Gallup: Underemployment at new low, unemployment ties low

Gallup polling, which has been tracking employment data since early 2010, report that the uneremployment percentage has now dropped to 16.4%. This is the lowest it has ever been since Gallup began tracking employment data. It had registered as high as 20.5% earlier in 2010. This data indicates that millions of Americans who had been underemployed in part time employment have found full time employment.

The current unemployment rate is 7.8%, which ties the lowest level recorded by Gallup.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

Gallup's data is not seasonally adjusted and thus is not directly comparable to the data produced by the BLS.

Good news for those of us not invested in failure for political purposes, but I doubt it will have much impact on the election.

 

It dropped because 350,000 people dropped out of the work force. Bye

 

No it didn't. Bye.

 

It was actually 360,000.

But, any method to get it below 8%, right?

 

You'd have to ask Gallup. It's their poll.

 

It would be important to know how Gallup does their math and who is considered employed and who is considered "under employed".

Needless to say, the economy, employment, the GDP, all suck really bad.

 

I'll stick with the DOL:

 

Obama's DOJ sues Gallup under qui tam (filed by former Gallup employee/2008 field organizer for Obama)....
Gallup falls in-line

News at eleven.

 

Gallup tracks daily the percentage of U.S. adults , ages 18 and older, who are underemployed, unemployed, and employed full-time for an employer, without seasonal adjustment. "Underemployed" respondents are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed. "Unemployed" respondents are those within the underemployed group who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work.

Unemployment and underemployment are calculated as a percent of the workforce. Payroll to Population is a measure of those who are employed by an employer for at least 30 hours per week. Payroll to Population is calculated as a percent of the total population. Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

 

Sure thing. Several conservative have cited Gallup's employment figures on different occasions so it's not a "liberal" thing.

 

The lawsuit was filed in 2009 so you'd have to explain why they showed unemployment increasing on many ocassions.

 

The last report that came out, they actually specified that the only reason the unemployment rate dropped was because more people were dropping out of the work force. That still doesn't stop Obama cheerleaders like the OP from celebrating the number, though. What a pathetic, yet humorous display.

 

That was the BLS. And that same thing in reverse was the only reason why the unemployment rate had gone up to 8.3% in the first place.

This is Gallup.

 

Phones aren't free. No job, no money = no phone, not surveyed.

 

It depends how you measure underemployment.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

The OP's graph only shows those working part time but looking for full time work.

 

That might skew the absolute number but not the relative change in the numbers.

 

That is true. If you are a biased, right wing propaganda blog and you just make up the numbers, you can make them look much worse.

 

That is just absolute BS.

Unemployment has never been below 7.8%?

For most of George W. Bush's Presidency it was around 5%. The latest jobs report said that more people just gave up looking for work entirely. That's why the unemployment rate is falling. You have to work so long to qualify for unemployment benefits, and people aren't meeting those standards. I've also read that the average length people go unemployed is something like 36 months. That's unacceptable. And its not something to boast about. And it is (*)(*)(*)(*) sure not the "lowest ever recorded".

 

Don't spoil their parade. This is a time of rejoicing. All hail the new normal, and the metrosexual President who enabled it.

 

Trying reading the OP and take another shot at it if you want.

 

The conservative "experts" here agree.

 

Nope. Lets only assume 10% of people who are poor enough to have severely reduced phone services (minimal prepaid minutes, and won't even answer survey) and/or no phones at all.
And of those 10% only 85 of 1000 are unemployed/underemployed, which is 8.5%. I'm being very generous here.

The stats:

10000 total people
9000 have phones
700 are underemployed/unemployed
0.077777778
7.8%

10000 people
10000 people regardless of phones
785 are underemployed/unemployed (only need 85 of the 1000 extra to tick rate up)
.0785
7.9%

Phone surveys don't tell us anything relevant anymore.

 

Did you just make up the 10%? I can't believe that 10% of Americans don't have a phone these days.

You are just pointing out that the absolute number may be wrong because of this point, which I just acknowledged.

But you haven't demonstrated that that would make the relative number wrong.

Whether the "actual" number is 16.4% or 3/10th higher, it is still down from 20.5% in 2010, and the "actual" number was 3/10 higher then to.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-04-20-cellphone-study.htm

"More than one in four U.S. homes, or 26.6%, had only a wireless phone as of June 2010, up from 13.6% in 2007. The percentage of wireless-only homes increased in every state, ranging from 35.2% in Arkansas to 12.8% in Rhode Island and New Jersey."

"Many are deciding to cut the landline cord. "All they get are solicitations, and most calls are done on a wireless phone anyway, so it represents a waste of money," says analyst Charles Golvin of Forrester Research."

Thats moving to cell. People who move to cell, such as myself, don't like answering calls I don't recognize. And with more and more people moving to cell only, ESPECIALLY kids, you know the ones with something like 25% unemployment, these numbers are going to be highly irrelevant. Slowly, more and more people move away from being surveyed, and ESPECIALLY those on tight budgets.

There is no way to know. You have to assume a constant, which they don't release to the public, or perhaps don't even know in the first place.

For instance, how many of those surveyed are in poverty?

Not relevant, as my premise is still more and more people over time move away from being surveyed.

 

Gallup calls cells too.

Any evidence to suppose the number of people without any kind of phone has dramatically changed over the past couple years?

Who cares?


Not relevant, as my premise is still more and more people over time move away from being surveyed.[/QUOTE]