For  May, 2003:
Labor Dept. says NYC unemployment rate is 8.1%
Census Burea says 7.1%

Same  month--same NYC--how can they differ so much?

HELP!!!!

And, by the way, what is it REALLY?

I'm by no means an authority... but your talking about two different sources of these two statistics.The labor department
pulls their information from "on-the-books" hired hands....so they have a total population of hired hands in their systen from tax paying individuals and when one of those hired hands file for unemployment bennys....there is your %...

As for the census bureau... When was the last census taken?...that's your population base...don't forget the census is all inclusive and normally counts individuals even if they are an illegal alliens,etc...workers whom respond to that poll do not have to classify their income as "off the books"....SOOOOO...in essence the lower unemployment rate is due to the underground economy.
How's that? BTW, Did you report your earnings last week?>....lol...
Cheers!

The Labor Department analyzes the labor market each month from the results of 2 surveys.  The "establishment" survey deals with payroll data (i.e., jobs) for the purpose of analyzing employment trends.  It is concerned with people working and doesn't deal with those not in the labor force or unemployed.  It's the most widely watched indicator of EMPLOYMENT trends.  It's not a monthly average, but rather a "snapshot" in time of those on the survey's payrolls for a particular date of the month.

The unemployment rate comes from a survey called the "household" survey.  It is concerned with people and their employment status, not jobs per se.  As a result, it produces data on both employed and unemployed individuals, and therefore can produce an unemployment rate, which is simply the # unemployed divided by the total of employed + unemployed (i.e., the labor force).  I assume that the NYC #'s come out of the same sample as the national statistics, but it is possible that the labor department could conduct a separate survey for various geographical areas.  In any case, the survey methodology would be the same.  THE LABOR DEPARTMENT SURVEYS ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT MATTER.  The labor department also collects data on weekly unemployment claims (which don't have a thing to do with the compilation of the unemployment rate), the consumer price index, etc.

The census bureau collects tons of important data (retail sales, inventories, new orders, housing starts, etc.), but the unemployment rate is NOT part of their repetoire, so I can't say that I know where that "census bureau NYC unemployment rate" comes from.  But what I can say is that if there is such a thing, it is certainly NOT widely followed.  Unemployment rates are the Labor Department's domain.

But remember this - the smaller the geographical area, the greater the variance and margins of error of the results.  In other words, for any given month, the "true" unemployment rate for NYC could vary significantly from the published result.

This should answer your question.  The topic is much more detailed than this, but the concepts are the same.

The unemployment rate comes from the Current Population Survey which is conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. See the following lifted from the BLS webpage:

"This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current
    Population Survey (household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics
    survey (establishment survey).  The household survey provides the
    information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears
    in the A tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA.  It is a sample survey of about
    60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of
    Labor Statistics (BLS)."

You didn't write speaches for Senator Biden about umpteen years ago...did you?...Your response seems like it came from Prof Irwin Corey....I like mine a lot better... I mean you didn't answer her question at all about the NY unemployment rate, either.Anybody can cut and paste....Your not the same guy who does not post reviews are you?

(sorry, Barbie, I don't know NY's unemployment rate baby)
(I just hope your on the higher % side.)


What was the question?

Cheers!

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but anyone who knows ANYTHING about economics and economic data will understand exactly what I said.  But I'm not going to argue with you - why don't you just call the Labor Department and ask them?  And you know what?  They'll tell you exactly what I said in my prior post.  By the way, if you think I actually bothered to "cut and paste" my response, then please tell us where I was cutting and pasting from.  You may like your response better, but it was not correct.  I didn't refer to anything you said in my post, but having quite a bit of knowledge about economics and economic data, I could have cut it to shreds if I had wanted to.  I don't know why you're taking offense about a topic such as the unemployment rate, but if you want to continue this, be my guest.

Thank you craig77.  I hope VonRyan01 reads your post - maybe he'll believe you.  The BLS, of course, is part of the Labor Department.  As I said in my original post, The Labor Department publishes the "official" unemployment rates.  I'm not aware of any unemployment rate (NYC or otherwise) published by the Census Bureau.  But I do know that the unemployment rate for NYC published by the Labor Dept. is subject to significant "bounce" due to the rather wide margin of error in the sampling process.  Having spent many years dealing with these data, I know that you've got to take some of these results with a grain of salt at times.

your initial post proved you knew nothing about the census burueau's population survey being part of the unemployment %.
You even said so it in your post.

Craigs post evened out the rough edges in my first post.
...in which I was trying to give the layman's version versus your absent minded ecomomist version.

Please read my post carefully.  I'll give you a little more detail, since you seem to be so interested in putting me down.  The census bureau makes the phone calls - the BLS puts the data together and publishes the results.  For the unemployment rate, the data comes from the household survey.  Now, show me where my initial post "proved" that I know nothing about this subject.  Please, continue to make a complete ass of yourself.  While you're at it, explain to us all how your "layman's version" is even remotely close to the definition of the household survey.  Didn't you talk about the "initial claims" data and how that helps determine the unemployment rate?  I would like to know how that works, and so would every other economist on Wall Street, to say nothing of the people down at BLS.  

In fact, let's delve into your "analysis" a bit more deeply.  You said the Labor Department pulls their information from "on-the-books" hired hands (in other words, employed people).  You went on to say that they have a total population (no they don't - they have a sample from payroll data if you're talking about jobs) in their system from tax paying individuals (the data is from establishment payrolls) and when one of those hired hands files for unemployment benefits (if they are working, how do they file an "initial claim" for unemployment benefits?), there is the unemployment rate.  How interesting.  If the data comes from people who work, how do they know who's unemployed?  If you read my post, it explains the difference between the household survey and the establishment survey.  Unemployment claims?  Hell, anybody can file for that, and that doesn't mean you'll get it.  Unemployment claims are a separate series that has not a thing to do with the unemployment rate.  

VonRyan, you started your post by saying that you were "by no means an authority."  You were right, and have proved that to all who are reading these posts.  I didn't even remotely attack you in my original post, but you just had to attack me for some reason known only to you.  Well, you've made a complete fool of yourself, and anyone who knows anything about this subject knows precisely what I'm talking about.  But like I said before, if you want to persist with this (a subject I've dealt with for more than 30 years), be my guest.

boy, you ARE a rabid mofo! what did i tell you just last week about playing nice and not insulting or attacking the very folks you're trying to blend in with (or get advice from)?

of course, the day these guys start giving you advice, is the day i'll clam up for good!  

capiche? that was a joke. decode it. officer/fool/whatever-you-are!

LOL

you can't handle the truth....


...Btw...What was the question?


...So, Anyone know NY's unemployment rate?

Hey, who attacked who?  Please read my first post and show me where I attacked, or even referred to or mentioned VonRyan.  Come on, I tried to add to the conversation and VonRyan went apeshit.  Well, I can't help it if his mental faculties aren't up to the task, but I certainly didn't even remotely start this, as virtually every reader of the thread can clearly see.  By the way, "whatever-you-are?"  A Ph.D. economist would be a good start.

I feel sorry for you VonRyan.  I understand your problem.  It must be very difficult going through life as a mental pygmy, but keep trying.  

Oh, by the way, according to the Labor Department (which Barbie Doll mentioned), NYC's unemployment rate in May was 8.1%, down from 8.3% in April.  Furthermore, they now use a regression model to estimate this, as this smoothes the variance.  Needless to say, you don't have an ice cube's chance in hell of understanding this.  But as you said, you're no expert.

as long as you refuse to answer my questions about that Ivy League school in Boston you claim to have "purchased" a PhD from, merely SAYING that you have is as inane as this quotation of yours (my ATF)

"I know this to be absolutely true" -- villageguy (aka FattyBoy)

perhaps all it takes is to live a self-delusional life.


you know what? i think i'll take on the persona of a Brad Pitt look-a-like playboy millionaire. whatdya think? just to score with the ladies?

hey! THERE'S a novel thought: instead of showing off to us XYs, try to impress the gals (you are here to get help in getting laid, are you not? officer?). but then, perhaps that's precisely what you were doing with/for Barbie!

Ho-Hum!

I'm only playin with you...can't you make those inferences from the tone of my posts and the Prof.Irwin Corey references.
C'mon...this is the NY erotic review board not the Employment weekly...I never went "apeshit" on you at all....C'mon where are your Cajones.This is the big apple man.Chill out!

An American tourist went to a restaurant in a
Spanish town and asked for the specialty of the
house. When the dish arrived, he asked what kind
of meat the potpie contained?"

The waiter replied, "They are, how you say,
testicles of the bull killed in the Rincon
today. We call them Cojones."

The tourist found the dish delicious, and
after some wine, decided he would come back
within 2 days.

On his return, he asked for the same dish.
"But these Cajones are much smaller than the
ones I had 2 days ago." said the tourist.

"True, Senior, but the bull, he does not always
lose."

OK, VonRyan, let's smoke the peacepipe together and be done with this nonsense.  I was just surprised when you jumped on me after I had made no reference to you and said nothing to offend you in my first post.  Given that this was a subject that I know rather well, I decided to persue it a bit further.  But I do agree with you that talk on this board should center on sex and not on monthly unemployment rates.  Lord knows I deal enough with that in my business life.

So let's go on to the next subject, peacefully and without the rancor.  Keep the jokes coming - they make your posts much more pleasurable!

hey, do i KNOW you?  

LOL

I know you may find this hard to believe, but you may, or at least there's some probability that you might know who I am in "real life."  But who knows?  We all use monikers on these boards, and we'll never know who each of us is in reality.  But if you and I are close in age, there's some chance (albeit small perhaps) that we may have a mutual friend, or at least a mutual acquaintance.  Wouldn't that be a piss?

since by the six-degrees-of-separation doctrine i would also have to know nearly all the "village idiots" and farmers in the Shanxi Province in China!



(you can have the "last" word)