Will the real unemployment rate please stand up?

September 10, 2014, Princeton University

America's unemployment rate—most recently reported as 6.1 percent—has long been used to gauge the country's economic well-being. But a new working paper released by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs highlights the difficulty in estimating the exact unemployment rate, though changes in the official measure still signal important movements in the economy.

The research, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, finds that the true unemployment rate may be higher or lower than recent reports indicate. In fact, the authors write that published unemployment rates have gradually become more difficult to interpret over time, especially in the last two decades. The researchers cite survey design changes as a likely culprit, in large part because the changes corresponded with an increase in nonresponse rates by Americans.

"It is potentially a huge issue," said Alan Krueger, the Bendheim Professor in Economics and Public Policy at the Wilson School and former chairman of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. "But our results do suggest several important avenues for future research and improvements in the data."

To calculate the unemployment rate, the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics administer the Current Population Survey (CPS), which collects extensive demographic data to better understand labor market fluctuations and economic conditions. The CPS consists of a sample of nearly 60,000 households in all U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Households are surveyed monthly for four consecutive months, left alone for eight months and then surveyed again monthly during the final four months. In any given month, there are eight "rotation groups," depending on how many months the households have been in the survey so far. Each rotation group is designed to be representative of the population. The official unemployment rate is a weighted average of the eight groups.

Krueger and his collaborators—Alexandre Mas, professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton's Wilson School, and Xiaotong Niu, an analyst at the Congressional Budget Office—found that in the first half of 2014, the unemployment rate among people in the first month of being interviewed was 7.5 percent. However, for those in the final month of being interviewed, it was only 6.1 percent. Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics weights the first interview more heavily, the official unemployment rate for this period was 6.5 percent.

This disparity between interview groups, known technically as "rotation group bias," isn't new. But Krueger's paper is the first since 1975 to explore the growing magnitude and evolution of such discrepancies. This new paper shows that rotation-group bias has doubled since 1994, when the CPS underwent a major redesign.

"It is unclear which rotation group provides the most accurate measure of the unemployment rate," said Krueger. "The unemployment rate for each rotation group tends to rise or fall together over time."

Two decades ago, the CPS moved from pen-and-paper questionnaires to computer-assisted phone interviews. They also changed the language and logic behind some of the questions. Shortly after the redesign, CPS began seeing a large rise in nonresponse rates.

Interestingly, the study shows that this same kind of bias isn't found when looking at data from the United Kingdom and Canada, which also use rotating groups to measure their . This finding suggests several avenues for future research including examining the details of the surveys themselves, like the nature of the questionnaire, the interviewing methods and the survey response rates. All, Krueger said, play a pivotal role in shaping the unemployment figure outcomes.

Explore further: Recent job figures: Unusual, but not unprecedented, economist says

More information: The paper, "The Evolution of Rotation Group Bias: Will the Real Unemployment Rate Please Stand Up?," was published online in August by NBER.

Related Stories

Third quarter engineering unemployment data show mixed trends

October 7, 2009

The unemployment rate for U.S. electrical and electronics engineers (EEs), which had jumped to a record high in the second quarter, has eased, according to third quarter data just released by the Department of Labor's Bureau ...

Recommended for you

Can China keep it's climate promises?

March 26, 2019

China can easily meet its Paris climate pledge to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but sourcing 20 percent of its energy needs from renewables and nuclear power by that date may be considerably harder, researchers ...

What happened before the Big Bang?

March 26, 2019

A team of scientists has proposed a powerful new test for inflation, the theory that the universe dramatically expanded in size in a fleeting fraction of a second right after the Big Bang. Their goal is to give insight into ...

Cellular microRNA detection with miRacles

March 26, 2019

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short noncoding regulatory RNAs that can repress gene expression post-transcriptionally and are therefore increasingly used as biomarkers of disease. Detecting miRNAs can be arduous and expensive as ...

In the Tree of Life, youth has its advantages

March 26, 2019

It's a question that has captivated naturalists for centuries: Why have some groups of organisms enjoyed incredibly diversity—like fish, birds, insects—while others have contained only a few species—like humans.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Sep 10, 2014
the unemployment rate may be at 6.1 but the underemployment rate, that is not talked about, people who can't find full time employment is by average 24% per state.
Yep, the great recession is going away.
1 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2014
the unemployment rate may be at 6.1 but the underemployment rate, that is not talked about, people who can't find full time employment is by average 24% per state.
Yep, the great recession is going away.

Do you have a source for that 24% number? I ask because the most up to date numbers I can find is 15.1% I'm not making light of a serious problem but I am interested in accuracy.

not rated yet Sep 12, 2014
The whole unemployment rate is a great example of how politicians manipulate things. Starting in the 20's, they did estimates using a simple head of family status definition for employment. Part time & Gov. work was ignored. After WW2, big changes occurred in the 60's and the 90's. They added gov. workers (never laid off) and part time work, other family as individuals, etc. all to make politicos look good. What I find really interesting is the fact that the US Government has real time data on at least a monthly basis to give an actual count of employment: Social Security taxes. The US gov. knows down to the person what the real employment situation is, exactly how many people there are of working age, working 20, 30, 40 hours, etc. They don't tell us. Why? Bet it is because it makes them look bad. And too many people make a living manipulating the data. Look at published W-4 hours of actual work. Only accurate count they release and it is right at 2008 levels.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.