This underemployment argument MAY have some merit when evaluated against the very short, historically, timeline of the past 14 years which dcoesn't even cover the time since the last big recession but DOES cover the time since the underemployment figure has been tracked. What the author has failed to identify is that the BLS numbers are subject to nearly continual refinement in methodology which makes any simple comparison of similar statistics dangerous and possibly very misleading.

In addition, the underemployed number was not even remotely addressed before the late 1980's yet it existed as surely as it does today. As an employer who employs mostly part time workers the landscape of reporting has changed dramatically from 1960 to now. Small business, which employed more non-government workers than big business in the pre 1980 world, often chose to pay "casual labor" to part time and seasonal workers hence they didn't show up at all -- in any category -- yet they were surely underemployed. At any one time as much as 20% of my workforce may have been casual labor. The requirements for casual labor have tightened and the enforcement has increased to the point that casual labor has almost ceased to exist. It's been that way for at least the last 15 years.

Bottom line is that any time related comparisons are likely to lead down a deadend path for analysis purposes. The evidence of a terrific recession, which has been upon us for at least the past 12 months -- closer to 18 months for most of retail which feels it first and hardest -- has been all around us. Analyzing economic indicators is a sure way to be at least 3 months behind what opening your eyes and looking around will tell you. Jubak, on MSN Money, has put it the best in using his local neighborhood to produce his own relevant numbers that tell him all he needs to know about the current and short-term future state of the economy. Not sure what was gained by reading the article or doing the analysis required to produce it. You'd have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not have a very good clue about the state of things and the short term prospects even if you were an illiterate American!

leif:

Underlying the under-employment numbers and not portraying the full significance of them are 40 years of an increasing portion of the Civilian NonInstitutional Population being a portion of the Civilian Labor Force which can not be dismissed so easily with a nod of the head. One might expect to have seen an impact with the dropping of a part Civilian Labor Force, who are discouraged, into the Not In Labor Force during the nineties. This did not change the upward trend. Mind you, 5% unemployment in the nineties is not the same as 5% unemployment in the first decade of the 21st century as the Civilian NonInstitutional Population as a portion of the Civilian Labor Force ratio was higher as measured just after the 2001 recession.

That the unemployment numbers as reported do not extend back to The Depression is inconsequential to the topic of how well are we doing in 2001-2008 as compared to a the nineties. The answer is job creation is dramatically down and is not being picked up by self-employment and a large segment of the population is no longer a part of the civilian labor force which is a dramatic reversal of 40 years of growth. This offsets the reasoning of a demise of casual labor as the cause to the underemployment. In order to return to the point immediately after the 2001 recession in the Civilian Labor Force would entail adding 2.1 - 2.4 million people to it.

With this new plauteau of less of the Civilian NonInstitutional Population being a part of the Civilian Labor Force since 2001, we have some serious issues with supporting the cost infrastructure of the US. Rather than look at U-3 numbers (which is a joke) or U-6 numbers (closer to reality), we might look at "Jobless Numbers" which is a reflection of my point that a smaller portion of the NonInstitutional Population is a part of the Civilian Labor Force. <link> "Jobless versus Unemployed Men 25 -54" You can also see the percentage increased in 2003 (jobless) and started a trend downward to 2008 and now are again trending upwards and at ~13% as opposed to U-6 numbers of 11%. Add to this that since WWII unemployment for African-Americans has been twice that of White Americans. One can begin to see we have some serious issues not being addressed by the administration in job creation and getting people back to work.

Recession or slump since 2001? I would suggest much of this time period has been a slump. Less people working translates into a slump. Consumption is still the main driver of the economy and not creating something of value. We rely more on people consuming and a smaller percentage of the people are consuming as a result of more people being jobless. I would say the recession is 6 months old and the rest is an economic slump.

Daniel has it pretty much correct. He just misses a percentage of the population that is jobless.

Since I lost my job in February I have been wondering how the unemployment stats account for me. I do not collect unemployment (denied benefits in Florida due to employer) and I have been unsuccessfull getting a job (I'm 58) even though I send out resumes daily. I would be willing to wash floors to earn a living at this point, but no one wants a 58 year old woman, they don't even ackowledge my resumes.

I have been able to cover my mortgage with backup savings, but that is gone now. I have been living by tapping into my small IRA, but the tax implications are horrible and combined with the stock market drop I will have nothing soon. Since I am either considered overqualified for low level jobs, or too old I see very little hope of getting a job. Can't get a loan to open a company. I'll lose my home to foreclosure soon (I'm not a slacker I have alway paid my mortgage regularly in the past), then I'll be unable to buy another home because my credit rating will be shot. My husband is working but may lose his job soon since his bank WaMu was taken over by a New York bank. Honestly I wonder if soon we will be living on the streets. Still it seems I am not part of the unemployment numbers. Why is that? I don't think my case is unusual in this economic crisis, but people rely on unemployment stats that do not even begin to cover the real unemployment figures. Who are they kidding with these useless and erroneous numbers. When I had statistics in college I learned that you can minipulate stats to say what you want to say, to hide the truth or to spin the truth. People wake up, the numbers don't begin to tell you how bad it really is out there!

Delray:

The first thing I would do is appeal your status for unemployment with the state. The employer has to state a reason for denial. I would also maybe sit with a labor attorney, spend the $100, and listen to him, listen to him on how you may be able to secure unemployment. It may be wise to secure him for a few hundred dollars to fight for you. Unless you did something criminal, you should be eligible. The few hundred per week is better than nothing.

If you need help writing your resume, I will help you. There is an art to it. Cleaning houses for cash ($9-$10/hour) is not a bad way to go for now. It will put money in your pocket. If people know you, they are prone to let you in their homes over some stranger.

To answer your question: if you are not getting Unemployment Benefits, you are not counted in Civilian Labor Force or the Unemployed. You are counted in Not In Labor Force, which is not included in the reported Unemployment Rate. Like many others, you have slipped under the radar which makes today's unemployment number (U-3) and also the U-6 numbers deceptive, erroneous, and not a true picture of unemployment.

Go get your benefits and fight for them. They think you will roll over, don't!

Delray, I am sorry to hear about your circumstances, but you are counted among the unemployed. (Cold comfort, perhaps, in light of your struggles.)

run75441, you are mistaken. Someone who is not working, but wants to work, is available to work, and has actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks is unemployed and is included in the unemployment rate. The official national unemployment measures do not consider wheather someone receives or is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The weekly stats on unemployment insurace claims are reported as a separate number. This is not part of the unemployment survey, since many people (like Delray) are not eligible to get benefits or may not apply for them. See How the Government Measures Unemployment online at <link>

econ:

You would be correct in your statement and I do not have to look at the BLS determination of how they calculate the U-3 unemployed number in order to agree with you. Delray would be counted for 4 weeks in the CPS survey of 50,000 people.

Been looking at the alternative numbers (SGS) as of late and the resulting higher number and get wrapped up in them so I miss once in a while.

Even in Calif. in the good times the unemployment rate never got below 4.5 % and that is consided full employment at that number. So really the figure is 2% unemployment. But using the 6.5 number makes a bigger political splash for the tax increases for the Calif. program which is one of the highest paying in the nation. But all those people who work for cash aren't figured in either. There's always the people who work farm/construction jobs and take the winter off each year who come in and out of the program. The people who have moved are counted as stopped looking for work just because their not in that area. Makes for a great sob story if you leave out some facts. 98% are working the way they want to.

about that."

It's amazing to me how illegal immigration is ignored. When the housing bubble burst in California, unemployment did not immediately go up. Did anyone ask why? Nope. The reason is that illegals don't file for unemployment. The either go back to Mexico, work for cash in front of Home Depot, or work the fields.

We have raised an entire generation of young people who have never been in an unemployment line, have spent thousands on tattoos, and have a $ 200 overhead at home due to cell phones, satellite or cable tv, and DSL, and spend $ 100 a month at Starbucks - things that were around until recently and exclaim - "Oh what a terrible economy". Terrible enough that you can turn your back and allow millions of people into the country to work for peanuts and force wages down so low they created "jobs American's won't do". Tell me then: Why are these jobs in America? Because they can't be oursourced! Why do we need to import money from China? Because we refuse to save our own. We are a nation of idiots!

The only solutions to our problems seem to be raising prices with taxes and unionization, but we all know higher prices lead to lower sales. Ask Wal Mart if you don't believe me. That isn't R2D2 in there filling up his shopping cart - it's us.

if you offered us a chance. Call me a fool, I've never seen an unemployed American unwilling to work, and this bull shit that basic labor jobs are beneath us is just a big Lie; they are only justifying their criminal deeds. I live in Chicago and you have millions of jobs here but nothing is put in the papers; they are all reserved for their intended target; be that the elite or the illegals. I wish I could get a factory job; but I'm a US citizen; those jobs are reserved for the illegals.

Good article, but only a small window at best. While many of the upper middle income have seen profitable years in the past fifteen years, the Midwest's blue collar workers have really suffered. Many factories have closed, replaced by jobs that pay half or less than what they used to make. Many can only find retail jobs at near full time hours that pay as low as legally allowed.

I was surprised to discovered that many of the lowest paying jobs aren't even paying minimum wage due to a grace period to meed it. Further, the benefits offered cost so much and offer so little, they are practically worthless.

Many of my colleagues work as freelancers. When times are good, they are very good. But in situations like this and September 11th times are very, very bad.

The people I have mentioned above often find part time work to scrape by. Much like the inflation index, their unemployment numbers paint a rosey picture in comparison to reality.

When I was laid-off in 2003, my lawyer argued that I would most likely face a long period of underemployment. Until that time, I had never heard that term. She was correct. I worked 2, 3, and sometimes 4 jobs simultaneously over the next 4 years making less than half the salary I had become accustomed to making. Last year, I finally became employed in my career position, at two-thirds the salary I used to make. My salary is equivalent to what I made in 1997. I am still underemployed and uncounted. My story is not unusual. I know many middle-class boomers who see their ability to make simple payments to mortgage and utilities become increasingly difficult. Our obligations to insurance and health care rob us of any possibility to think about retirement. My mother retired at age 72 to make sure the mortgage was paid off. My mortgage won't be paid off until I'm 88, assuming I can work that long.

My husband would like to be in the work force and although actively looks for employment, he is not registered with unemployment or is on any "radar" as someone unemployed for the last 8 years. His health has necessitated a move from a career that requires physical agility to a desk job. Entering the work force in a new area in middle-age is difficult at best.

Thank you for addressing the skewed unemployment numbers. I have no solution to accurately count our un and under-employed, but you can see it in the economy, in the failed mortgages, in the failed businesses, and the over-whelmed broken healthcare of our nation.