The Deception of U.S. Unemployment Figures

Leave a comment

selfmade image of U.S. Unemployment rate from ...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s report on U. S. unemployment put the rate at 9.8%. That is bad news in itself, but what is worse is that the actual rate of unemployment is in the double digits. The Clinton Administration changed the way the number of the unemployed were counted by excluding those individuals who had given up and were no longer seeking work. Thus, since the mid-1990s the American public has been fed deceptive figures from the U. S. government.

Statistics is a legitimate field and a good tool for understanding a wide range of data. However, the validity of statistical methods depends on a number of items, including what population on which the data is based. Limiting unemployment figures to those actively seeking work or excluding those whose unemployment benefits were recently extended from government data on unemployment leaves out thousands, perhaps millions, of the unemployed. People stuck in areas with few jobs who cannot find work can easily become discouraged. Some live with family members and help around the house; others live the best they can on government assistance. They are not necessarily lazy people who do not wish to work; they have been beaten down so much by disappointment that they do not try to seek employment. But people who have not looked for a job in the previous four weeks or more are just as unemployed as those individuals who were laid off a week ago. The real unemployment level may be closer to the levels in the latter stages of the Great Depression–close to 15%.

The American people have the right to know the truth from their government. Both political parties have profited from downsizing the true unemployment rate. Congress should insist that unemployment figures include all the unemployed–but since lower figures benefit them, too, it is doubtful that anything will change too. If the American people put sufficient pressure on elected officials to force the Department of Labor Statistics to count all the unemployed, that is the only way the situation could change and the true statistics be revealed. People in power lie enough to the American people without their cynically manipulating the employment statistics to keep them in power.


Leave a comment

Bureaucracy cover art

Image via Wikipedia

Susan, 55, has worked for a corporation for thirty years. Most of the time, that corporation was small, and even upper management was able to visit most branches of the business. For years, her vacations had to be approved only by her immediate supervisor.

One day, Susan gives her request for three days’ vacation to her supervisor’s new secretary. The secretary glances at her request, returns it to Sue, and gives her another form. “You need to fill out this form for vacation requests. They must be approved by both your supervisor and your senior manager. Susan protests. “In the past I’ve always given my request to my supervisor.” The secretary waves her off and says, “No paperwork, no vacation.” Susan walks away, furious, feeling powerless, and almost in tears–but she fills out the form anyway.

Most of us, if not all of us, must deal with bureaucracy in some areas of our lives. We may work for a large organization with a complex bureaucracy. We may have to deal with banks, electric and water companies, and other organizations that provide the necessities of life. Most of us find ourselves frustrated at bureaucracy in our lives. Why is that the case? Is it just a matter of the time it takes to go through person after person on the phone before we find help? Is it a matter of the loads of paperwork we have to fill out? In most cases, those reasons are adequate. But when it comes to dealing with bureaucracy in our workplace, as in Susan’s situation, there may be a more fundamental reason.

Most people recognize the need for complex authority structures as organizations grow. There must be a clear hierarchy and clear procedures for business to be accomplished; otherwise an organization would function poorly, and perhaps fail. But there are cases in which a bureaucratic structure can interfere with good employer-employee relations. The problem is a matter of trust.

No employee wants to work for a company she does not trust. Corporations require some level of trust to encourage loyality and hard work. But a corporation, without being naive, should trust its employees. Management should not assume that the employees are essentially lazy and “out to get” the employer (as in Theory X management). This will only result in a hostile work force.

Adding layers of bureaucracy, especially with a lack of good communication with employees, sends a clear message to employees: “We do not trust you.” For example, in Susan’s situation, upper management apparently changed policy on vacation requests without informing lower-level employees. Susan may think (and she might be right) that such action reveals a fundamental distrust of employees (“we’ll do this without consulting our workforce; this is an executive decision, and the workers can find out about the new policy as they make vacation requests”). Such action may also reflect a belief by management that employees will take advantage of their vacation time.

Now Susan may be wrong about all this. Management’s decision might be related to a desire to know when workers will be on vacation company-wide in order to discern patterns and make appropriate plans. And the lack of communcation might be due to the slowness of communication in any large bureaucracy. Even if that is the case, we can understand why Susan is upset–and why we would most likely be upset in similar situations.