I had written: > The recent stats showed the size of the US unemployment insurance > rolls falling from the previous month. The pundits saw this as a sign > of possible recovery, perhaps later this year. But: to what extent is > the fall in the number of UI recipients simply the result of (1) the > surge of the unemployment insurance rolls about 6 months ago and (2) > the fact that in a lot of states, UI payments end six months after > they start?
Carl Dassbach wrote: > I was under the impression, at least after talking with officials in the New > York state Office of Unemployment (or whatever it was called) that their > unemployment data was not simply based on the number of people collecting > unemployment but also included estimates, based on a random sample of about > 1000 households a month, which attempted to determine numbers of > "discouraged" workers, or people who want a job but stopped looking and > people who no longer qualify for benefits. no, I wasn't talking about estimates of actual unemployment. Rather, the issue is that of how many people are receiving unemployment insurance benefits. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
