FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Counting the Unemployed

by STEVE BREYMAN

Recent presidents have played fast and loose with the definition of unemployment. There wasn’t much the rest of us could do about these bipartisan numbers games designed to mask how bad things really were. (Well, actually, the media might’ve chosen not to play along). Defining unemployment is one of the powers of the presidency.

Now that we’re mired in the so-called Great Recession, honesty about the numbers of unemployed really matters. It matters because economists are already suggesting that we’re likely to see yet another jobless recovery as the recession eases. It matters because were the public to know the truth about how many Americans are out of work or can’t find a full-time job, they’d likely demand their elected representatives do something about it.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), an office of the federal Department of Labor, you’re unemployed if you do not have a job of any sort (including those on temporary lay off), have been actively looking for work during the past four weeks, and are “available for work.”

You’re employed if you did any work for pay or profit (regardless of whether its just a few, inadequate hours and you’d work more if you could), made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, are an “unpaid family worker” in a family business, on strike, locked out, on unpaid personal leave, or kept off the job by bad weather.

Then there’s those who are neither employed or unemployed (like househusbands); they’re “not in the labor force.”

And, finally, you are “marginally attached to the work force” if do not have a job, but have wanted and looked for work in the past twelve months (just not the past four weeks). The numbers of these folks has “increased sharply” during the current recession according to the BLS. But again, they do not count as unemployed.

The June 2009 unemployment figure for the United States was 9.5%. When the BLS adds the unemployed to the number of involuntary part time workers (underemployed) to the number of marginally attached workers, the June 2009 figure is 16.5%. It refers to the higher figure as an “alternative measure of labor underutilization.”

There may be good methodological reasons for the current definitions. I suspect some labor statistician could make a compelling case for the status quo. But that’s not what concerns the under-employed and the marginally attached. They need decent full-time jobs, not reassurance that they’re not really unemployed.

One possible solution is for the government to encourage the media to report the higher figure, and for federal officials to use it themselves. Another approach is for the President to change the accounting system by which we define the unemployed. He could issue an Executive Order directing the Department of Labor to use the more comprehensive figure.

The Order might read something like this:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release Date

EXECUTIVE ORDER
REFORM OF THE DEFINITION OF UNEMPLOYMENT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in the interest of an accurate accounting of all Americans looking for work, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Helping create jobs for those who want them is a key goal of my Administration. Our current method for determining the number of unemployed is inadequate and misleading. It undercounts the number of job seekers thus impairing our ability to assist them.

Sec. 2. Action. The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor shall replace its current definition of unemployment by the definition it presently considers an alternative measure of labor underutilization (also known as U-6).

Sec. 3. General Provision. The monthly unemployment figure shall consist of the sum total of those heretofore defined as unemployed, working part-time for economic reasons, and marginally attached to the work force.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Date.

President Obama promised to help create five million new jobs while on the campaign trail. He made this promise when unemployment was considerably lower than it is today. Given that the unemployment rate is likely to climb further before it declines, his economic team will likely not be eager to make the slope of the President’s job creation hill even steeper.

But enacting an Executive Order of this sort (or pushing legislation if that’s what’s required to make the change) would be an important step towards the transparency in government presidential candidate Obama promised us. It would demonstrate perhaps unprecedented presidential solidarity with the under- and unemployed. And it would increase the chances we’ll see the job creation policies emerging from Washington we urgently need.

STEVE BREYMAN teaches at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Reach him at breyms@rpi.edu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Steve Breyman was a William C. Foster Visiting Scholar Fellow in the Clinton State Department, and serves as an advisor to Jill Stein, candidate for the Green Party presidential nomination. Reach him at breyms@rpi.edu

February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Mueller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
Sheldon Richman
‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Taking on the Pentagon
Patrick Cockburn
People Care More About the OXFAM Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
Ted Rall
On Gun Violence and Control, a Political Gordian Knot
Binoy Kampmark
Making Mugs of Voters: Mueller’s Russia Indictments
Dave Lindorff
Mass Killers Abetted by Nutjobs
Myles Hoenig
A Response to David Axelrod
Colin Todhunter
The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector
Cesar Chelala
A Student’s Message to Politicians about the Florida Massacre
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
David Rosen
Donald Trump’s Pathetic Sex Life
Susan Roberts
Are Modern Cities Sustainable?
Joyce Nelson
Canada vs. Venezuela: Have the Koch Brothers Captured Canada’s Left?
Geoff Dutton
America Loves Islamic Terrorists (Abroad): ISIS as Proxy US Mercenaries
Mike Whitney
The Obnoxious Pence Shows Why Korea Must End US Occupation
Joseph Natoli
In the Post-Truth Classroom
John Eskow
One More Slaughter, One More Piece of Evidence: Racism is a Terminal Mental Disease
John W. Whitehead
War Spending Will Bankrupt America
Robert Fantina
Guns, Violence and the United States
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Latest Insulting Proposal: Converting SNAP into a Canned Goods Distribution Program
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Zaps Oxygen
John Laforge
$1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and “Fake” Cleanups
CJ Hopkins
The War on Dissent: the Specter of Divisiveness
Peter A. Coclanis
Chipotle Bell
Anders Sandström – Joona-Hermanni Mäkinen
Ways Forward for the Left
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Winning Hearts and Minds
Tommy Raskin
Syrian Quicksand
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Still Tries to Push Dangerous Drug Class
Jill Richardson
The Attorney General Thinks Aspirin Helps Severe Pain – He’s Wrong
Mike Miller
Herb March: a Legend Deserved
Ann Garrison
If the Democrats Were Decent
Renee Parsons
The Times, They are a-Changing
Howard Gregory
The Democrats Must Campaign to End Trickle-Down Economics
Sean Keller
Agriculture and Autonomy in the Middle East
Ron Jacobs
Re-Visiting Gonzo
Eileen Appelbaum
Rapid Job Growth, More Education Fail to Translate into Higher Wages for Health Care Workers
Ralph Nader
Shernoff, Bidart, and Echeverria—Wide-Ranging Lawyers for the People
Chris Zinda
The Meaning of Virginia Park
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail