On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:43:06 -0500, "gumboman" <noem...@noemail.com>
wrote:

No, the unemployment rate today would not be about 12% if calculated
the same as in 1960.  That's more absurd than claiming the earth is
flat.  It really is.   If anything, the unemployment rates for 1960s
would actually be higher, and today lower, if the same criteria was
used today as back in 1960s.

That's because among the very few substantive changes in how
unemployment rate has been calculated in time since, one has been to
count women today as being unemployed who would have been categorized
as mome-makers in 1960s, and thus not being part of the workforce.
What that basically means is that if the unemployment rate today was
calculated as it was in 1960s, it would be even lower than the offical
4.6% rate for the month of May, 2006, not about 12% as you bizarrely
claim.  So the reality is actually the opposite of what you claim.

Anyway, I thought I had covered this back in January the last time a
similar claim was made.  From what I had written in January:

"The most substantial changes to how unemployment rate was calculated
were made in 1954 and 1961 and 1993.  In 1993 the questionaire was
changed so as to actually INCREASE the number of women counted as
unemployed, not to decrease the number counted as unemployed.  A
trivial change happened during Reagan's term in 1983 that had the
effect of lowering unemployment rate by a tiny one tenth of one
percent for the next decade.  But that trivial change was rescinded
back in 1994. "  

from:  http://www.drfurfero.com/books/p231book/ch04.html

Historical Comparability of the BLS Surveys

Over the years, the Census Bureau has changed its methodology for
constructing the employment and unemployment data. Originally, a
person was unemployed only if he actually looked for work. In 1940, it
was decided to classify non-lookers as unemployed, if they said they
had not looked for work because they guessed no work was available.
These figures were kept in a separate count until 1945, when it was
decided to drop the distinction between "active" and "inactive"
unemployed.

In 1954, the BLS revamped its field forces and increased the size of
the sample area. That year, the old method found 2.4 million
unemployed persons, while the new method uncovered 3.1 million
unemployed persons --- a difference of 22%!

In 1961, the BLS shifted from 14 year-olds to 16 year-olds as the
basis for labor force definition. During the Reagan presidency,
officials suggested changing that definition to 18 years of age or
older. Since younger persons typically have higher unemployment rates,
their elimination from the labor force would automatically reduce the
number of unemployed and the overall unemployment rate. The suggested
change was never implemented.

In 1983, the BLS added a new unemployment measure, called "total
employment," which included armed serices members on active duty in
the U.S. as employed members of the labor force. Prior to 1983, all
military personnel were excluded from the civilian unemployment rate.
BLS added the measure in response to a recommendation by the National
Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, an independent
panel convened in 1978 to evaluate and recommend improvements to the
nation's system of labor market information. The Commission determined
that with the change to a volunteer military, military employment was
not substantively different from civilian employment. Hence, the
recommendation that the resident military be counted in employment and
in the labor force totals and thus be reflected in an overall
unemployment rate. The new unemployment rate for the total labor force
was usually about one-tenth of one percentage point lower than the
civilian rate (occasionally it was two-tenths lower). For instance, in
1983, the total unemployment rate (including the Armed Forces) was 9.5
percent, while the civilian unemployment rate was 9.6 percent. In
1993, the total unemployment rate was 6.7 percent, while the civilian
unemployment rate was 6.8 percent.

The BLS discontinued its use of "total employment" in 1994 for three
(3) main reasons:

The Department of Defense data on resident armed forces were
problematic. First of all, each branch of the armed services
classified its troops differently. Second, many of the troops involved
in Desert Storm were not in residence within the U.S., yet they were
still classified as residents because their official stations were not
changed from their U.S. posts.

Only the New York Times reported the total rate rather than the
civilian rate.

The BLS did not have the same detailed demographic data on members of
the armed forces as it had on the civilian labor force. This data
deficiency made for difficult comparisons of particular demographic
classifications, e.g., black teens, in the civilian labor force with
the same demographic classifications in the total rate.
One of the most recent changes occurred in November 1993, after the
Labor Department discovered a bias in its old survey. The questions in
the old survey failed to capture many societal changes, such as the
continuing growth in service-sector employment; the more prominent
role of women, particularly mothers, in the labor force; and shifts in
the nature of employment, including more part-time work and less
permanent attachment of employees to their employers.
Under the old procedure, the interviewer asked the respondent to
choose between alternatives, that could wrongly seem to be mutually
exclusive. The interviewers often assumed that people who were keeping
house were out of the labor force and did not ask if the respondent
was on layoff or looking for work. This had the effect of dropping
significant numbers of unemployed women from the labor force, lowering
the unemployment rate. As a result, many women who were seeking jobs
were erroneously described as homemakers and, therefore, not counted
as being in the labor force. In addition, the old survey miscounted
laid-off and so-called discouraged workers.

In 1993, the BLS changed the nature of the questions its interviewers
were asking of the households. The questions in the new survey attempt
to correct for these biases. Under the new procedures, the interviewer
asks a series of "Yes" or "No" questions better designed to determine
whether or not the respondent is part of the work force. Housework is
not mentioned and the interviewer is not allowed the discretion to
shape the question depending upon the sex or age of the respondent.

The following explains the differences to BLS questionaire made in
1993 and how the old way actually lowered the unuemployment rate.

http://www.drfurfero.com/books/p231book/ch04a2.html