Ask Auntie Pinko
August 22, 2002

Dear Auntie Pinko,

How do we account for unemployment in the media and politics? With people who are unemployed staying unemployed for considerably longer than their state benefit cycle, how does the government keep track of anyone but those people who are actively collecting unemployment? If the standard is to only report the number of new filings, then it definitely seems as though unemployment figures are not accurate and that it is vastly underreported, to this administration's benefit.

Is there any way to get a more realistic number?

Sincerely,

Mike
Irvine, TX

Dear Mike,

Official "unemployment figures" have always been based on current unemployment benefits recipients, at least as long as unemployment insurance has existed. Mr. Bush's administration benefits from this, but no more than every other administration - which should give you some idea of why this method of reporting hasn't changed in Auntie's memory, no matter how many times people propose changes.

Facts and figures, measurement and reporting, keeping the numbers straight… These are some of the most powerful tools available to the government, but they are often the most disregarded parts of the process when laws are passed or programs are funded. We say what programs "should" accomplish, without always making sure that our public servants have the standards and the resources to give an honest accounting of what they actually do accomplish.

For instance, we can say that "only" a certain percentage of our population falls "below the poverty line," but we have not evaluated what "the poverty line" actually means in more than thirty years! It is based on an obsolete market-basket standard of household costs that is no more relevant to today's family than the amount of ice delivered to their houses to keep the icebox cold. By this standard, a family of three is not "poor" if their yearly household income is $14,270 or more. Auntie Pinko would like to see one government employee, of any party, gender, or age, actually support a household of three people on $14,270. Heck, I'd like to see a single person maintain their health, show up on time for work every day (implying reliable transportation) in decent clothing, eat enough nutritious food to sustain them and have a safe place to sleep every night on that kind of money.

(By the way, for anyone who is wondering, the Federal "minimum" wage is currently $5.15 per hour, meaning that a minimum-wage worker can gross a princely $10,712 a year.)

But back to your question, Mike. Auntie does tend to get a little off the track sometimes. Let's break it down into two parts: Is there a more reliable way to figure out who is unemployed, and, how can we get the government to use a better methodology?

There are literally hundreds of methodologies for trying to track total unemployment, based on a variety of definitions of unemployment. There is long-term and short-term unemployment, there are part-time workers who want to be full time, there are "discouraged workers" who have quit using public job banks, and a host of other questions to resolve. There is also the question of whether a measure can be applied nationally, regionally, or locally.

Use of unemployment benefits can be applied nationally because all states have an unemployment insurance program and it is relatively easy to gather raw numbers about how many people are claiming benefits at any given time. But when you get beyond that - what happens, for instance, when benefits run out - it suddenly becomes more difficult to compare information from different geographic regions. Many states and localities have their own measurement methodologies based on job bank use, social service agency reporting, and other data.

We get more detailed information about employment and unemployment on a nationwide basis every ten years using the Census Bureau's household survey. In between, there are periodic surveys of "samples" that measure a variety of economic and social phenomena, and it's possible that the Bureau could review all these methodologies and adopt one for a regular survey. But these are costly to do. Getting benefits claims numbers on a weekly basis is cheap by comparison.

It may be possible, in other words, Mike, but getting this or any other administration to argue for a new and costly data gathering and reporting mechanism will be a problem. Especially when the result would likely make things look worse for that administration!

The lesson to learn from all this is to take the time up front. When we design a law or a program to solve the problem, we must take the time to consider how we will gather information, what information we will gather, how it will be reported, and how much it will add to the cost of the program.

Thanks for consulting Auntie Pinko!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discussions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: mail@democraticunderground.com, and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.