4 ms·

Is this because more people are returning to work or are they no longer counted as unemployed by the metric that is being used?

mc32 5y ago
It appears to be the former: "The number of individuals who received unemployment benefits decline[d] by 13.8% by the week ending June 12, compared to mid-May, in states where governors explicitly said that enhanced benefits would end in June, based on an analysis by Jefferies LLC economists." and: "In May, the Missouri's unemployment rate was 4.2%, below the national average of 5.8%, according to data from the Department of Labor. Missouri ended enhanced federal benefits for unemployed state residents as of June 12, making it one of the first states to take the action."
- celticninja 5y ago
  That seems to be the latter not the former.
- kadoban 5y ago
  Is a decline in the number of people who are receiveing unemployment benefits the same thing as an increase in the number returning to work? I don't actually think it is without more data to rule out other cases.
  - riffraff 5y ago
    Employment rate is not "1-unemployment", there is a third component ("inactive" or something like that) so generally they're correlated but do not coincide. I do not know the exact numbers for this.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Right, that's my understanding as well. There's actually _many_ different unemployment numbers, depending on what definition of employment vs not vs not even included that you want to use. The "unemployment number" without qualification we tend to use is (IMO) kind of crap, but we're stuck with it for tradition mostly as far as I can tell. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm seems to be the best resource I can find at the moment for the ones I'm thinking of, it doesn't really define them very exactly though. I'm sure they're defined _somewhere_.
dingusthemingus 5y ago
Fed govt set aside cash during covid pandemic to give extra funds to people on unemployment. At the beginning of the pandemic all the states particapated, but not anymore. Critics have accused the fed govt of irresponsibly rolling this out as the economy has rebounded, and now you have many states where businesses are struggling to find workers who want to apply for these low income jobs because unemployment + 300$(fed govt bonus) + tax benfifits > low income job. So basically 21 states stopped giving unemployed people that extra 300$, and surprise surprise, american workers are rational and more of them elected to go back to work compared to the states that still distribute that 300$. Basically this isnt surprising, but people on the far right want to gut bloated unemployment programs and far left wants universal income + bigger welfare for nonemployed americans, and this is playing out in Washington DC now and in states accross the US who arent one party states. There are a number of reasons why someone loses unemployment eligbability, time being one of those as you alluded to. Varies state by state. I beleive some states like NY and Cali have extended unemployment benfifits to like September, other states probably vary.
- lumost 5y ago
  The economics of this situation are pretty complex. The short-term benefits may also be forcing employers to raise long-term wages to compensate. The long-term wage increases for low-income jobs may result in lower usage of other government programs such as food stamps, and housing assistance. I passed by a giant sign next to a McDonalds offering $17/hr starting wage for McDonald's employees at a roadside operation in Western Mass.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    And that's $17/hr * 40hrs * 50weeks = $34,000 / year. A single person could be comfortable on that kind of money, but they won't exactly living the luxury life either. I think that's a pretty reasonable baseline for a full-time-employed resident of the USA.
    - fzzzy 5y ago
      You're just missing one thing -- there is no way in hell mcdonalds will ever give you 40 hours a week.
pkaye 5y ago
Unemployment rates are determined based on surveys of 60000 households every month. Its not based on qualifying for unemployment benefits. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where
- schuyler2d 5y ago
  However, you have to say you're looking for work to count as unemployed. If I get $300 to say so, then I might say I'm looking for work (and genuinely look for it) -- but if I no longer get any benefit (or much less) from saying so, then I might not bother with all the (tedious paternalist) paperwork to get counted as 'unemployed'
  - pkaye 5y ago
    > but if I no longer get any benefit (or much less) from saying so, then I might not bother with all the (tedious paternalist) paperwork to get counted as 'unemployed' AFAIK there is no paperwork for this survey. They call people up and ask a few questions to classify you.

mc32 5y ago

It appears to be the former: "The number of individuals who received unemployment benefits decline[d] by 13.8% by the week ending June 12, compared to mid-May, in states where governors explicitly said that enhanced benefits would end in June, based on an analysis by Jefferies LLC economists." and: "In May, the Missouri's unemployment rate was 4.2%, below the national average of 5.8%, according to data from the Department of Labor. Missouri ended enhanced federal benefits for unemployed state residents as of June 12, making it one of the first states to take the action."

celticninja 5y ago
That seems to be the latter not the former.
kadoban 5y ago
Is a decline in the number of people who are receiveing unemployment benefits the same thing as an increase in the number returning to work? I don't actually think it is without more data to rule out other cases.
- riffraff 5y ago
  Employment rate is not "1-unemployment", there is a third component ("inactive" or something like that) so generally they're correlated but do not coincide. I do not know the exact numbers for this.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Right, that's my understanding as well. There's actually _many_ different unemployment numbers, depending on what definition of employment vs not vs not even included that you want to use. The "unemployment number" without qualification we tend to use is (IMO) kind of crap, but we're stuck with it for tradition mostly as far as I can tell. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm seems to be the best resource I can find at the moment for the ones I'm thinking of, it doesn't really define them very exactly though. I'm sure they're defined _somewhere_.

dingusthemingus 5y ago

Fed govt set aside cash during covid pandemic to give extra funds to people on unemployment. At the beginning of the pandemic all the states particapated, but not anymore. Critics have accused the fed govt of irresponsibly rolling this out as the economy has rebounded, and now you have many states where businesses are struggling to find workers who want to apply for these low income jobs because unemployment + 300$(fed govt bonus) + tax benfifits > low income job. So basically 21 states stopped giving unemployed people that extra 300$, and surprise surprise, american workers are rational and more of them elected to go back to work compared to the states that still distribute that 300$. Basically this isnt surprising, but people on the far right want to gut bloated unemployment programs and far left wants universal income + bigger welfare for nonemployed americans, and this is playing out in Washington DC now and in states accross the US who arent one party states. There are a number of reasons why someone loses unemployment eligbability, time being one of those as you alluded to. Varies state by state. I beleive some states like NY and Cali have extended unemployment benfifits to like September, other states probably vary.

lumost 5y ago
The economics of this situation are pretty complex. The short-term benefits may also be forcing employers to raise long-term wages to compensate. The long-term wage increases for low-income jobs may result in lower usage of other government programs such as food stamps, and housing assistance. I passed by a giant sign next to a McDonalds offering $17/hr starting wage for McDonald's employees at a roadside operation in Western Mass.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  And that's $17/hr * 40hrs * 50weeks = $34,000 / year. A single person could be comfortable on that kind of money, but they won't exactly living the luxury life either. I think that's a pretty reasonable baseline for a full-time-employed resident of the USA.
  - fzzzy 5y ago
    You're just missing one thing -- there is no way in hell mcdonalds will ever give you 40 hours a week.

pkaye 5y ago

Unemployment rates are determined based on surveys of 60000 households every month. Its not based on qualifying for unemployment benefits. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

schuyler2d 5y ago
However, you have to say you're looking for work to count as unemployed. If I get $300 to say so, then I might say I'm looking for work (and genuinely look for it) -- but if I no longer get any benefit (or much less) from saying so, then I might not bother with all the (tedious paternalist) paperwork to get counted as 'unemployed'
- pkaye 5y ago
  > but if I no longer get any benefit (or much less) from saying so, then I might not bother with all the (tedious paternalist) paperwork to get counted as 'unemployed' AFAIK there is no paperwork for this survey. They call people up and ask a few questions to classify you.