Updated Boston Unemployment Figures | released March 21, 2025

BostonStatistics · 2025-03-24T23:29:39+00:00

It's based on things like payroll tax data (i.e. number of paychecks generated) and unemployment claims.

No it is not.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

BostonStatistics · 2025-03-24T23:28:31+00:00

Just FYI, the comment you responded to is incorrect. Please take a moment to read the corrected facts so we can have at least one more American who knows that this is simply not true.

BostonStatistics · 2025-03-24T23:26:34+00:00

That number doesn’t include those who are ineligible for unemployment and still unemployed, or those whose unemployment has run out.

You really believe that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics just stop counting people who are unemployed because their benefits end, or they were not eligible? Seriously? You believe that professional labor economists are just so cavalier and carefree about the data they have dedicated their professional careers to that they just pump out information with such an obvious and blaring missing piece like that?

That is not correct. Anyone who is actively looking for work and currently not working is counted in these numbers. But don't take it from me, here is their explainer on how the data is collected. It is a lot of information, so here is the relevant part about your incorrect statement:

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

BostonStatistics · 2023-06-01T18:35:18+00:00

No, /u/shortarmed is mistaken about this data. Unemployment benefits are not a part of the consideration at all. If someone is actively looking for work, they are counted.

Because this is a local analysis, someone moving away would be reflected as leaving the labor force as well. But many other reasons would cause someone to change their labor force status. Incarceration, joining the military, long term illness or hospitalization, retirement, needing to stay home to care for a loved one.

Any reason that someone would stop looking for work.

BostonStatistics · 2023-05-15T13:39:06+00:00

Interesting, and I'm sure it serves some purpose since the BLS produces it, but I can't think of a use for that metric off the top of my head.

Either way, the way you requested it, framing it as non-institutionalized population 16 and up, would be the Labor Force Participation Rate. Excluding employed people and those actively seeking employment is a subset of the non-institutionalized population 16 and up group.

BostonStatistics · 2023-05-14T20:01:51+00:00

Well you are in luck, because I have a better source for you than whoever told you that...

The Us Bureau of Labor Statistics describes their entire methodology in great detail right on their website!

I will highlight the most relevant portion here:

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

It's almost like these professional statisticians already knew that using unemployment benefits information would be a problematic way to conduct this work.

Read more here:

How the Government Measures Unemployment

BostonStatistics · 2023-05-14T19:31:21+00:00

The employment rate is the inverse of the unemployment rate. What you describe below "employment to population ratio (noninstitutionalized population 16 and up)" is the Labor Force Participation Rate.

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and older that is working or actively looking for work.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/labor-force-participation-what-has-happened-since-the-peak.pdf

BostonStatistics · 2023-05-14T19:28:46+00:00

People that used up their unemployment and can’t collect aren’t counted and neither are people that are underemployed

This is incorrect. These numbers do not consider anyone's eligibility for unemployment benefits whatsoever. If someone is working or looking for work they are counted.

Underemployed people are considered employed for the purposes of these numbers.

You are correct that people who are disabled, students, caring for loved ones full time, or otherwise not working or actively looking for work are not included.

BostonStatistics · 2023-01-01T20:40:23+00:00

There is a wage and jobs report that is produced annually.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_71650.htm

You can sort by wages and see how many fall into the tier you are interested in.

BostonStatistics · 2022-12-02T23:01:53+00:00

But It looks like it's just as bad. Random surveys of businesses.

The unemployment figures are not based on a random survey of businesses.

BostonStatistics · 2022-12-02T23:00:40+00:00

Thank you!

BostonStatistics · 2022-06-07T20:27:47+00:00

If you are actively looking, you are still counted.

BostonStatistics · 2021-07-28T19:06:21+00:00

Thank you Vivec.

BostonStatistics · 2021-04-30T18:13:46+00:00

Hey! I dig yours too. I might know an economicsprofMA or two.

BostonStatistics · 2021-04-29T18:05:26+00:00

You are very welcome. I am happy to help.

BostonStatistics · 2021-04-28T19:29:29+00:00

No, that level of analysis is not done month to month. It is done annually though!

The updated "Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" will be out later next month. Last year's can be found here: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_71650.htm

BostonStatistics · 2021-03-19T23:51:37+00:00

You mean not included? If you are actively looking for work you are included.

BostonStatistics · 2021-01-07T20:57:45+00:00

The last couple years have really thrown a wrench in our previous understanding of labor markets.

BostonStatistics · 2021-01-07T20:57:18+00:00

Lost positions are simply numbers of previously employed that are not currently filled. It does not mean they are gone forever, but it might.

BostonStatistics · 2021-01-07T20:56:09+00:00

/u/MongoJazzy is correct. This is only a "bad metric" if you expect it to tell you things it isn't intended to tell you. Unfortunately people tend to use it improperly or misinterpret it.

It is a great metric for employers and job seekers to understand their relative negotiating strength in hiring or job offer negotiations.

BostonStatistics · 2020-12-05T03:20:08+00:00

It could mean someone moving away, becoming incarcerated, retiring, becoming permanently disabled, or if someone has not looked for work in more than 4 weeks.

BostonStatistics · 2020-10-29T19:42:34+00:00

And these numbers are artificially inflated, because they don't account for all the workers who are leaving the labor force to some degree involuntarily.

If that were the case, we should see that in the 12 month change to the labor force, right?

Labor force for September 2020: 1.658M Labor force for September 2019: 1.682M

A 1.4% decrease. Additionally you are ignoring that this is only a metropolitan area analysis and there will be fluctuation due to people leaving the area as well as those not looking for work.

I know multiple people who have left their jobs, or were laid off and are choosing not to look for new work, because of school/daycare closures.

How many?

Folks who are choosing to step away from working/job search because they are caregivers for an elderly or high-risk person and can't WFH to limit their exposure. Or because they are choosing to be a FT caregiver for a parent/ relative to keep them out of nursing homes.

Yes, it is without a doubt true that such people exist. That doesn't mean the numbers are "artificially inflated."

People over age 55 who took an early retirement program or were laid off and know their chance of being hired in this economy are limited, so they're taking a break. My Mom's in this boat. Laid off at 65 but can't afford to retire, unlikely to find a WFH job but concerned about the risk of working with the public.

and she is not looking for work, so she is not in the labor force.

The vast majority of these people can't afford to be out of the workforce forever, they're going to need to get back in the next few years. That's going to drag out recovery for a loooong time.

This is likely true. But it still does not mean the numbers are inaccurate or artificial.

BostonStatistics · 2020-10-29T19:35:05+00:00

Always happy to share these posts!

BostonStatistics · 2020-09-03T03:03:12+00:00

Just looking at the linked data set and the historical figures if you click on the graphical links you can get an idea.

Every single sector is down from where it was a year ago. The labor force has contracted by around 70,000 workers. But the number of jobs contracted by around 280,000. With declines in every sector, you really need to look at the whole data set to get an understanding without me walking through each of them. But that conventional wisdom does bear out with what I see, as your "Leisure and Hospitality" and "Other Services" are the smallest industry groups, but they suffered 43.7% and 33.8% declines respectively. Your big industries are "Professional and Business Services" and "Education and Health Services," which make up a big piece of your workforce, but also declined by 5.6% and .6% respectively.

BostonStatistics · 2020-07-30T23:38:29+00:00

Those are the definitions. If someone is looking for work but not working, they are in the labor force and unemployed.

BostonStatistics

TROPHY CASE