The U-6

Earlier in my post on US Unemployment Reaching a 26-Year High, I said this about the U-6:

Among all groups, the U6 underemployment rate -- a broader measure of the jobs shortfall which includes people whose hours have been cut, those working part-time for lack of full-time work, and those who have given up looking -- is 17.5 percent. This is the number that I prefer to use as the real unemployment number. This reflects those individuals who can no longer find work in their chosen careers and have instead been forced back to school or to take lower paying jobs in the service sector. The lack of manufacturing jobs and a collapse in even high-paying white collar sectors such as finance and legal services poses a particular worry for the US economy and ultimately for the Administration.

David Leonhardt of the New York Times has some more color on our serious underemployment problem. Here are some of the lowlights:

In all, more than one out of every six workers -- 17.5 percent -- were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982.

This includes the officially unemployed, who have looked for work in the last four weeks. It also includes discouraged workers, who have looked in the past year, as well as millions of part-time workers who want to be working full time.

The rate is highest today, sometimes 20 percent, in states that had big housing bubbles, like California and Arizona, or that have large manufacturing sectors, like Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

The new benchmark is a sign of just how much damage financial crises tend to inflict. A recent book by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff, two economists, found that over the last century the typical crisis had caused the jobless rate in the country where it occurred to rise for almost five years. By that standard, the jobless rate here would continue rising for two more years, through the end of 2011.

Officially, the Labor Department's broad measure of unemployment goes back only to 1994. But early this year, with the help of economists at the department, The New York Times created a version that estimates it going back to 1970. If such a measure were available for the Depression, it probably would have exceeded 30 percent.

Here's more and it is somewhat paradoxical.

One of the more striking aspects of the Great Recession is that most of its impact has fallen on a relatively narrow group of workers. This is evident primarily in two ways.

First, the number of people who have experienced any unemployment is surprisingly low, given the severity of the recession. The pace of layoffs has increased, but the peak layoff rate this year was the same as it was during the 2001 recession, which was a fairly mild downturn. The main reason that the unemployment rate has soared is the hiring rate has plummeted.

So fewer workers than might be expected have lost their jobs. But those without work are paying a steep price, because finding a new job is extremely difficult.

Second, wages have continued to rise for most people who still have jobs. The average hourly wage for rank-and-file workers, who make up about four-fifths of the work force, actually accelerated in October, according to the new report.

Even though some companies have cut the pay of workers, the average hourly wage has still risen 1.5 to 2.5 percent over the last year, depending on which government survey is examined. Average weekly pay has risen less -- zero to 1 percent -- because hours have been cut. But average prices have fallen. Altogether, the typical worker has received a 1 to 2 percent inflation-adjusted raise over the last year.

In the other two severe recessions in recent decades, workers with jobs fared considerably worse. At the same point in the mid-1970s downturn, real weekly pay had fallen 7 percent; in the early 1980s recession, it had fallen 4 percent.

It is a strange combination: workers who still have a job are doing better than in other deep recessions, but the unemployment and underemployment have risen to their highest level since the Depression.

As I noted in my earlier the long-term unemployment rate remains troubling and suggests a continuing structural imbalance. The average length of unemployment reached 26.9 weeks, a record. This is consistent with a plummeted hiring rate.



Display:


Re: The U-6 (none / 0)

Well if this is the case then not only are Democrats toast in 2010 but likely Obama in 2012 too.


by Kent on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:24:53 AM EST

Re: The U-6 (none / 0)

Actually, high unemployment in the early 30s led to FDR winning the presidency in 32, and to the Republicans losing 40 Senate and over 180 House seats between 1932 and 1937.

Despite all of the nonsense clueless pundits are currently spouting, Democrats can expect major gains in 2010, 20112, and beyond.


It's time for a new capitalism that puts the People over the Rich - www.profitdonationcapitalism.org.
by Georgeo57 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 09:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The U-6 (none / 0)

 I believe they call your suggestion, wishful thinking. Given the tone of the election last week and the attitudes of the public, we can expect incumbents to take a beating next November....


by BuckeyeBlogger on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

People were more patient then (none / 0)

These days everybody wants everything now.  


by Kent on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those paradoxical statistics (none / 0)

Anecdotally:
1. "So fewer workers than might be expected have lost their jobs."
 True where I work, but only because we had already reduced staff over the last 10 years to the absolute minimum required to keep the doors open. Further lay-offs were impossible. We are at what is euphemistically referred to as 'maximum productivity'. YAY FOR US!
2. Second, wages have continued to rise for most people who still have jobs.
 This is pretty scoff-worthy, imo. Everyone at my 'highly productive' workplace took a 0-5% cut, after several years of no raises. No one I know has had a raise in this recession.
3."Prices have fallen"
 Am I the only one that finds that cruel and ironic? I don't even know where to start on that one!

We should have listened to Kent when it could have done us some good. Now, it's too late.


1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:42:22 AM EST

Re: The U-6 (2.00 / 1)

I believe these issues are structural. One of the reasons I argued moving away from focusing on GDP to a more complicated version of understanding our national economic health is because I believe that we have not been fully as a society deal with the urgency of these issues, and eventually they will become a crisis rather than a slow decline.


by bruh3 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 08:04:20 AM EST

Re: The U-6 (2.00 / 1)

It's actually worse than even that.

If you add in "discouraged workers" to the U-6 (defined away under Clinton, the unemployment rate is 22%

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_dat a

In fact, that's how they calculated unemployment during the 1930's.

So lets compare apples to apples here:

22% is higher than all but two years of the Great Depression (1932 had 23% and 1933 had just under 25%)

Thank God (and the Democratic Party) for FDIC Insurance, Social Security, and Unemployment Insurance. That's all that's keeping us from having "Bushvilles" tent cities springing up everywhere.


by jeopardy on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:19:13 PM EST

Re: The U-6 (none / 0)

If you add in the number of people who spend most of their time at work surfing the web, then there's a lot more people who are not productively employed. Just sayin.


1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:06:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.