The US: “The unemployment rate fell to 7.6%, amid a drop in Labor Force Participation.”
Canada: “Following an increase the previous month, employment declined by 55,000 in March, all in full time. The unemployment rate rose 0.2 percentage points to 7.2%.”
Saskatchewan: “While employment in Saskatchewan was little changed in March, the province experienced the strongest year-over-year growth in the country, at 4.6%. The unemployment rate was 3.9% in March, still the lowest among all provinces.”
Note, CDN numbers are not comparable to US numbers, different means of measurement. As I understand it, if the US followed CDN metrics, the US would be around 13-14% unemployed.
As I understand it, if the US followed CDN metrics, the US would be around 13-14% unemployed.
To even mention such a thing makes you a racist, I’m sure.
Yep, I agree… that’s raaaaaaciist!
No, the US does dramatically understate its unemployment rate. They use the labour participation rate as a way to tune the stat whichever way they want. If job creation is non existant, as it is right now, they simply trim the labour force participation rate. Easy-peasy.
“Mark Bofill says:
April 5, 2013 at 1:18 pm
“Well, it seems like killing the economy went hand in hand with CO2 reductions, imagine that.”
priceless”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/usa-meets-kyoto-protocol-without-ever-embracing-it/#more-83474
Years ago, when I took a number of Economics courses as part of my B.Comm, the rate of full employment was considered to be 4%, on the basis that there were always a number of people moving from one occupation to another. On that basis, Saskatchewan is doing exceedingly well.
And I think the previous commenters are correct. The US unarguably masks its true unemployment rate. A recent report indicates that now the US has 90 million who are no longer participating in looking for work. Meanwhile the number of persons on welfare and “disability” has soared. Must be those free Obamaphones.
It is very sad to see a great nation spiraling into the dumpster, and, and the same time, seems increasingly to be an unreliable ally and friend.
Does anyone know if the U.S. is the sole aberrant in such measurements or do other countries do it too?
Did America ever measure their unemployment figures correctly? If so, when did it change and who was the President when it did?
I shoud clarify the above…the unemployment rate of 4% was considered to be full employment
Well, some very simple reasons….
1. Canada is an exporter of oil. The American states that have recovered since the beginning of the “Great Recession” are also oil states (Texas, etc). Oil prices have remained strong, and in fact, big prices for oil started this entire thing when our gasoline prices doubled circa 2007. It’s far easier to keep government budgets balanced, and people employed, when you’ve got something the rest of the world needs to keep its economy going.
2. Canada, as I understand it, kept sane home mortgage laws, and didn’t experience the massive home real estate bubble burst that we experienced. Here, we’re all atwitter ’cause there are some homes being built in some place, after a 5-year lull.
3. You didn’t elect Barry Obama. I mean, if the liberals in GTA love him so much, they can have him.
Robert, can’t speak to the US, but in Canada the link to StatsCan’s Daily above has the definitions in it as the Note to Readers
Pretty simple:
According to this in the US you are employed/unemployed if:
Define “correctly.”
First, this stat is an educated guess. It’s done via phone survey, and after a few calls they extrapolate.
Second, if you’ve been out of work for more than 2 years, they say that you’re not serious about working. As you can see, the number of people in the work force is dropping, as those long-term unemployed are no longer considered for this number.
Third, if you have a part-time job, or multiple part time jobs, then you are “employed” even if you really want full-time work.
Halfway down this article you’ll see how these numbers are determined:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/apr/05/us-economy-adds-88000-jobs-rate-drops-76-percent/
In the US the unemployment or employment rates are dependant on
what Teleprompter has digested and spit out on any given day.
I wonder if walking to the mail box to get your Food Stamps or
Obozo phone is considered full or part time employment?
the US does dramatically understate its unemployment rate
The more accurate metric will be the U6 unemployment rate. Here’s the definition from the BLS website:
measures of labor underutilization
“U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force”
(the figure for mar ’13 is 13.8%)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
I seem to recall an ex PM who was an admitted and avowed “Keynesian Conservative”, that we should get used to 8% unemployment as being the “centerline” figure for unemployment.
From the mouth of a tax and spend kleptonomic poli.
I’m sure the US rate is much higher if the rows of abandoned businesses lining urban blue state metropolis’ is any indication. Canada is on line for our “Keynesian” central economic plan.
Robert, the U6 unemployment rate is the correct calculation for the US. It is currently at almost 14%.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
The number of people moving onto “diability” after their unemployment runs out is shocking…they will spend the rest of their days letting the Nanny state care for them…
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.ca/2013/03/unwilling-to-work-1-in-4-in-hale-county.html
We are in a lot of trouble. We have mountains of debt and the government shows no interest in limiting spending, regulations, or the perverse incentivization of that debt. When it pops, a non-existant free market will get blamed.
Recovery Summer, Day 1023
Under Trudeau’s Liberals (Socialists). Anyone who was on unemployment insurance or had stopped looking for jobs was not considered unemplyed. As well seasonel workers where not included in Unemployment figures. They all do it. Government has never been about truth, just money or power to force others if possible towards any partys personel Qurks of Ideology. If a lie will do , thats just fine.
Unemployment, disability, discouraged, detached: all synonyms for “not working”. But each to be counted separately and distinctly, so as not to confuse, for example, NY Times reporters.
In other news, the chocolate ration has been increased to 6 grammes!
If you’re truly interested in how “gamed” the US figures are, this may help …
http://www.shadowstats.com/
From the home page:
Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP and employment numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences? The problem lies in biased and often-manipulated government reporting.
Primers on Government Economic Reports:
What you’ve suspected but were afraid to ask. The story behind unemployment, the Federal Deficit, CPI, GDP.
Robert, there is nothing inherently wrong with how the US calculates unemployment, it’s just different than how we do it.
The biggest difference is in the US, to be considered unemployed, you have to “actively” be looking for a job. This includes, applying for a job, visiting a job fair, etc. If you are passively looking for a job, eg, searching through the classifieds but not applying to anything, you aren’t considered unemployed. In Canada, in both circumstances, you are counted as part of the UE rate.
This isn’t an attempt by the BLS in the US (which, IMO, does a vastly superior job to Statistics Canada, by the way) to hide the “real” number. It’s just a difference in methodology on ONE particular metric, that every layman likes to point to and look at. If one is able to read the entire report and look at the dozen other metrics, one can get a very good sense of what the labour market is like.
My point is there are no shadyness going on here, there is no political manipulation, there is no goosing the numbers to make them seem not as bad. It’s just different methodologies to calculate things. Yes, if we converted the US numbers to Canadian methodology, it would look far worse. But this is almost self evident when we look at the EMPLOYMENT rate, with the US levels being about 5% below Canada’s. This is pretty remarkable because generally the US rate has always been higher. So nothing is really hidden here.