Irvine Unemployment Rate is 3.9%, while the rest of the country has a 10.3% unemployment rate? Is this information correct? Graphix anyone?
- Thread starter PANDA_IHB
- Start date
OC_Golfer_IHB
New member
Panda,
The site that is the source data for your post is this;
http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Irvine-California.aspx
The key sentence in the site when talking about those stats is this;
"The unemployment rate in Irvine is 5.90 percent(U.S. avg. is 8.50%). Recent job growth is Negative. Irvine jobs have Decreased by 2.90 percent."
If you go to the bls.gov site you will see that the US population was at 8.5% unpemployment in March 09 - so the data is dated (not terribly dated, but given current environment 7 months is a VERY long time if you are going to be using economic stats)
hope this helps
The site that is the source data for your post is this;
http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Irvine-California.aspx
The key sentence in the site when talking about those stats is this;
"The unemployment rate in Irvine is 5.90 percent(U.S. avg. is 8.50%). Recent job growth is Negative. Irvine jobs have Decreased by 2.90 percent."
If you go to the bls.gov site you will see that the US population was at 8.5% unpemployment in March 09 - so the data is dated (not terribly dated, but given current environment 7 months is a VERY long time if you are going to be using economic stats)
hope this helps
frank69m_IHB
New member
Hey panda, is that a pic of you and your girlfriend?
<img src="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/images/avatars/uploads/avatar_994.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/images/avatars/uploads/avatar_994.jpg" alt="" />
PANDA_IHB
New member
Interesting. Currently the unemployment in Irvine is only 7.4% compared to the rest of Orange County hovering around 10%. In July 1993, Irvine's unemployment peaked to about 5.3%, two years before Irvine hit bottom.
It appears that Irvine is going to be one of last cities in OC to go down and I am so glad I am not buying into this "desperate buying frenzy" in Irvine right now.
Honestly, 7.4% unemployment rate in Irvine is lower than i thought and this number will need to double before we see inventory levels at 1500+.
Is it normal for housing to bottom two years after the unemployment peak?
Unemployment rates as of October 2009:
California - 12.3%
Los Angeles - 12.6%
Orange County - 9.6%
Irvine - 7.4% - not bad at all compared to Orange County and rest of California
It appears that Irvine is going to be one of last cities in OC to go down and I am so glad I am not buying into this "desperate buying frenzy" in Irvine right now.
Honestly, 7.4% unemployment rate in Irvine is lower than i thought and this number will need to double before we see inventory levels at 1500+.
Is it normal for housing to bottom two years after the unemployment peak?
Unemployment rates as of October 2009:
California - 12.3%
Los Angeles - 12.6%
Orange County - 9.6%
Irvine - 7.4% - not bad at all compared to Orange County and rest of California
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="PANDA" date=1258974446]Interesting. Currently the unemployment in Irvine is only 7.4% compared to the rest of Orange County hovering around 10%. In July 1993, Irvine's unemployment peaked to about 5.3%, two years before Irvine hit bottom.
It appears that Irvine is going to be one of last cities in OC to go down and I am so glad I am not buying into this "desperate buying frenzy" in Irvine right now.
Honestly, 7.4% unemployment rate in Irvine is lower than i thought and this number will need to double before we see inventory levels at 1500+.
Is it normal for housing to bottom two years after the unemployment peak?
Unemployment rates as of October 2009:
California - 12.3%
Los Angeles - 12.6%
Orange County - 9.6%
Irvine - 7.4% - not bad at all compared to Orange County and rest of California</blockquote>
Panda,
It is much more complicated than just looking at the peak unemployment rate. Historically, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator of the housing market on a macro/national level. Whereas on on micro/OC level the bottom of housing is a lagging indicator to an employment recovery. Plus, when you look at an uber micro level of Irvine you have to ask: What is the total U-6 unemployment level, and is that unemployment rate for those that live in Irvine or just work in Irvine?
If I were you, I wouldn't narrow your focus down on Irvine. Why? Because there are people who live in Irvine but don't work there, and there are people who work in Irvine but don't live there. Tracking that kind of micro data will be so hard because it is so random in how it is affected and how much of a lag there is in it getting to you. If you look at just Irvine you will miss a recovery because the data is so behind.
So... what you should do, and what I am going to be looking more into is the civilian labor force in OC and when it recovers. Once it does, adjusted for organic growth, it should signal a bottom. Or, at the very least once you should see the labor force recovering to peak 2006 levels then the recovery could be on its way. So now I have a question for you... what level is the labor force at, and what would it need to recover to to return to peak levels, and at what % rate would it need to increase on a annual basis to get there in the next three years? I dunno the answer, <a href="http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/county/orange.htm">but here is where to get the info</a>. I will look into it this week, and run some numbers. I can tell you off the top of my head, it ain't pretty.
It appears that Irvine is going to be one of last cities in OC to go down and I am so glad I am not buying into this "desperate buying frenzy" in Irvine right now.
Honestly, 7.4% unemployment rate in Irvine is lower than i thought and this number will need to double before we see inventory levels at 1500+.
Is it normal for housing to bottom two years after the unemployment peak?
Unemployment rates as of October 2009:
California - 12.3%
Los Angeles - 12.6%
Orange County - 9.6%
Irvine - 7.4% - not bad at all compared to Orange County and rest of California</blockquote>
Panda,
It is much more complicated than just looking at the peak unemployment rate. Historically, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator of the housing market on a macro/national level. Whereas on on micro/OC level the bottom of housing is a lagging indicator to an employment recovery. Plus, when you look at an uber micro level of Irvine you have to ask: What is the total U-6 unemployment level, and is that unemployment rate for those that live in Irvine or just work in Irvine?
If I were you, I wouldn't narrow your focus down on Irvine. Why? Because there are people who live in Irvine but don't work there, and there are people who work in Irvine but don't live there. Tracking that kind of micro data will be so hard because it is so random in how it is affected and how much of a lag there is in it getting to you. If you look at just Irvine you will miss a recovery because the data is so behind.
So... what you should do, and what I am going to be looking more into is the civilian labor force in OC and when it recovers. Once it does, adjusted for organic growth, it should signal a bottom. Or, at the very least once you should see the labor force recovering to peak 2006 levels then the recovery could be on its way. So now I have a question for you... what level is the labor force at, and what would it need to recover to to return to peak levels, and at what % rate would it need to increase on a annual basis to get there in the next three years? I dunno the answer, <a href="http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/county/orange.htm">but here is where to get the info</a>. I will look into it this week, and run some numbers. I can tell you off the top of my head, it ain't pretty.
[quote author="PANDA" date=1258974446]Interesting. Currently the unemployment in Irvine is only 7.4% compared to the rest of Orange County hovering around 10%. In July 1993, Irvine's unemployment peaked to about 5.3%, two years before Irvine hit bottom.
It appears that Irvine is going to be one of last cities in OC to go down and I am so glad I am not buying into this "desperate buying frenzy" in Irvine right now.
Honestly, 7.4% unemployment rate in Irvine is lower than i thought and this number will need to double before we see inventory levels at 1500+.
Is it normal for housing to bottom two years after the unemployment peak?
Unemployment rates as of October 2009:
California - 12.3%
Los Angeles - 12.6%
Orange County - 9.6%
Irvine - 7.4% - not bad at all compared to Orange County and rest of California</blockquote>
One thing to keep in mind is that the unemployment rate of those with college degrees is much lower than the unemployment rate of those without:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/06/unemployment-rate-and-level-of.html
It appears that Irvine is going to be one of last cities in OC to go down and I am so glad I am not buying into this "desperate buying frenzy" in Irvine right now.
Honestly, 7.4% unemployment rate in Irvine is lower than i thought and this number will need to double before we see inventory levels at 1500+.
Is it normal for housing to bottom two years after the unemployment peak?
Unemployment rates as of October 2009:
California - 12.3%
Los Angeles - 12.6%
Orange County - 9.6%
Irvine - 7.4% - not bad at all compared to Orange County and rest of California</blockquote>
One thing to keep in mind is that the unemployment rate of those with college degrees is much lower than the unemployment rate of those without:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/06/unemployment-rate-and-level-of.html
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="JCie" date=1258990504][quote author="PANDA" date=1258974446]Interesting. Currently the unemployment in Irvine is only 7.4% compared to the rest of Orange County hovering around 10%. In July 1993, Irvine's unemployment peaked to about 5.3%, two years before Irvine hit bottom.
It appears that Irvine is going to be one of last cities in OC to go down and I am so glad I am not buying into this "desperate buying frenzy" in Irvine right now.
Honestly, 7.4% unemployment rate in Irvine is lower than i thought and this number will need to double before we see inventory levels at 1500+.
Is it normal for housing to bottom two years after the unemployment peak?
Unemployment rates as of October 2009:
California - 12.3%
Los Angeles - 12.6%
Orange County - 9.6%
Irvine - 7.4% - not bad at all compared to Orange County and rest of California</blockquote>
One thing to keep in mind is that the unemployment rate of those with college degrees is much lower than the unemployment rate of those without:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/06/unemployment-rate-and-level-of.html</blockquote>
But then if Irvine has a higher rate of people with college degrees than the rest of OC (which has less people with college degrees), then that isn't necessarily a positive stat for Irvine or those with college degrees. Just sayin...
It appears that Irvine is going to be one of last cities in OC to go down and I am so glad I am not buying into this "desperate buying frenzy" in Irvine right now.
Honestly, 7.4% unemployment rate in Irvine is lower than i thought and this number will need to double before we see inventory levels at 1500+.
Is it normal for housing to bottom two years after the unemployment peak?
Unemployment rates as of October 2009:
California - 12.3%
Los Angeles - 12.6%
Orange County - 9.6%
Irvine - 7.4% - not bad at all compared to Orange County and rest of California</blockquote>
One thing to keep in mind is that the unemployment rate of those with college degrees is much lower than the unemployment rate of those without:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/06/unemployment-rate-and-level-of.html</blockquote>
But then if Irvine has a higher rate of people with college degrees than the rest of OC (which has less people with college degrees), then that isn't necessarily a positive stat for Irvine or those with college degrees. Just sayin...
freedomCM_IHB
New member
The one big thing about the U3 rate is that it does not include all the people who are (were formally) paid on 1099s. All those mortgage brokers, computer system/software salespeople, mercedes salesmen, etc. It seems to me that 15% or so of people I know in Irvine were 1099s, and many of them are either looking for work, or making significantly less than a few years ago.
bkshopr_IHB
New member
Irvine's Chinese population could be a factor. Ever since Chinese first landed in America in the 1840's the goal has been working hard and longer hours for less money to make their co-workers look bad.
Many employers like the exploit the Chinese work ethic. The Caucasians resented that during the late 1800's and the first half of the 20th century. Laws were passed to forbid Chinese to live and own properties in many communities. Chinese were not allow to compete in jobs with Caucasians.
Chinese could only work in jobs the Caucasians were not interested in. They were Chinese restaurants, laundry, farming and railroad construction.
When a company decides to cut staff Chinese is seldom in the earlier rounds of layoffs.
Many employers like the exploit the Chinese work ethic. The Caucasians resented that during the late 1800's and the first half of the 20th century. Laws were passed to forbid Chinese to live and own properties in many communities. Chinese were not allow to compete in jobs with Caucasians.
Chinese could only work in jobs the Caucasians were not interested in. They were Chinese restaurants, laundry, farming and railroad construction.
When a company decides to cut staff Chinese is seldom in the earlier rounds of layoffs.
belowavgasian_IHB
New member
bkshoppr,
I assume you are posting in a tongue-in-cheek satirical tone. Because to suggest that the primary motivation is to draw negative attention to others, rather than to simply avoid negative attention upon themselves, is sheer ludicrousness. Of course, the major reason is that BelowAverageAsiansdo simply do not exist. By virtue of being a model minority, all Asians are at minimum, average, and mostly above average. Given this fact, it is much easier to explain the lower unemployment rate for Asians, higher rate of white-collar employment (versus other US immigrant minorities), and the absurdly overachieving academic performances turned out by Asian students not just in Irvine Unified, but in school districts nationwide.
Seriously, I know quite a few Asian engineers who were laid off within the past year. Being Asian may confer a degree of recession-resistance, but does not make one recession-proof.
I assume you are posting in a tongue-in-cheek satirical tone. Because to suggest that the primary motivation is to draw negative attention to others, rather than to simply avoid negative attention upon themselves, is sheer ludicrousness. Of course, the major reason is that BelowAverageAsiansdo simply do not exist. By virtue of being a model minority, all Asians are at minimum, average, and mostly above average. Given this fact, it is much easier to explain the lower unemployment rate for Asians, higher rate of white-collar employment (versus other US immigrant minorities), and the absurdly overachieving academic performances turned out by Asian students not just in Irvine Unified, but in school districts nationwide.
Seriously, I know quite a few Asian engineers who were laid off within the past year. Being Asian may confer a degree of recession-resistance, but does not make one recession-proof.
Geotpf_IHB
New member
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1259027207]The one big thing about the U3 rate is that it does not include all the people who are (were formally) paid on 1099s. All those mortgage brokers, computer system/software salespeople, mercedes salesmen, etc. It seems to me that 15% or so of people I know in Irvine were 1099s, and many of them are either looking for work, or making significantly less than a few years ago.</blockquote>
That's absolutely not true. It's based on a survey; kind of like a political poll. They randomly call people and ask if they are employed or not, and if not, if they are looking for work. If you are not looking for work you don't count as unemployed-for example, a housewife is not unemployed, nor is a full time college student, nor a retiree, nor somebody in jail, nor somebody who is disabled. They take the number of people employed, and divde that by the number of people employed plus the number of people looking for work, and subtract that number from one. So, if you have 950 people with jobs, 200 people not looking for work, and 50 people looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 5% (1-(950/(950+50)) is .05; throw the 200 out). The tax status of those employed or unemployed is not a factor. Whether or not you are currently collecting unemployment benefits is not a factor.
That's absolutely not true. It's based on a survey; kind of like a political poll. They randomly call people and ask if they are employed or not, and if not, if they are looking for work. If you are not looking for work you don't count as unemployed-for example, a housewife is not unemployed, nor is a full time college student, nor a retiree, nor somebody in jail, nor somebody who is disabled. They take the number of people employed, and divde that by the number of people employed plus the number of people looking for work, and subtract that number from one. So, if you have 950 people with jobs, 200 people not looking for work, and 50 people looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 5% (1-(950/(950+50)) is .05; throw the 200 out). The tax status of those employed or unemployed is not a factor. Whether or not you are currently collecting unemployment benefits is not a factor.
freedomCM_IHB
New member
you are right, u3 is survey based, my bad. it is the weekly claims data that in UE eligibility-based.
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="Geotpf" date=1259422389][quote author="freedomCM" date=1259027207]The one big thing about the U3 rate is that it does not include all the people who are (were formally) paid on 1099s. All those mortgage brokers, computer system/software salespeople, mercedes salesmen, etc. It seems to me that 15% or so of people I know in Irvine were 1099s, and many of them are either looking for work, or making significantly less than a few years ago.</blockquote>
That's absolutely not true. It's based on a survey; kind of like a political poll. They randomly call people and ask if they are employed or not, and if not, if they are looking for work. If you are not looking for work you don't count as unemployed-for example, a housewife is not unemployed, nor is a full time college student, nor a retiree, nor somebody in jail, nor somebody who is disabled. They take the number of people employed, and divde that by the number of people employed plus the number of people looking for work, and subtract that number from one. So, if you have 950 people with jobs, 200 people not looking for work, and 50 people looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 5% (1-(950/(950+50)) is .05; throw the 200 out). The tax status of those employed or unemployed is not a factor. Whether or not you are currently collecting unemployment benefits is not a factor.</blockquote>
Sorry, but you are not totally correct. It is survey based, but it is not sent to individuals, it is sent to employers.
<em>"The employment by industry method is a nationally recognized system of reporting monthly employment. Employment by industry data reflect jobs by "place of work". That is, jobs located in the county or the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that pay wages and salaries are counted although workers may live outside the area. Jobs are counted regardless of the number of hours worked. Multiple jobholders (i.e., individuals who hold more than one job) may be counted more than once. <strong>Self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household employees are not included.</strong>"</em>
Also, your definition of the "labor force" is not exactly correct either.
<em>"Civilian labor force data are by place of residence; include self-employed individuals, unpaid family workers, household domestic workers, & workers on strike."</em>
Therefore you would not just throw out 200k people from the labor force as you say. What Freedom's point was that the labor force has shrank, but they are not included in the UE numbers, and since population grows so does the labor force... Meaning that the U-6 or total UE rate is much higher than what is actually being published on a micro/local level.
That's absolutely not true. It's based on a survey; kind of like a political poll. They randomly call people and ask if they are employed or not, and if not, if they are looking for work. If you are not looking for work you don't count as unemployed-for example, a housewife is not unemployed, nor is a full time college student, nor a retiree, nor somebody in jail, nor somebody who is disabled. They take the number of people employed, and divde that by the number of people employed plus the number of people looking for work, and subtract that number from one. So, if you have 950 people with jobs, 200 people not looking for work, and 50 people looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 5% (1-(950/(950+50)) is .05; throw the 200 out). The tax status of those employed or unemployed is not a factor. Whether or not you are currently collecting unemployment benefits is not a factor.</blockquote>
Sorry, but you are not totally correct. It is survey based, but it is not sent to individuals, it is sent to employers.
<em>"The employment by industry method is a nationally recognized system of reporting monthly employment. Employment by industry data reflect jobs by "place of work". That is, jobs located in the county or the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that pay wages and salaries are counted although workers may live outside the area. Jobs are counted regardless of the number of hours worked. Multiple jobholders (i.e., individuals who hold more than one job) may be counted more than once. <strong>Self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household employees are not included.</strong>"</em>
Also, your definition of the "labor force" is not exactly correct either.
<em>"Civilian labor force data are by place of residence; include self-employed individuals, unpaid family workers, household domestic workers, & workers on strike."</em>
Therefore you would not just throw out 200k people from the labor force as you say. What Freedom's point was that the labor force has shrank, but they are not included in the UE numbers, and since population grows so does the labor force... Meaning that the U-6 or total UE rate is much higher than what is actually being published on a micro/local level.
Geotpf_IHB
New member
[quote author="graphrix" date=1259469411][quote author="Geotpf" date=1259422389][quote author="freedomCM" date=1259027207]The one big thing about the U3 rate is that it does not include all the people who are (were formally) paid on 1099s. All those mortgage brokers, computer system/software salespeople, mercedes salesmen, etc. It seems to me that 15% or so of people I know in Irvine were 1099s, and many of them are either looking for work, or making significantly less than a few years ago.</blockquote>
That's absolutely not true. It's based on a survey; kind of like a political poll. They randomly call people and ask if they are employed or not, and if not, if they are looking for work. If you are not looking for work you don't count as unemployed-for example, a housewife is not unemployed, nor is a full time college student, nor a retiree, nor somebody in jail, nor somebody who is disabled. They take the number of people employed, and divde that by the number of people employed plus the number of people looking for work, and subtract that number from one. So, if you have 950 people with jobs, 200 people not looking for work, and 50 people looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 5% (1-(950/(950+50)) is .05; throw the 200 out). The tax status of those employed or unemployed is not a factor. Whether or not you are currently collecting unemployment benefits is not a factor.</blockquote>
Sorry, but you are not totally correct. It is survey based, but it is not sent to individuals, it is sent to employers.
<em>"The employment by industry method is a nationally recognized system of reporting monthly employment. Employment by industry data reflect jobs by "place of work". That is, jobs located in the county or the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that pay wages and salaries are counted although workers may live outside the area. Jobs are counted regardless of the number of hours worked. Multiple jobholders (i.e., individuals who hold more than one job) may be counted more than once. <strong>Self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household employees are not included.</strong>"</em>
Also, your definition of the "labor force" is not exactly correct either.
<em>"Civilian labor force data are by place of residence; include self-employed individuals, unpaid family workers, household domestic workers, & workers on strike."</em>
Therefore you would not just throw out 200k people from the labor force as you say. What Freedom's point was that the labor force has shrank, but they are not included in the UE numbers, and since population grows so does the labor force... Meaning that the U-6 or total UE rate is much higher than what is actually being published on a micro/local level.</blockquote>
You are confusing the CES with the CPS. The U3 is created from the CPS.
From Wikipedia...
<em>The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labor force surveys[30] conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition.[31] The data are also used to calculate 5 alternate measures of unemployment as a percentage of the labor force based on different definitions noted as U1 through U6:[32]
U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.
Note: "Marginally attached workers" are added to the total labor force for unemployment rate calculation for U4, U5, and U6. The BLS revised the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.[33]
The Current Employment Statistics survey (CES), or "Payroll Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 160,000 businesses and government agencies that represent 400,000 individual employers.[34] This survey measures only nonagricultural, nonsupervisory employment; thus, it does not calculate an unemployment rate, and it differs from the ILO unemployment rate definition. These two sources have different classification criteria, and usually produce differing results. Additional data are also available from the government, such as the unemployment insurance weekly claims report available from the Office of Workforce Security, within the U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration.[35]</em>
Within the CPS, the following definitons apply:
<em>People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees during the reference week;<strong> worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm</strong>; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
They were not employed during the reference week
They were available for work at that time
They made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. (The exception to this category covers persons laid off from a job and expecting recall)
The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
Those who are not classified as employed or unemployed are not counted as part of the labor force. They are tracked as ?discouraged workers.?</em>
That's absolutely not true. It's based on a survey; kind of like a political poll. They randomly call people and ask if they are employed or not, and if not, if they are looking for work. If you are not looking for work you don't count as unemployed-for example, a housewife is not unemployed, nor is a full time college student, nor a retiree, nor somebody in jail, nor somebody who is disabled. They take the number of people employed, and divde that by the number of people employed plus the number of people looking for work, and subtract that number from one. So, if you have 950 people with jobs, 200 people not looking for work, and 50 people looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 5% (1-(950/(950+50)) is .05; throw the 200 out). The tax status of those employed or unemployed is not a factor. Whether or not you are currently collecting unemployment benefits is not a factor.</blockquote>
Sorry, but you are not totally correct. It is survey based, but it is not sent to individuals, it is sent to employers.
<em>"The employment by industry method is a nationally recognized system of reporting monthly employment. Employment by industry data reflect jobs by "place of work". That is, jobs located in the county or the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that pay wages and salaries are counted although workers may live outside the area. Jobs are counted regardless of the number of hours worked. Multiple jobholders (i.e., individuals who hold more than one job) may be counted more than once. <strong>Self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household employees are not included.</strong>"</em>
Also, your definition of the "labor force" is not exactly correct either.
<em>"Civilian labor force data are by place of residence; include self-employed individuals, unpaid family workers, household domestic workers, & workers on strike."</em>
Therefore you would not just throw out 200k people from the labor force as you say. What Freedom's point was that the labor force has shrank, but they are not included in the UE numbers, and since population grows so does the labor force... Meaning that the U-6 or total UE rate is much higher than what is actually being published on a micro/local level.</blockquote>
You are confusing the CES with the CPS. The U3 is created from the CPS.
From Wikipedia...
<em>The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labor force surveys[30] conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition.[31] The data are also used to calculate 5 alternate measures of unemployment as a percentage of the labor force based on different definitions noted as U1 through U6:[32]
U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.
Note: "Marginally attached workers" are added to the total labor force for unemployment rate calculation for U4, U5, and U6. The BLS revised the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.[33]
The Current Employment Statistics survey (CES), or "Payroll Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 160,000 businesses and government agencies that represent 400,000 individual employers.[34] This survey measures only nonagricultural, nonsupervisory employment; thus, it does not calculate an unemployment rate, and it differs from the ILO unemployment rate definition. These two sources have different classification criteria, and usually produce differing results. Additional data are also available from the government, such as the unemployment insurance weekly claims report available from the Office of Workforce Security, within the U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration.[35]</em>
Within the CPS, the following definitons apply:
<em>People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees during the reference week;<strong> worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm</strong>; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
They were not employed during the reference week
They were available for work at that time
They made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. (The exception to this category covers persons laid off from a job and expecting recall)
The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
Those who are not classified as employed or unemployed are not counted as part of the labor force. They are tracked as ?discouraged workers.?</em>
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="Geotpf" date=1259501752][quote author="graphrix" date=1259469411][quote author="Geotpf" date=1259422389][quote author="freedomCM" date=1259027207]The one big thing about the U3 rate is that it does not include all the people who are (were formally) paid on 1099s. All those mortgage brokers, computer system/software salespeople, mercedes salesmen, etc. It seems to me that 15% or so of people I know in Irvine were 1099s, and many of them are either looking for work, or making significantly less than a few years ago.</blockquote>
That's absolutely not true. It's based on a survey; kind of like a political poll. They randomly call people and ask if they are employed or not, and if not, if they are looking for work. If you are not looking for work you don't count as unemployed-for example, a housewife is not unemployed, nor is a full time college student, nor a retiree, nor somebody in jail, nor somebody who is disabled. They take the number of people employed, and divde that by the number of people employed plus the number of people looking for work, and subtract that number from one. So, if you have 950 people with jobs, 200 people not looking for work, and 50 people looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 5% (1-(950/(950+50)) is .05; throw the 200 out). The tax status of those employed or unemployed is not a factor. Whether or not you are currently collecting unemployment benefits is not a factor.</blockquote>
Sorry, but you are not totally correct. It is survey based, but it is not sent to individuals, it is sent to employers.
<em>"The employment by industry method is a nationally recognized system of reporting monthly employment. Employment by industry data reflect jobs by "place of work". That is, jobs located in the county or the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that pay wages and salaries are counted although workers may live outside the area. Jobs are counted regardless of the number of hours worked. Multiple jobholders (i.e., individuals who hold more than one job) may be counted more than once. <strong>Self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household employees are not included.</strong>"</em>
Also, your definition of the "labor force" is not exactly correct either.
<em>"Civilian labor force data are by place of residence; include self-employed individuals, unpaid family workers, household domestic workers, & workers on strike."</em>
Therefore you would not just throw out 200k people from the labor force as you say. What Freedom's point was that the labor force has shrank, but they are not included in the UE numbers, and since population grows so does the labor force... Meaning that the U-6 or total UE rate is much higher than what is actually being published on a micro/local level.</blockquote>
You are confusing the CES with the CPS. The U3 is created from the CPS.
From Wikipedia...
<em>The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labor force surveys[30] conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition.[31] The data are also used to calculate 5 alternate measures of unemployment as a percentage of the labor force based on different definitions noted as U1 through U6:[32]
U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.
Note: "Marginally attached workers" are added to the total labor force for unemployment rate calculation for U4, U5, and U6. The BLS revised the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.[33]
The Current Employment Statistics survey (CES), or "Payroll Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 160,000 businesses and government agencies that represent 400,000 individual employers.[34] This survey measures only nonagricultural, nonsupervisory employment; thus, it does not calculate an unemployment rate, and it differs from the ILO unemployment rate definition. These two sources have different classification criteria, and usually produce differing results. Additional data are also available from the government, such as the unemployment insurance weekly claims report available from the Office of Workforce Security, within the U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration.[35]</em>
Within the CPS, the following definitons apply:
<em>People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees during the reference week;<strong> worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm</strong>; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
They were not employed during the reference week
They were available for work at that time
They made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. (The exception to this category covers persons laid off from a job and expecting recall)
The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
Those who are not classified as employed or unemployed are not counted as part of the labor force. They are tracked as ?discouraged workers.?</em></blockquote>
Dude, nevermind. You obviously didn't read that I pointed out that this is micro level data, i.e. OC, not macro level data, i.e. national BLS numbers.
Point being, if you are going to be discussing micro level data, you have to use what they use as sources. BTW, have you looked at the labor force level? Has it gone down or up? Oh... and anyone who has to cite Wiki as their source for labor data is the least credible person when my data points were directly from the EDD.
That's absolutely not true. It's based on a survey; kind of like a political poll. They randomly call people and ask if they are employed or not, and if not, if they are looking for work. If you are not looking for work you don't count as unemployed-for example, a housewife is not unemployed, nor is a full time college student, nor a retiree, nor somebody in jail, nor somebody who is disabled. They take the number of people employed, and divde that by the number of people employed plus the number of people looking for work, and subtract that number from one. So, if you have 950 people with jobs, 200 people not looking for work, and 50 people looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 5% (1-(950/(950+50)) is .05; throw the 200 out). The tax status of those employed or unemployed is not a factor. Whether or not you are currently collecting unemployment benefits is not a factor.</blockquote>
Sorry, but you are not totally correct. It is survey based, but it is not sent to individuals, it is sent to employers.
<em>"The employment by industry method is a nationally recognized system of reporting monthly employment. Employment by industry data reflect jobs by "place of work". That is, jobs located in the county or the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that pay wages and salaries are counted although workers may live outside the area. Jobs are counted regardless of the number of hours worked. Multiple jobholders (i.e., individuals who hold more than one job) may be counted more than once. <strong>Self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household employees are not included.</strong>"</em>
Also, your definition of the "labor force" is not exactly correct either.
<em>"Civilian labor force data are by place of residence; include self-employed individuals, unpaid family workers, household domestic workers, & workers on strike."</em>
Therefore you would not just throw out 200k people from the labor force as you say. What Freedom's point was that the labor force has shrank, but they are not included in the UE numbers, and since population grows so does the labor force... Meaning that the U-6 or total UE rate is much higher than what is actually being published on a micro/local level.</blockquote>
You are confusing the CES with the CPS. The U3 is created from the CPS.
From Wikipedia...
<em>The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labor force surveys[30] conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition.[31] The data are also used to calculate 5 alternate measures of unemployment as a percentage of the labor force based on different definitions noted as U1 through U6:[32]
U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.
Note: "Marginally attached workers" are added to the total labor force for unemployment rate calculation for U4, U5, and U6. The BLS revised the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.[33]
The Current Employment Statistics survey (CES), or "Payroll Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 160,000 businesses and government agencies that represent 400,000 individual employers.[34] This survey measures only nonagricultural, nonsupervisory employment; thus, it does not calculate an unemployment rate, and it differs from the ILO unemployment rate definition. These two sources have different classification criteria, and usually produce differing results. Additional data are also available from the government, such as the unemployment insurance weekly claims report available from the Office of Workforce Security, within the U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration.[35]</em>
Within the CPS, the following definitons apply:
<em>People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees during the reference week;<strong> worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm</strong>; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
They were not employed during the reference week
They were available for work at that time
They made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. (The exception to this category covers persons laid off from a job and expecting recall)
The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
Those who are not classified as employed or unemployed are not counted as part of the labor force. They are tracked as ?discouraged workers.?</em></blockquote>
Dude, nevermind. You obviously didn't read that I pointed out that this is micro level data, i.e. OC, not macro level data, i.e. national BLS numbers.
Point being, if you are going to be discussing micro level data, you have to use what they use as sources. BTW, have you looked at the labor force level? Has it gone down or up? Oh... and anyone who has to cite Wiki as their source for labor data is the least credible person when my data points were directly from the EDD.
OC_Boston_Bay_IHB
New member
[quote author="belowavgasian" date=1259068291]bkshoppr,
I assume you are posting in a tongue-in-cheek satirical tone. Because to suggest that the primary motivation is to draw negative attention to others, rather than to simply avoid negative attention upon themselves, is sheer ludicrousness. Of course, the major reason is that BelowAverageAsiansdo simply do not exist. By virtue of being a model minority, all Asians are at minimum, average, and mostly above average. Given this fact, it is much easier to explain the lower unemployment rate for Asians, higher rate of white-collar employment (versus other US immigrant minorities), and the absurdly overachieving academic performances turned out by Asian students not just in Irvine Unified, but in school districts nationwide.
Seriously, I know quite a few Asian engineers who were laid off within the past year. Being Asian may confer a degree of recession-resistance, but does not make one recession-proof.</blockquote>
You said "Asian". Where they Chinese?
I assume you are posting in a tongue-in-cheek satirical tone. Because to suggest that the primary motivation is to draw negative attention to others, rather than to simply avoid negative attention upon themselves, is sheer ludicrousness. Of course, the major reason is that BelowAverageAsiansdo simply do not exist. By virtue of being a model minority, all Asians are at minimum, average, and mostly above average. Given this fact, it is much easier to explain the lower unemployment rate for Asians, higher rate of white-collar employment (versus other US immigrant minorities), and the absurdly overachieving academic performances turned out by Asian students not just in Irvine Unified, but in school districts nationwide.
Seriously, I know quite a few Asian engineers who were laid off within the past year. Being Asian may confer a degree of recession-resistance, but does not make one recession-proof.</blockquote>
You said "Asian". Where they Chinese?
Anonymous_IHB
New member
As US rate up from 8.5%, make a guess.
<A href="http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Irvine-California.aspx">http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Irvine-California.aspx</A>
City Overview
As of 2009, Irvine's population is 201,160 people. Since 2000, it has had a population growth of 35.57 percent.
The median home cost in Irvine is $643,830. Home appreciation the last year has been -21.10 percent.
Compared to the rest of the country, Irvine's cost of living is 69.36% Higher than the U.S. average.
Irvine public schools spend $5,018 per student. The average school expenditure in the U.S. is $6,058. There are about 22 students per teacher in Irvine.
The unemployment rate in Irvine is 5.90 percent(U.S. avg. is 8.50%). Recent job growth is Negative. Irvine jobs have Decreased by 2.90 percent.
<A href="http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Irvine-California.aspx">http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Irvine-California.aspx</A>
City Overview
As of 2009, Irvine's population is 201,160 people. Since 2000, it has had a population growth of 35.57 percent.
The median home cost in Irvine is $643,830. Home appreciation the last year has been -21.10 percent.
Compared to the rest of the country, Irvine's cost of living is 69.36% Higher than the U.S. average.
Irvine public schools spend $5,018 per student. The average school expenditure in the U.S. is $6,058. There are about 22 students per teacher in Irvine.
The unemployment rate in Irvine is 5.90 percent(U.S. avg. is 8.50%). Recent job growth is Negative. Irvine jobs have Decreased by 2.90 percent.
sad.machine_IHB
New member
[quote author="belowavgasian" date=1259068291]bkshoppr,
I assume you are posting in a tongue-in-cheek satirical tone. Because to suggest that the primary motivation is to draw negative attention to others, rather than to simply avoid negative attention upon themselves, is sheer ludicrousness. Of course, the major reason is that BelowAverageAsiansdo simply do not exist. By virtue of being a model minority, all Asians are at minimum, average, and mostly above average. Given this fact, it is much easier to explain the lower unemployment rate for Asians, higher rate of white-collar employment (versus other US immigrant minorities), and the absurdly overachieving academic performances turned out by Asian students not just in Irvine Unified, but in school districts nationwide.
Seriously, I know quite a few Asian engineers who were laid off within the past year. Being Asian may confer a degree of recession-resistance, but does not make one recession-proof.</blockquote>
someone took asian american studies in college!
I assume you are posting in a tongue-in-cheek satirical tone. Because to suggest that the primary motivation is to draw negative attention to others, rather than to simply avoid negative attention upon themselves, is sheer ludicrousness. Of course, the major reason is that BelowAverageAsiansdo simply do not exist. By virtue of being a model minority, all Asians are at minimum, average, and mostly above average. Given this fact, it is much easier to explain the lower unemployment rate for Asians, higher rate of white-collar employment (versus other US immigrant minorities), and the absurdly overachieving academic performances turned out by Asian students not just in Irvine Unified, but in school districts nationwide.
Seriously, I know quite a few Asian engineers who were laid off within the past year. Being Asian may confer a degree of recession-resistance, but does not make one recession-proof.</blockquote>
someone took asian american studies in college!