Yesterday, I heard a news story on the radio that said the federal government was claiming the unemployment rate had decreased from 7.7% to 7.6%, and gave a change in number of people with jobs. The reported change in people with jobs was a significantly smaller number than has been required for the jobless rate to go down. (An increase in the number of people with jobs doesn't necessarily mean a lower unemployment rate because of factors such as the increasing population.) So, it seemed like some juggling of figures was going on, but there was no hint of that in the radio story.
An explanation was provided in the NY Times economics blogs
As some of you will know, one of the ways the government hides unemployment is by not counting people who were laid off, put great effort into seeking another job but after a long fruitless search finally stopped bothering to look. Much of the economic reporting in the mainstream press might have left you with the impression that job prospects were improving. At best, it's not that clear. The NY Times item informs us:
The household survey also found the labor force participation rate – the proportion of people at least 16 years of age who were working or looking for work – fell to 63.3 percent, the lowest rate since 1979.
In other words, the percentage of people working or looking for work appeared lower than at any time since the economic crisis that began in 2008 - or at the worst point during the 1981-82 recession. But during the last period, the government has kept telling us month after month that the unemployment rate was getting lower and lower.
The blog notes that the household survey figures do tend to fluctuate as they are based on information from a sample population of 60,000. On the other hand, it notes:
Particularly notable in the latest report is that the participation rate for men 45 to 54 fell to 85.3 percent in March. That is only a dip of 0.1 percentage point from February, but it is the lowest level since the figure was first recorded in 1948.
This seems to be a lot more than a sampling blip. The figure from the 45 to 54 age group also makes clear retirement is not a factor. It seems most consistent with the view the "lower" unemployment rates are at least in part the result of people who have lost hope of ever finding work.