers or job-seekers. I am a job-creator. I started my own business!
Travelnerd: So what's your business and are you hiring?
There should be a category for people who employ other people, or at the very least, employ themselves. There are a lot more options out there than just hoping somebody else gives you a job!
This poll should have a category for people who employ other people, or at the very least, employ themselves. You have a lot more options than relying on somebody else to give you a job.
Dat Obama he be Magik. He gonna fixed all up soonest. Really???? How's that "Hope and Change" working out for you losers who believed in him??????
Not bad, considering the cooperation he hasn't had.
He does not seem to care or want cooperation. I don't think he would load up his proposals with partisan politics and expect the House to rubber stamp. I actually think he prefers blaming Congress for political points over anything passing.
I suspect If Hillary were president, bipartisan legislation would go through just as it did under Bil Clinton Bush, but it won't happen with Obama , the most divisive president.