WERE you shocked that the nation's unemployment rate in October jumped to 10.2 percent, the first time it has been in double digits since 1982?
Did the fact that another 190,000 jobs disappeared from the US economy last month cause you to lose sleep?
Well, if you couldn't handle those numbers you should not read any more of this column.
In fact, I want to see a doctor's note before I allow you to read on.
Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to be cruel.
But if I go through some other numbers with you, you might better understand the foul mood of the country right now.
And maybe you can handle it a little better.
So, here goes.
I've already explained many times that an alternative measure of unemployment, called U-6 by the Labor Department, has been running much higher than the jobless rate you see in the headlines -- the one that spiked to 10.2 percent last month.
Suddenly, other newspapers have picked up on this.
The New York Times over the weekend gave as much play to the U-6 "under-employment" rate, as the paper called it, as it did to the regular jobless number.
U-6 was 17.5 percent in October, a big jump from 17 percent in September and a major leap from the 10.6 percent in September 2008.
The U-6 calculation represents those who are unemployed plus people who want full-time jobs but can only find part-time work.
This figure also includes some people who have become discouraged about finding work.
The emphasis, you'll notice, is on the world "some."
Starting in the Clinton administration, Americans who told Census Bureau investigators, over a period of a year, that they were too discouraged to even look for a job simply vanished from U-6.
And considering how prolonged today's periods of unemployment can be, there are probably more people simply falling out of the count, although the Labor Department has no idea how many for certain.
My friend John Williams of Shadow Government Stats thinks the true unemployment rate would be 22.1 percent if everyone -- all discouraged former workers, encouraged, involuntary part-timers and the like -- were included.
Here are more numbers to fry your brain and cause a temporary sense of helplessness.
The government's household survey (the one from which the unemployment rate of 10.2 percent comes) showed a "decline in employment" of 589,000 in October, which followed a 785,000 employment drop in September.
That number also includes people who say they retired and others who were fortunate enough to have died during the past month and no longer require a job.
More numbers: Last Friday's 190,000 loss of jobs (from the survey of companies) would have been worse if 86,000 imaginary jobs weren't included to the tally.
The government thinks those 86,000 jobs are coming from newly formed small businesses that it can't survey, but last month the Labor Department admitted that this might be overly optimistic.
What else can I say except, Have a nice day!
*
Now the Obama administration says it has created or "saved" a million jobs.
Last week, if I remember correctly, the figure was 640,000.
The president didn't dwell on it when he was talking about the latest number of lost jobs.
But he did throw in the new million job figure when he talked on Friday about the latest news from the Labor Department.
It reminded me of when I go to the supermarket. The cashier hands me my receipt for $200 worth of items and says, "Today you saved $80 in specials and coupons."
To which I say, "If I keep saving like that I'll be broke pretty soon."
Mr. Obama, if you keep saving jobs at the current rate we'll all be unemployed. john.crudele@nypost.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment