Something quite alarming is occurring with regard to our government's reporting of U.S. unemployment statistics. I'm referring to the US Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics' standard reports regarding our nation's "U.3" unemployment rate. It's bad enough that this statistic is downright irrelevant, since it only accounts for a modest portion of those actually unemployed in our country. But, even that over-publicized number's been grossly "inaccurate" of late. More about that, below, but a little background first.
As many reading this already know, earlier today, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics released its unemployment report for March, 2009.
The government provides us with six different measures of joblessness, labelled "U.1" through "U.6," respectively, with their "U.3" numbers being what we hear widely bandied about at the top of the MSM.
The government's U.3 statistics are described as follows:
Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate).
The government's U.6 statistics are described in their report as:
Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.
Last month's "seasonally adjusted" U.3 rate, publicized in today's news, was: 8.5%.
Last month's "seasonally adjusted" U.6 rate, publicized in today's news, was: 15.6%.
As many have pointed out around the blogosphere, as recently as today, the U.3 rate replaced a statistic similar to the now-far-less-publicized U.6 rate in the mid-1990's, during the Clinton administration. And, ever since, it's the U.3 rate, which only covers a portion of our nation's unemployed and underemployed, of which most Americans are aware today.
What's been occurring of late in these reports is downright mind-boggling. Major revisions to earlier months' U.3 rates--never mind the U.6 rates which more accurately portray our nation's reality, IMHO, even though that statistic is still somewhat of an undercount--are being buried in "released" information about the most recent full month's numbers.
We're told that this is the worst level of unemployment we've seen since the early 1980's; but a true apples-to-apples comparison (using the U.6 statistics) tells us these are actually the worst unemployment levels we've seen since the Great Depression.
What's striking is the recent level of "revisions" to the previous month's numbers (that go virtually unnoticed in the BLS' reports) and how this information is being downright buried in the most recent reports from our government now, as well.
Hat-tip to John Williams over at ShadowStats.com for this observation today:
...In each of the six most recent monthly payroll reports, the prior month's payroll level was revised lower. For October 2008 to March 2009 reporting, the downward revisions to the prior month's seasonally-adjusted payroll level were respectively: 179,000, 199,000, 154,000, 311,000 (still significant net of benchmark revisions), 161,000 and 86,000...
...Net of revisions, the March jobs loss would have been 749,000. Net of the Concurrent Seasonal Factor Bias (CSFB), which reflects the reporting problems, the loss would have been 750,000...
Let me spell it out: The month-to-month unemployment (U.3) rates we've been hearing publicized by our government have been quietly "revised" (they're way off; and we're talking about already grossly understated U.3 numbers, which aren't even close to reality) downward, and then only when they're buried in the following month's reports, in each of the past six months, alone, to the tune of of an undercount of over 1.2 million jobs. In the first three months of 2009, alone, revisions--making god-awful numbers even more horrendous--have been quietly made to prior month's U.3 numbers that account for no less than 558,000 more job losses than we've heard publicized by our government. Looked at another way, on average, if you added a little under 200,000 to every monthly, U.3 job-loss number you're hearing from our government now, you'd be in line with their "revised" statistics which they bury in the following month's report(s). And, again, that's just the grossly-understated U.3 numbers that I'm referencing. Of course, the U.6 numbers are almost twice as bad.
One could say it's like our government is adding insult to injury when it comes to underreporting the severity of the unemployment situation in our country right now.