On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 09:52 -0700, Eugene Coyle wrote: > Thanks for this, and for your occasional reminders about this. > > Could you clarify, or perhaps speculate, how things would change, or > not, if the military were included, along with the "institutional > population"? What exactly is the non-institutional population? > Prisoners for sure, but what else?
Hi, I'm still amazed at the lack of analysis of this data by economist and immense conservatism in using broken data even by the progressive part of the profession: after I wrote my blog post I contacted about 20 top economics blogger, only three responded and one did a post about it. And that just when the country is asking economists what to do to get the economy back on track, keeping dirty "secrets" and forgetting to inform the public is not being on the path to success. Anyway, for population you can find more details here: http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/2007-nat-detail.html http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2007-nat-meth.html For november 2008: * 62240877 "Monthly Postcensal Civilian Noninstitutional Population" * 63756555 "Monthly Postcensal Civilian Population" * 64375926 "Monthly Postcensal Resident Population" * 64602209 "Monthly Postcensal Resident Population plus Armed Forces overseas" If I read correctly difference between Civilian and Resident are military forces currently on USA territory (619371), to be complete abroad military are 226283. Difference between Civilian Noninstitutional and Civilian is 1515678 who are people in "nursing homes, prisons, jails, mental hospitals, and juvenile correctional facilities.", most of them likely in jail. Hope this helps, Laurent PS: There's one paper that look at unemployment impact of disability laws: http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/579 my analysis of it: << After a first reading and if I did not misinterpret, the paper looks at 1978-1998 period with 1984 as reference of a change in legislation and ends up with a numerically low effect: 0.5% on unemployment measure. Other factors are cited (like on my blog) but not analyzed quantitatively. If you look at the 1948-2008 data as I did you'll notice quickly that 1960-1984 and 1984-2008 (to take an equal number of years on both side while retaining the maximum data) see the exact same increase in the inactive population, +3 points for the first period from 3% to 6% and then again +3 points from 6% to 9%, both in 24 years. I of course don't have references on legislative changes related to disabilities on the 1960-1984 period, but the data above confirm that the 1984 change is very low impact, if not null on the big picture of the inactive population evolution. >> > > On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 15:14 -0400, Nicole Woo wrote: > >> [...] The report, "Is the U.S. Unemployment Rate Today Already as > >> High > >> as It was in 1982?," adjusts the current unemployment rate to account > >> for demographic and statistical differences that lower the > >> unemployment rate today by 1.4 percentage points, relative to the > >> official unemployment rate in 1982. After these adjustments, the > >> current unemployment level rises to 9.5 percent, a level that is > >> close > >> to the 1982 average of 9.7 percent. > >> > >> "After accounting for these demographic and statistical differences, > >> today's unemployment rate rises to 9.5 percent, already on a par with > >> the worst recession since the Great Depression," said Schmitt. [...] > > > > This report, already alarming, fails to honestly inform the public of > > the misleading nature of the unemployment measure. > > > > If we look at the situation a significant fraction of the population, > > that is "prime age men" in the range 25 year to 54 years old and > > compare the official BLS statistics between 1982 and 2008 we > > see the following relative to the civilion non instituional population > > of this sex and age group: > > > > In 1982 the average employment level was 86.5%, unemployment level was > > 7.5% and inactive level was 6.0% (total 100%), so total "without work" > > of 13.5% > > > > In 2008 the average employment level was 86.0%, unemployment level was > > 4.5% and inactive level 9.5% (total 100%), so total "without work" at > > 14%. > > > > We see a huge swing in the unemployment measure, whereas the obviously > > more reliable "without work" level is already worse in 2008 than > > 1982 on > > year average. If we take a monthly measure the "without work" level > > was > > 15% in december 1982 (highest of the year) vs a never reached before > > level of 16.4% in december 2008, a full 1.4% above. > > > > No need for complex statistical adjustments to see that: > > > > 1/ the unemployment measure is totally unreliable for time based > > comparisons > > 2/ when looking at a more reliable measure we see the situation > > was already worse in december 2008 than in 1982 and has probably > > moved in the wrong direction since then. > > > > I hope in the near future the CEPR will use its communication channels > > to truly inform the public, and point out the extraordinary fact > > that in the past 3 decades not even one paper from the economist > > community has come out looking at those striking facts. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Laurent GUERBY > > http://guerby.org/blog > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
