Jim Rogers: U.S. to plunge into recession in 2013

**tbudwiser** · May 10 2012, 09:27 AM

I have heard this from several economists as well as Fox news. Like I said, this whole matter is now withered down to option and belief. Do you have any proof that I'm wrong about how the Feds collect unemployment statistics data? I bet not. I don't have any proof that my theory is true either except for word of mouth. I'm just getting into economics and very open to other beliefs and ideas -- if some facts can be laid down on the tabel. Let's see it.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Upon what basis do you claim the recession did not end?

Speaking of "A LIE", where did you get your belief that whether people are collecting unemployment benefits has anything to do with the unemployment rate or data.

I heard this claimed on Fox News, is that where you got your belief and understanding?

Or maybe it just goes to show how many people have been mislead by erroneous data and distorted information from RW propaganda media?

If you found out that THE LIE was not the Govt data but your belief about how uenmployment benefits affects unemployment data, and that your source was the LIE, would that change your perspective about what it "just goes to show"?

Did you ever have the thought that maybe it is not the "Feds" who are misleading you, but the sources upone which you get such erroneous beliefs and understandings?

**Reiver** · May 10 2012, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by tbudwiser

Do you have any proof that I'm wrong about how the Feds collect unemployment statistics data?

All of the data methods are available. The US, compared to other nations, also provides numerous different measures (e.g. taking into account discouraged worker effects). Data is also easily checked through the use of specific labour force surveys (which are also available using definitions suitable for international comparison). You're on a loser

**Iriemon** · May 10 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by tbudwiser

I have heard this from several economists as well as Fox news.

Well, It's no surprise Fox News is feeding you false information.

Which economists?

Like I said, this whole matter is now withered down to option and belief.

It is not an issue of opinion at all.

Do you have any proof that I'm wrong about how the Feds collect unemployment statistics data? I bet not. I don't have any proof that my theory is true either except for word of mouth. I'm just getting into economics and very open to other beliefs and ideas -- if some facts can be laid down on the tabel. Let's see it.

I'm glad you are very open, that is a rare characteristic. However, word of mouth and Fox news are poor and often erroneous bases upon which to built your economic knowledge.

Furthermore, when you use unreliable sources like Fox, you get erroneous information, whick then leads to wrong conclusions, like in this case, it is the government lying, as opposed to Fox or whomever those economists you claim you heard told you.

+++

Where do the statistics come from?

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and because it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. It has been expanded and modified several times since then.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?

The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

These data are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

* Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
* Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
* Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
* Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits
http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques10

The CPS collects information on the labor force status of the civilian noninstitutional population 15 years of age and older, although labor force estimates are reported only for those 16 and older. Persons under 16 years of age are excluded from the official estimates because child labor laws, compulsory school attendance, and general social custom in the United States severely limit the types and amount of work that these children can do. Persons on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces are excluded from coverage. The institutional population, which also is excluded from coverage, consists of residents of penal and mental institutions and homes for the aged and infirm.

The CPS is collected each month from a probability sample of approximately 60,000 households. Respondents are assured that all information obtained is completely confidential and is used only for the purpose of statistical analysis. Although the survey is conducted on a strictly voluntary basis, refusals to cooperate amount to only about 4 percent each month. (Another 3 to 4 percent of eligible households are not interviewed because of other failures to make contact.)

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_b.htm

+++

As the above demonstrates, Fox gave you a load of bull. It won't be the last time. The unemployment benefits figures are not used at all in determining unemployment data, for reasons stated. Unemployment data is based upon independent statistical sampling.

Fox's nonsense doesn't fly from another angle. If only people getting unemployment benes counted as unemployed, we'd only have about 3.2 million unemployed, because that is the number of folks continuing to receive unemployment benes currently.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

Yet the BLS reports there are 12.5 million unemployed, about 5x more.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

Obviously, the Government (BLS) is not using unemployment data to calculate the number of unemployed.

So, now that we have established that the entity that LIED here was Fox, and that your conclusion was based on a false premise, maybe you will consider doing a bit more research into your information and consider more reliable sources if you are interested in gaining knowledge in the macroeconomic sphere. Don't despair, numerous other folks have been misinformed by Fox on this exact same issue.

**tbudwiser** · May 10 2012, 06:35 PM

I asked to see facts and you did just that. Thanks for correcting me. I'm still learning and very interested in economy.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Well, It's no surprise Fox News is feeding you false information.

Which economists?

It is not an issue of opinion at all.

I'm glad you are very open, that is a rare characteristic. However, word of mouth and Fox news are poor and often erroneous bases upon which to built your economic knowledge.

Furthermore, when you use unreliable sources like Fox, you get erroneous information, whick then leads to wrong conclusions, like in this case, it is the government lying, as opposed to Fox or whomever those economists you claim you heard told you.

+++

Where do the statistics come from?

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and because it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. It has been expanded and modified several times since then.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?

The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims"). Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

These data are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered. In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

* Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
* Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
* Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
* Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits
http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques10

The CPS collects information on the labor force status of the civilian noninstitutional population 15 years of age and older, although labor force estimates are reported only for those 16 and older. Persons under 16 years of age are excluded from the official estimates because child labor laws, compulsory school attendance, and general social custom in the United States severely limit the types and amount of work that these children can do. Persons on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces are excluded from coverage. The institutional population, which also is excluded from coverage, consists of residents of penal and mental institutions and homes for the aged and infirm.

The CPS is collected each month from a probability sample of approximately 60,000 households. Respondents are assured that all information obtained is completely confidential and is used only for the purpose of statistical analysis. Although the survey is conducted on a strictly voluntary basis, refusals to cooperate amount to only about 4 percent each month. (Another 3 to 4 percent of eligible households are not interviewed because of other failures to make contact.)

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_b.htm

+++

As the above demonstrates, Fox gave you a load of bull. It won't be the last time. The unemployment benefits figures are not used at all in determining unemployment data, for reasons stated. Unemployment data is based upon independent statistical sampling.

Fox's nonsense doesn't fly from another angle. If only people getting unemployment benes counted as unemployed, we'd only have about 3.2 million unemployed, because that is the number of folks continuing to receive unemployment benes currently.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

Yet the BLS reports there are 12.5 million unemployed, about 5x more.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

Obviously, the Government (BLS) is not using unemployment data to calculate the number of unemployed.

So, now that we have established that the entity that LIED here was Fox, and that your conclusion was based on a false premise, maybe you will consider doing a bit more research into your information and consider more reliable sources if you are interested in gaining knowledge in the macroeconomic sphere. Don't despair, numerous other folks have been misinformed by Fox on this exact same issue.

**BleedingHeadKen** · May 10 2012, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Fox's nonsense doesn't fly from another angle. If only people getting unemployment benes counted as unemployed, we'd only have about 3.2 million unemployed, because that is the number of folks continuing to receive unemployment benes currently.

Your number is wrong. There are about 3.2 million receiving unemployment benefits in state programs. However, the number double that (6.4 million), when all programs are accounted for.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

I think what you forgot to account for are the several million people in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program.

Obviously, the Government (BLS) is not using unemployment data to calculate the number of unemployed.

The BLS explains how they do it in their FAQ.

**Iriemon** · May 11 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

Your number is wrong. There are about 3.2 million receiving unemployment benefits in state programs. However, the number double that (6.4 million), when all programs are accounted for.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending April 28 was 3,229,000, a decrease of 61,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,290,000.

The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending April 21 was 6,423,383, a decrease of 174,529 from the previous week.

I think that is right, apparently the 3.2 million figure does not include various extended program figures.

But it does not undermine my point. 6.4 million still does not corroborate with the 12.5 million unemployed the BLS reports, demonstrating that the BLS does not rely on unemployment data to determine the number of unemployed, as they state in their faq.

The BLS explains how they do it in their FAQ.

Right, they explain that they do not use unemployment benefit data to determine the number of unemployed, and rely on statistical sampling instead, as shown above. That's the whole point of the discussion.

**fmw** · May 11 2012, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Iriemon

You're a little confused because of the common misconception of how a "recession" is defined by the entities that measure it (eg NBER).

A recession is when the economy is getting worse. A recession ends when the economy stops getting worse. That doesn't mean when the economy has fully recovered. So yes, you can still have high unemployment, a battered economy, and not be in a recession.

I'm not confused at all. I understand how a recession is defined technically. What I'm explaining to you is that the "recession" has had some ups and downs. Wait till you see the second quarter numbers. They will be down. The first quarter had a little up tick in February and March. My own belief is that this isn't a recession at all but a new economic reality. I think we are paying the piper for 50 years of sending our jobs and wealth overseas. Nothing is going to head us back upward until we start getting those jobs and dollars back.

I've always wondered why economics is a political issue. Our government can't fix the economy. The economy has to fix itself. I've always wondered why economics is called a social science. There is nothing scientific about it at all. It is a bunch of academics arguing about their opinions. The numbers themselves indicate something, I suppose, but they don't currently indicate the economic health of our society. Common sense should rule.

**Reiver** · May 11 2012, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by fmw

I think we are paying the piper for 50 years of sending our jobs and wealth overseas. Nothing is going to head us back upward until we start getting those jobs and dollars back.

This is on a par with mercantilism, with empty nationalist comment used to hide from sound economic comment

**Iriemon** · May 11 2012, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by fmw

I'm not confused at all. I understand how a recession is defined technically. What I'm explaining to you is that the "recession" has had some ups and downs.

You are obviously still confused or you wouldn't have made that statement. When the economy is going up it is not a recession.

Wait till you see the second quarter numbers. They will be down. The first quarter had a little up tick in February and March.

You can come back and tell us when it happens.

My own belief is that this isn't a recession at all but a new economic reality. I think we are paying the piper for 50 years of sending our jobs and wealth overseas. Nothing is going to head us back upward until we start getting those jobs and dollars back.

The economy has bee going upwards for 10 straight quarters already and 4.2 million additional private sector jobs have been created since Jan 2010.

I've always wondered why economics is a political issue. Our government can't fix the economy. The economy has to fix itself. I've always wondered why economics is called a social science. There is nothing scientific about it at all. It is a bunch of academics arguing about their opinions. The numbers themselves indicate something, I suppose, but they don't currently indicate the economic health of our society. Common sense should rule.

I agree that the power any given president or government can have to effect economic change is overrated by the masses. I disagree that Govt policy has no effect. It can have a huge effect.