China will own 1 trillion US dollars

By American standards, good but not great -- but I see no evidence that any of them is "fücked up", which was your original claim.

Turning to the international comparison that started our exchange, I also don't see how those different measure would affect what was my original claim: that German unemployment is about twice as high as American unemployment. I expect that the corresponding 6 unemployment measures would bear that out. Admittedly, I don't have 6 internationally comparable unemployment measures to prove my claim. But at least the OECD maintains one set of standardized unemployment rates, suitable for comparisons between countries. (PDF here). As it turns out, the difference between America and Germany does narrow somewhat after correcting for the varying national definitions of "unemployment". But it doesn't narrow nearly enough to support your point or refute mine.

Nevertheless, thanks for the data and the plots. I find them interesting.

Well, my point had more to do with the declassification of people as 'looking for work,' seasonal adjustment, and other number games that are used to take the unemployment number which is given out (which already shows a lower picture of our true situation) and drive it even farther down for political reasons.

I know Germany has higher unemployment than the US, but the 4.7% number that is trumpeted about for the US is simply ridiculously inaccurate.

Cycloptichorn

I think Cycloptichorn is being ingenuous.

I am fully aware of the different utilizations of U-1, U-2, U-3 , U-4 etc.

I have some questions for Cyclopitchorn--

Why does the media use U-3?

Has the media always used U-3 even in the Clinton years?

Why does the chart presented by Cycloptichorn only cover 2004?

Where is 2005 and 2006?



It is clear that Cyclopitchorn has NOT READ the government report 864--

This Report is titled HOW THE GOVERNMENT MEASURES UNEMPLOYMENT

IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1994

HTTP://www.bls.gov.cps.cps_htgm.htm

I will quote from Page 8 of the report


QUOTE

"Is there only one official definition of unemployment?

YES, there is only one official definition of unemployment and that was discussed above. However, a number of analyists believe this measure to be too restricted, that it does not adequately capture the breadth of labor market problems. For this reason, economicsts at BLS developed a set of alternative measures of labor underutilization, These measures are published every month in the Employment Situation news release, They range from a very limited measure that includes only those who have been unemployed( as officially defined) for 15 weeks or more to a very broad one that includes total unemployed( as officially defined), all marginally atttacked workers, and all persons employed part time for economic reasons>"

end of quote

Note that the "very limited measure" referred to above is U-1, NOT U-3.

Thomas' evidence- The OECD Standardized Rates show that the US has the lowest Unemployment among all the EU countries.

I do not know why Cyclopitchorn does not accept the OECD measure, It may be that it plays havoc with his political agenda.

Surely, Cyclopitchorn does not think that the USA CONTROLS the OECD!

I have seen no evidence that this is a fact.

Anyone who knows the makeup of the OECD is aware that its figures are not swayed by political considerations--





Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development



PARIS 14th December 1960

THE GOVERNMENTS of the Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Belgium, Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Greece, the Republic of Iceland, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Portuguese Republic, Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Swiss Confederation, the Turkish Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America;

CONSIDERING that economic strength and prosperity are essential for the attainment of the purposes of the United Nations, the preservation of individual liberty and the increase of general well-being;

I wasn't aware the US has joined the EU. But now that I've learned, I'm looking forward to seeing them introduce sensible units of measurement at last.

Two points: (1) If that was your point, it would have helped if you hadn't asserted that your unemployment rate is "close to" ours -- which is patently false. (2) I simply don't see how the American definition of unemployment makes it look "simply ridiculously inaccurate". According to your own explanation, the widely reported unemployment rate is definded as:

[t]otal unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force. This is the Official Unemployment Rate that is reported monthly in the media.

... where "civilian labor force" is defined as the set ...

which includes all civilians who are employed (even just barely), plus unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs.

... and the "total unemployed" is defined as follows:

The official unemployment rate, U3, includes all unemployed persons who are actively seeking work.

I'm sorry, but I'm looking at a perfectly reasonable definition of "unemployment" here. If your point was that this isn't the only reasonable definition, and that there's something to be said for the others, I'would agree. But your contention is that U3 isn't a reasonable definition. Instead you find it "simply ridiculously inaccurate". And with that, I strongly disagree.

All those employment rates are made up as those whose unemployment benefits run out are no longer listed as "unemployed". The numbers look good but those poor unemployed guys are still without jobs even though they have been de-listed.

US Economics texts use the U-3 measure as the measure of Unemployment in the USA.

US Economics texts cite any U-3 measure UNDER 5.0% as tantamount to full employment.

Quote from "Economics"- Fisher, Dornbusch and Schmalensee--

P. 602

Unemployment numbers that was broadly consistent with full employment seems to center around a 5% rate....The notion that there should be some unemployment at full employment is a strange one unless we think about the fact that the economy is constantly changing, with new jobs being created and old one being destroyed and with people moving in and out of the labor market. There are always bound to be people out of work looking for a job no matter how healthy the economy is on the average.

end of quote

Thomas- My error I should have said that the US has the lowest unemployment WHEN COMPARED to the EU countries.

Any perusal of the Business Pages of large American Newspapers will show that the 4.7% Unemployment rate appears to be causing a slight rise in inflation. This means, of course, that workers are demanding more money and the firms are going to be obliged to give the raises since there are not that many people out there to fill the jobs.

In June 2006, the lowest rates of all EU-countrieswere registered in the
- Netherlands (3.8%),
- Denmark (3.9%),
- Ireland (4.4%),
- Luxembourg (4.7%).
Unemployment rates were highest in Poland (16.0%), Slovakia (15.1%), Greece (9.6% inthe fourth quarter 2005), France (8.7%), and Malta (8.5%).

Euro area seasonally-adjusted unemployment stood at 7.8% in June 2006, compared to 7.9% in May. It was 8.6% in June 2005. [Euro area: Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland.]

The EU unemployment rate was 8.1% in June 2006, compared to 8.2% in May. It was 8.8% in June 2005.

(source: Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities)

In June 2006, the US unemployment rate was 4.6% and the Japanese rate was 4.2%.

Thank You, Walter Hinteler!! A good job, now, will you do me the favor of giving that information to a certain Mr. Cyclopitchorn?

- Netherlands (3.8%),
- Denmark (3.9%),
- Ireland (4.4%),
- USA (4.6%)
- Luxembourg (4.7%)

Your point is well taken, Mr. Hinteler, However, if you go back through this thread and access the link given by Thomas for the OECD, you will find the following:


UNDER

OECD STANDARDIZED UNEMPLOYMENT RATES-PERCENTAGE OF CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE--PARIS JULY 7, 2006

OECD TOTAL---6.1%

EU 15------------7.4%

Euro. Area-------7.9%


You are correct in pointing out that the tiny countries of Denmark, Ireland and The Netherlands have lower unemployment but you must agree that the USA can never catch up to Denmark and the Netherlands in the area of Pornography and Whoredom. They are by far the world leaders in those areas and it seems that accounts for their lowered Unemployment rates!

USA--------------4.6%

Although your counterargument started out in the right direction, your predisposition to name-calling (directed against countries this time) clouded your judgment again. The proper counter-argument would have started by admitting that yes, the unemployment rate is somewhat higher in the US than in some European countries. You could then go on -- as you did -- by pointing out that the Netherlands, Denmark, and Luxembourg are fairly small. So small, indeed, that it would be easy to find chunks of comparable size with comparable performance in the US. (Perhaps Silicon Valley? Greater Seattle? Florida? I haven't checked, but I'm sure you can find something.) The proper comparison is between comparable chunks of land and people, such as the US as a whole and Europe as a whole.

Thomas- My pejoratives( I really like the Dutch and the Danes) were aimed at the ubiquitous Nimh who, it is apparent, feels that anything that is European is to be preferred to the USA model.

Forget it.

Gandalf strikes again.