# Unemployment **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 10, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474 "2012-05-10T04:00:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/1 "2012-05-10T04:00:58Z")
Can someone explain this quote means for the American worker? "If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1 percent. If the percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1 percent. The explanation is a little-watched measure known as the “labor force participation rate.” That tracks the number of working-age Americans who are holding a job or looking for one. Between March and April, it dropped by 342,000. But because the official unemployment rate counts only those workers who are actively seeking work, that actually made the unemployment rate go down to 8.1 % from 8.2%." What are all these people doing if they are not _actively_ looking for work? How are they getting by? Many have had their benefits expire, so they have essentially no money coming in. About 342,000 people have just given up? That’s a lot of individuals and its for only the time period between March and April. ---
**Author:** ![MaltLiquor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/858c86/32.png) [@MaltLiquor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaltLiquor)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/2 "2012-05-10T04:16:27Z")
Once people stop receiving benefits from the government they are not checking into the unemployment office anymore, nor are the calling in with regular updates on their job searches. I would think that these people are counted in as the no longer seeking jobs but for most they are, they just went freelance. Some may have just given up. I wouldn’t do it but I know a couple that have. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/3 "2012-05-10T04:26:09Z")
They’re [applying for disability](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/men-unemployment-and-disability/) (SSDI and SSI). This is somewhat unfortunate, because it is very hard to get off disability. The program is, by default, for life. Continuing disability reviews can be ordered, but the Social Security Administration already faces a backlog of pending applications and a hiring freeze, so it is difficult to justify spending a lot of effort attending to decided cases. Additionally, structural disincentives exist that discourage recipients from looking for work and employers are reluctant to hire on people who have been on the program. Many of the new additions to the disability rolls are relatively unskilled workers with limited education and marginal work histories. These people were able to work at low, but subsistence, levels during a more robust economy but lost their jobs when things went south. Alleged impairments typically include degenerative disc disease, other musculoskeletal complaints, fibromyalgia/pain syndrome, and mental health conditions of equivocal severity. Addictions, including to pain medication, are also frequently present. The diffuse nature of these impairments also makes it difficult to judge if medical improvement has occurred at a continuing disability review. Had, on the other hand, unemployment benefits been continued until the recovery takes a firm hold, many people who applied (and received) disability would instead likely have been able to return to work. Had they had health insurance, some mental health conditions likely could also have been addressed. The disability trust fund, by the by, is expected to be exhausted within four years due to recent acceleration in recipients. Also, this is all my personal opinion and inferences and not any sort of official SSA position. ---
**Author:** ![living\_in\_hell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@living\_in\_hell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/living_in_hell)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/4 "2012-05-10T04:35:27Z")
I am not sure that it’s “hard to get off disability”…in fact, I would say its pretty easy. The gov always has their own docs to assess people either in a first or 2nd opinion. And almost no one is approved for disability moneys on their first attempt–this is a built-in mechanism to weed out those who don’t want to keep jumping through hoops. Many folks eventually become annoyed with this status, as they realize that they don’t get that much money and they’d rather work. On a somewhat tangential yet relevant note, It’s always funny to me, when I hear people bash the disability system (no one here, people I have encountered irl), as they are also the first to support corporations that outsource and take jobs from America. “Made in USA” only applies to autos…not that crap you bought from Mall Wart that was made in China by someone who is stealing a job from that Wellfare leach you hate! Haha Wow that was some run-on writing. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/5 "2012-05-10T05:04:29Z")
> [@living\_in\_hell](#): > > I am not sure that it’s “hard to get off disability”…in fact, I would say its pretty easy. The gov always has their own docs to assess people either in a first or 2nd opinion. And almost no one is approved for disability moneys on their first attempt–this is a built-in mechanism to weed out those who don’t want to keep jumping through hoops. Many folks eventually become annoyed with this status, as they realize that they don’t get that much money and they’d rather work. Often, consultative examinations, by both a (for lack of a better term) physical medicine physician (an internist/occupational medicine/orthopedist/rheumatologist, or whatever depending on the impairments alleged) and a licensed psychologist are required. This is not meant to burden the claimant or to discourage applicants or to discredit other medical evidence, but rather to produce medical evidence where the claimant’s own treatment has been lacking in some regard (no treatment, no recent treatment, no treatment for some of the alleged impairments, etc.). It is part of the agency’s obligation to develop the record before returning a determination or decision. However, all this occurs before being approved for benefits. By “difficult to get off disability,” I refer to those who do get approved. The medical-vocational standard for disability, in a nutshell, is that the claimant has medically-determinable impairments that limit the claimant to such an extent that there are no jobs (including jobs such as surveillance systems monitor, D.O.T. # 379.367-010, sedentary exertional level, SVP-2/unskilled) existing in significant numbers in the national economy for which the claimant would be competitively employable. This is a high bar for functional limitation, so it is not completely surprising that many people do not meet it. In particular, there is, I think, a misapprehension among the public that being disabled from one’s past work (or “past relevant work” even), but not perhaps from other work, qualifies. That alone does not. This is understandable, given that many people who worked for a long time at previous skilled employment might think that having only unskilled labor in a perhaps very different field is basically being disabled. Such a result would indeed be a striking reversal of fortune, but as the law stands currently, it is not disability under the SSA’s programs. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/6 "2012-05-10T05:38:39Z")
Ok, some people go on disability. But what portion of the 18% of unemployed males ages 25 to 54 are on disability? I doubt it represents the difference in percentage between now and times past. There are a lot of people who have given up looking for work, and it’s probably based on a reasonable estimation of their chances of finding it. Plenty of people just don’t work. They do what they have to do, but there won’t be an indication of them looking for work. ---
**Author:** ![Imasquare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Imasquare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Imasquare)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/7 "2012-05-10T10:46:00Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Ok, some people go on disability. But what portion of the 18% of unemployed males ages 25 to 54 are on disability? I doubt it represents the difference in percentage between now and times past. There are a lot of people who have given up looking for work, and it’s probably based on a reasonable estimation of their chances of finding it. Plenty of people just don’t work. They do what they have to do, but there won’t be an indication of them looking for work. I wonder how they survive? Or maybe they don’t? ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/8 "2012-05-10T11:05:52Z")
> [@MaltLiquor](#): > > Once people stop receiving benefits from the government they are not checking into the unemployment office anymore, nor are the calling in with regular updates on their job searches. I would think that these people are counted in as the no longer seeking jobs but for most they are, they just went freelance. > > Some may have just given up. I wouldn’t do it but I know a couple that have. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses [random surveys of households](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where), not unemployment claims or check-ins at employment offices to arrive at their numbers. Their surveys cover even people who have never had any contact with state or federal agencies and never applied for benefits. Older people retire. Younger people can decide to become stay-at-home moms or dads (while their spouse or partner works) or move in with their parents or relatives. Some people live off savings. Some people move into their cars. Some people decide to go back to school (and often run up huge student loans). ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/9 "2012-05-10T11:08:36Z")
> [@Imasquare](#): > > I wonder how they survive? Or maybe they don’t? Some work under the table for wages, or they take on odd jobs here and there. Some go back to school to earn a graduate degree or to learn a new, more marketable trade and live off student aid for a while. And some receive assistance from private charity, such as assistance from food and clothing banks. Or some combination of these. They do it, it’s just a little harder. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/10 "2012-05-10T11:11:06Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > Can someone explain this quote means for the American worker? > > "If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1 percent. If the percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1 percent. > > The explanation is a little-watched measure known as the “labor force participation rate.” That tracks the number of working-age Americans who are holding a job or looking for one. Between March and April, it dropped by 342,000. But because the official unemployment rate counts only those workers who are actively seeking work, that actually made the unemployment rate go down to 8.1 % from 8.2%." Do you want the terms explained? Take all of the people in the country who are about the correct age to work, men and women from around 16 to 65 years of age. They call this the **labor force population**. It’s the people who theoretically could be working, so this is our baseline number. The next step is looking at how many of those people actually have jobs. Take that as a percentage of the labor force population, and you get the **labor force participation rate**. This is the rate that has dropped precipitously. Of all the people we have out there who are of age to work, a notably smaller percentage of them are actually working. All of those useful bodies, unable to do productive things just because the economy is screwed up. If these people were actively looking for jobs, they would count as part of the **labor force** (what your quote calls the “workforce”). Everyone who is the right age is part of the _labor force population_, but you have to be genuinely looking for work (or actually have work) to be part of the _labor force_. This is where our official numbers come from. If they were actively looking for work, they’d be counted as part of the **unemployed** , and be included in the the official U3 unemployment rate. The big idea of your quote is correct. One reason why the official unemployment rate is relatively low, despite the huge drop in labor force participation, is that many working-age people have stopped looking for work. > [@Mangosteen](#): > > What are all these people doing if they are not _actively_ looking for work? How are they getting by? Many have had their benefits expire, so they have essentially no money coming in. About 342,000 people have just given up? That’s a lot of individuals and its for only the time period between March and April. Yeah, a whole lotta people have given up trying to find work. It’s so large it’s hard to imagine. I don’t know how they get by. > [@MaltLiquor](#): > > Once people stop receiving benefits from the government they are not checking into the unemployment office anymore, nor are the calling in with regular updates on their job searches. I would think that these people are counted in as the no longer seeking jobs but for most they are, they just went freelance. Just to be clear about this: If they are looking for a job, then they are counted as part of the unemployment rate in the surveys that are conducted. Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the official jobless numbers. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > They’re [applying for disability](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/men-unemployment-and-disability/) (SSDI and SSI). That’s a terrible article. **TriPolar** is right to point out the lack of relevant stuff. The only numbers/graphs it gives are about the overall labor force participation rate for that cohort. It doesn’t provide any info whatever on how many of those young people out of work are actually on disability. That just seems appallingly misleading to me. ---
**Author:** ![Baracus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@Baracus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baracus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/11 "2012-05-10T11:33:23Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the official jobless numbers.That’s a terrible article. **TriPolar** is right to point out the lack of relevant stuff. The only numbers/graphs it gives are about the overall labor force participation rate for that cohort. It doesn’t provide any info whatever on how many of those young people out of work are actually on disability. That just seems appallingly misleading to me. It links to two articles that give more information on the number of people on disability. The thing is though that neither of them show a particularly sharp increase in the past three years. The percentage of working age people on disability has been growing for two decades. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/12 "2012-05-10T13:05:01Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > What are all these people doing if they are not _actively_ looking for work? How are they getting by? Many have had their benefits expire, so they have essentially no money coming in. About 342,000 people have just given up? That’s a lot of individuals and its for only the time period between March and April. Living with relatives and/or friends is a common strategy for those with no job, no income, and no prospects. How are they getting by? Not very well. ---
**Author:** ![pinqy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a3d4f5/32.png) [@pinqy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinqy)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/13 "2012-05-10T16:34:29Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > Can someone explain this quote means for the American worker? > > "If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1 percent. If the percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1 percent. > > The explanation is a little-watched measure known as the “labor force participation rate.” That tracks the number of working-age Americans who are holding a job or looking for one. Between March and April, it dropped by 342,000. But because the official unemployment rate counts only those workers who are actively seeking work, that actually made the unemployment rate go down to 8.1 % from 8.2%." > What are all these people doing if they are not _actively_ looking for work? How are they getting by? Many have had their benefits expire, so they have essentially no money coming in. About 342,000 people have just given up? That’s a lot of individuals and its for only the time period between March and April. Basics…the “Population” used for Labor Force Statistics is the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population…everyone 16 years and older not in prison, an institution (including nursing homes) or the military. For April 2012, that’s 242,784,000 The Labor Force is Employed + Unemployed where Employed is defined as working and Unemployed is defined as not working, wants to work, could take a job if offered, and actively looked for work in previous 4 weeks. For April 2012, Employed was 141,865,000, Unemployed was 12,500,000 for a Labor Force of 154,365,000. Everyone else in the Population is “Not in the Labor Force.” That’s at 88,419,000 Of those, 6,366,000 say they want a job, but don’t meet either the availability or job search criteria to be Classified as Unemployed. So the vast majority of people Not in the Labor Force don’t want to work: Retirees, Students, Stay home spouses, disabled, that cousin who never holds a job for more than a few days because he prefers to hang around and get high, etc. The Unemployment Rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force (NOT the Population). So 12,500,000/154,365,000 = 8.1% But note that in March, it was 12,673,000/154,707,000 meaning fewer people are working AND fewer people are trying to work. This is captured in the LF participation rate: the percent of the Population that’s in the Labor Force (working or trying to work) and that went from 63.8% to 63.6% It used to be higher. So what the article you quote is doing is taking the LF rate from a previous year, and applying it to the current Population and saying that’s how many people “should be” in the Labor Force. They then look at the difference between the hypothetical Labor Force and the reported Labor Force and classify ALL the difference as Unemployed, add that to reported Unemployed and use that with the hypothetical Labor Force to give the “real” UE rate. It’s nonsense of course, because it assumes that NONE of the change is by choice or changing demographics. It’s assuming that the percent of the Population that is Retired, Full time students, and stay home spouses has NOT gone up. Which it has. And the math doesn’t work in reverse. If we used say 1963, which had low LF participation and used that as the “real” rate for 1999 or 2000, it would show those years as having a Negative Unemployment Rate (math available on request). ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/14 "2012-05-10T17:12:48Z")
I retired. Or to be exact, I “semi-retired.” What that means is that we’re living off my wife’s pension (she’s officially retired) and savings until I’m old enough to draw Social Security. There are some old associates who call on me occasionally to come in and work on projects when they’re overloaded, and I’m registered with a couple of temp services, but after several hundred applications and an exactly equal number of rejections, I got the message that my services are no longer required on a permanent full-time basis. And what it means for the American worker is a future of temp jobs, contract work and an entirely new definition for the word “career.” ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/15 "2012-05-10T18:57:59Z")
> [@Imasquare](#): > > I wonder how they survive? Or maybe they don’t? They do what they have to do. Which means as little as possible to survive. The more ambitious will work cash jobs, or even real jobs that they’ll leave after the first paycheck. A real go-getter will stay on a job long enough to qualify for unemployment. But an awful lot will live off the fat of the land. Which means they will borrow (without ever repaying) from family and friends. Or they’ll steal and/or sell drugs. Some will become homeless and eat at soup kitchens. Because of current economic conditions, people are generally sympathetic to people in this position. In better economic times there’s less tolerance, and some of them will go to work. And some of them don’t survive. But that’s usually a side effect of the dangerous lifestyle, not starving or dying of exposure. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/16 "2012-05-10T20:53:04Z")
In reference to the note upthread regarding the difficulty getting off disability - my bro has been pulling SSI since the mid-90s. Even if he became better and was willing and able to seek work, the structural problem is that if his bank account starts to swell above a threashold (I think $2K), his benefits start to go away. If the job does not work out, then he has to go to the back of the line and re-apply and start over to get benefits back. I get that they only want people who need it to be in the safety net, but not a good incentive to seek a better future for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/17 "2012-05-10T21:35:54Z")
Or you just tighten your belt, if you were once a 2 income family. Less savings for retirement, less money spent on luxuries, no annual vacation, no new car, no going out to eat. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/18 "2012-05-10T22:01:56Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Or you just tighten your belt, if you were once a 2 income family. Less savings for retirement, less money spent on luxuries, no annual vacation, no new car, no going out to eat. Well there are a lot of people doing this. And one member of family staying home doesn’t make them a bum. People in that position may stop looking for work based on the economic conditions, and are likely to look again one day when circumstances change. Since we’re talking about millions of people not looking for work, there’s going to be a lot of different reasons why. My post (if you are even referring to that) was just referring to those who had no apparent means of support. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/19 "2012-05-10T22:42:45Z")
Good post here. > [@pinqy](#): > > Basics…the “Population” used for Labor Force Statistics is the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population…everyone 16 years and older not in prison, an institution (including nursing homes) or the military. For April 2012, that’s 242,784,000 And I was wrong about this. For some reason, I thought it capped out at the upper ages but obviously that’s not the case, at least in the US. You gotta be taken to the home to get taken out of the denominator. ---
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474/20 "2012-05-11T00:12:25Z")
If one qualifies, how much do they get a month from SDI? What is the amount based on? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unemployment/621474.md?page=2)