1 DOCUMENT RESUME ED 022 895 VT 005 217 By-Stein, Robert L. NEW DEFINITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Dept. of Labor), Washington, D.C. Pub Date 67 Note-26p.; Reprint Journal Cat-Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force; Feb 1967 EDRS Price MF-5025 HC-S1.12 Desuiptors-EMPLOYEES, *EMPLOYMENT LEVEL, INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS, LABOR ECONOMICS, LABOR FORCE, LABOR FORCE NONPARTICIPANTS, OCCUPATIONAL SURVEYS, *RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, UNEWLOYED, *UNDFLOYMENT Improvements in methods for measuring employment and unemployment that went into effect in January 1967, new definitions, and comparisons of data collected by the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the new Monthly Labor Survey (MLS) are presented. The improvements are in line with the recommendations of the Gordon Committee in its 1962 report. Some changes are expanding the sample to 52,500 households, raising the lower age limit from 14 to 16 years, sharpening and clarifying the definition of unemployment, improving the reporting on other items such as hours of work and self employment, and developing a body of new information for persons not in the labor force. On the whole, the new MLS shows a slightly lower unemployment rate than the CPS. Fourteen tables comparing MLS and CPS data include (1) Employment Status by Color, Age, and Sex, Annual Average 1'166, (2 ) Major Unemployment Rates, (3) Unemployment by Age and Sex, (4) Unemployed Persons by FuN- or Part-Time Status, Age, and Sex, and (5) Employed Persons by Clac ..:f Worker and Occupational Group. (MM)
27
Embed
1 DOCUMENT RESUME VT 005 217 - ERIC1. DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 022 895. VT 005 217. By-Stein, Robert L. NEW DEFINITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Dept.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 022 895VT 005 217
By-Stein, Robert L.NEW DEFINITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (Dept. of Labor), Washington, D.C.
Pub Date 67Note-26p.; ReprintJournal Cat-Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force; Feb 1967
FORCE, LABOR FORCE NONPARTICIPANTS, OCCUPATIONAL SURVEYS, *RESEARCH METHODOLOGY,
UNEWLOYED, *UNDFLOYMENTImprovements in methods for measuring employment and unemployment that went
into effect in January 1967, new definitions, and comparisons of data collected by the
Current Population Survey (CPS) and the new Monthly Labor Survey (MLS) are
presented. The improvements are in line with the recommendations of the Gordon
Committee in its 1962 report. Some changes are expanding the sample to 52,500
households, raising the lower age limit from 14 to 16 years, sharpening and clarifying
the definition of unemployment, improving the reporting on other items such as hours
of work and self employment, and developing a body of new information for persons
not in the labor force. On the whole, the new MLS shows a slightly lower unemployment
rate than the CPS. Fourteen tables comparing MLS and CPS data include (1)
Employment Status by Color, Age, and Sex, Annual Average 1'166, (2 ) Major
Unemployment Rates, (3) Unemployment by Age and Sex, (4) Unemployed Persons by
FuN- or Part-Time Status, Age, and Sex, and (5) Employed Persons by Clac ..:f Worker
and Occupational Group. (MM)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE
OFFICi OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION
POSITION OR POLICY.
NEW DEFINITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENTAND UNEMPLOYMENT
Reprinted from February 1967 Employment and EarDingaand Monthly Report on the Labor Force
Ei)oaa 815U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 3,
Bureau of Labor Statistics
cs
NEW DEFINITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT
Some improvements in the methods formeasuring employment and unemploymentwent into effect this month with the pub-lication of the January1967 statistics fromthe Current Population Survey (CPS). Theimprovements are in line with the basicrecommendations of the President' s Com-mittee to Appraise Employment and Un-e mp loyment Statistics (The GordonCommittee) , as set forth in its 1962 report,Measuring Employment and Unemploy-ment.
The sample has been expanded to 52,500households, the lower age limit has beenraised from 14 to 16 years, the definitionof unemployment has been sharpened andclarified, the reporting on other itemssuch as hours of work and self employmenthas been improved, and, finally, a consid-erable body of new information is beingdeveloped for persons not in the laborforce.
Although the concept of unemploymentthat was being used in the CPS has beenwidely accepted, it has been pointed out by
the Gordon Committee and others thatsome of the procedures were inadequate--in particular, they relied in.. too manyinstances on volunteered information, andthey depended on questions which were not
sufficiently detailed.
The Committee acknowledged that nosingle measure of unemployment would
by Robert L. Stein*
satisfy all users of the statistics but did
see a need for more precise boundariesbetween the unemployed and those not inthe labor force and )r more detailedclassification within each of the twogroups.
The Committee set forth five generalcriteria to be used in defining the conceptof unemployment:
1. The concept should correspond toobjectively measurable phenomena andshould depend as little as possible onpersonal opinion or subjective attitudes.
2. The concept should be operationallyfeasible.
3. The definition used should be readilyunderstandable and broadly consistent withthe common under standing of theseconcepts.
4. The definition should not be soinclusive that it yields figures which aredifficult to interpret.
5. The concept should reflect the usualmarket criteria used in measuring thenational output--an unemployed personwould be one seeking work yielding amonetary reward.
In translating these broad criteria intospecific definitions and procedures, theCommittee made the following recommen-dations:
*Of the Division of Employment and Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of LaborStatistics.
1
1. That the definition of employmentcontinue to be based on work activity orjob attachment during a specified calendarweek, and that it include part-time workersregardless of the number of hours theyworked or the reason they worked parttime.
2. That the definition of unemployment
should be based on recent jobseekingactivity--that is, the person must havetested the labor market through someovert jobseeking effort within a specifiedtime period--and current availability forwork. Thus the unemployment definitionwas to be based on current labor marketactivity (rather than financial hardship orsome other criteria).
3. That the definition of unemploymentshould include persons on layoff waiting to
be called back to a job and persons whowere waiting to report to new jobs within
30 days, if they were currently availablefor work.
Proposals to limit the definition tofamily breadwinners or to exclude the veryshort-term unemployed were rejected.Moreover, the fact that a person would
accept only certain job offers, or had quitone job to look for another, or would notqualify for certain jobs was not consideredto be a valid criterion in deciding his laborforce classification. At the same time,persons who were idle and not seekingwork because they believed none availablewere to be excluded from the unemployed,but a great deal of supplementary infor-mation was to be collected about the workexperience and current status of personsoutside the labor force.
2
In summary, the basic definition of un-employment was to be that personswithout
jobs who were seeking work and wereavailable for work, plus those on layoffor waiting to start new jobs, were un-employed.
The ,Committee recommended that aseparate sample be established to experi-ment with a sharpened definition of unem-ployment and to test questions designed to
yield gr eater accuracy and more infor-mation about all c o mp one nt s of theemployed, the unemployed, and personsoutside the labor force.
The Experimental Sample
A research sample was placed inoperation by the Bureauof Labor Statisticsin cooperation with the Census Bureau inApril 1964. This sample was called theMonthly Labor Survey (MLS) and wasselected in the same manner as the
Current Population Survey (CPS); that is,
it was an area probability sample of theentire United States. The initial samplefor MLS was comprised of 8,750 house-holds per month--one-fourth the size ofthe CPS--located in 105 sample areas, ascompared with 357 for the CPS. In thesummer of 1965, the MLS sample size wasincreased to 17,500 households per month,distributed among 197 areas. A completelyindependent staff of interviewers wasused
in the Monthly Labor Survey in order toavoid any possibility of affecting the con-tinuing CPS results and to avoid confusion
in the enumeration and in the interpretationof the findings. In each month, interviewswere conducted in the same enumerationweek as is used for the CPS, the week
s' containing the 19th day of the month; theinte rviews tested various forms ofquestions relating to employment statusduring the preceding calendar week, theweek containing the 12th of the month. Theexperimental survey also tested questionsdesigned to increase accuracy in otheiitems and to provide information notpreviously available.
After 2-1/2 years of careful testing,experimentation, and research, a final setof proposals for revision of the laborforce definitions was drafted. The pro-posals were adopted in August 1966 and
implemented in January 1967.
Changes Introduced in January 1967
The changes in definitn and pro-cedures that have been ad op te d willincrease the accuracy of the statisticsand will clarify, but not substantiallyalter, the underlying concepts. The follow&-
ing are the principal improvements:
1. The MLS andC13S samples have been
merged, enlarging the sample size to52,500 households per month spread over449 sample areas.
The previous sample comprised35,000 households in 357 areas. Expansionof the sample yields a 20 percent averagegain in the reliCoility of the statistics.This step is in line with the Gordon Com-mittee's recommendation that, "Over thenext 10 years, the sample should be sub-stantially increased and progressivelydeveloped to meet the expanding needsfor the data it provides."
3
2. The lower age limit for officialstatistics on employment, unemployment,
and other manpower concepts has beenraised from 14 to 16 years of age. Thischange reduces the 1966 annual averageunemployment rate by 0.1 percentagepoint, the level by about 100,000, and the
employed total by 1.2 million.
Employed youngsters of 14 and 15
work mainly as part-time newsboys, b: \by-
sitters, etc.; they are barred from mostoccupations under the child labor laws.Unemployment in this age group has littlesignificance in relation to broad economic
or social accounting. Data will continue to
be collected and published separately,forthe 14 and 15 year-olds, however (tables
A-25 and A-26 of this magazine). Insofaras possible, the historical series arebeing revised to provide consistent laborforce information based on the population
16 years and over (pages 12 and 13 andtables A-1 and A-2).
The Gordon Committee did notspecifically recommend the exclusion of14 and 15 year-olds, but it noted that theirinclusion does create minor problems ofinterpretation and probablyhas led to some
unnecessary criticism of the officialfigures.
3. To be counted as unemployed, aperson must (a) have engaged in somespecific jobseeking activity (going to the
Employment Service, applying to an em-ployer,. answering a want-ad, being on aunion or professional register, etc.) withinthe past 4 weeks, (b) be waiting to start anew job within 30 days, or (c) be waiting
to be recalled from layoff. In all cases;
the individual must be currently availablefor work.
In the past, as the Gordon Committeepointed out, the household interview ques-tionnaire did not specify a time period forjobseeking, and there had been no specificquestion concerning methods of seekingwork. Moreover, in the past, no test ofcurrent availability was applied. A highschool or college student, for example,who began to look for summer work inApril was counted as unemployed in thatmonth even though he did not want to workuntil the beginning of June. These ambi-guities have been cleared up in the newprocedures by replacing the single ques-tion "Was... looking for work?" with threequestions, as follows: (1) "Has... beenlooking for work during the past 4 weeks?"If yes, ask (2) "What has... been doing in
the last 4 weeks to find work?" If aspecific activity is cited, ask (3) "Is thereany reason why... could not take a job lastweek?" If not (or if the only reason wastemporary illness), the person is con-sidered to be available for work and iscounted as unemployed.
A time period for jobseeking whichex-tends beyond the survey week itself wasselected, since, by its very nature, job-hunting does not necessarily involve speci-fic identifiable activity every week. Themore typical pattern of behavior probablyinvolves periods of activity (i.e., checkingwith employers) followed by periods ofwaiting. Some forms of looking are con-tinuous, i.e., registration with public em-ployment agencies, but others are not.
The use of a 4-week period for themeasurement of jobseeking activity is the
4
shortest of the various alternatives sug-gested by the Gordon Committee. This wasdone to minimize the inclusion of personswith very loose attachments to the laborforce and to keep the time reference forjobseeking from getting too far out of linewith that of jobholding.
4. The new definition does not includeinactive work seekers who would havebeen looking for work except for the beliefthat no work was available. Under the newdefinition such persons are not in the cur-rent labor force if they took no steps tofind work in the past 4 weeks.
In the past, the provision to includeas unemployed those persons who wouldhave been looking for work except theybelieved none was available in their line ofwork or in their community was meant torefer to discouraged workers in depressedareas or occupations.
The Gordon Committee was very criti-cal of the fact that no specific questionswere used to elicit this information; it hadto be volunteered. Because of its highlysubjective nature, however, the measure-ment of "discouraged workers" or "dis-guised unemployment" requires consider-able research and experimentation. Itseemed preferable, therefore, to eliminatethese inactive work seekers from the def-inition of unemployment--which would berestricted to jobless individuals who arecurrently available for work and seekingworkwhile experimenting with variousquestions designed to find out why joblesspersons who are able and willing to workare not seeking work.
[
5. Persons holding a job but not atwork during the survey week are now clas-sified as employed, even though they wereseeking other jobs.
Up to now the small group of per-sons absent from their jobs the entire sur-vey week because of vacations, illness,strikes, bad weather, etc., who were look-ing for other jobs was classified as unem-ployed. Starting in January 1967, such per-sons are classified as employed--that is,among others "with a job but not at work."
Persons on layoff from a job andthose waiting to start new jobs in 30 dayswill continue to be counted among the un-employed because their job attachmentsare so tenuous. The timing of their returnto work is much less definite, since theirpresence or absence depends on the deci-sions of their employers rather than ontemporary phenomena or on personalreasons.
6. Through the addition of new ques-tions and changes in question wording, fourimportant items of information will bereported more accurately than in the past.These improvements do not involvechanges in definition or classification but,rather, more explicit ways of obtaining thedesired information than were used in the
past.
a. In order to identify persons onlayoff from a job, the question on reasonfor absence from a job was changed to"Did he have a job from which he wastemporarily absent or on layoff last week?"In addition, there is a place on the sched-ule to record the fact that a person was
5
on indefinite or more-than-30-day layoff.In the past, this information had to bevolunteered and the size of the group wasnot known.
b. In order to improve the report-ing on duration of unemployment, there isa question as to the date unemployed per-sons last worked at a full-time job. Thisis in addition to the regular question onthe number of weeks they have been look-ing for work. If the time since the last job
held is shorter than the duration of unem-ployment as reported, the interviewer asksfurther questions to obtain the correctanswers.
c. In order to make more specificthe reporting of hours worked, a series ofprobing questions was added to remind therespondent of time taken off during the sur-vey week because of holidays, illness, orpersonal reasons; of overtime worked; orof hours spent on a second job. The moreextensive questioning on hours will coun-teract the tendency of some respondents toreport scheduled hours rather than actualhours of work.
d. In the past, estimates of the selfemployed have been too high because theyincluded some persons who were the oper-ators of small incorporated family enter-prises and regarded themselves as pro-prietors, rather than as wage or salaryworkers. The misclassification of thesewage and salary workers as self employedhas been one of the major reasons for thediscrepancy between household and estab-lishment statistics on wage and salariedworkers. Now, an additional question isasked for all persons reported as self
employed in a nonfarm business as towhether the business was incorporated.
7. Additional information about thecomposition of the employed, the unem-ployed, and persons outside the labor forceis being developed, in line with the generalrecommendations of the Gordon Commit-tee that more detailed breakdowns be madeavailable.
a. For the employed, for example, aquestion was added to collect informationon whether persons with a job but not atwork usually work full time or part timeat their present jobs. This would permitmore complete estimates of the full-timeand part-time labor force, by combiningthis information with the data for those atwork and with the data on whether the un-employed are seeking full-time or part-time work.
b. The Committee's recommenda-tions that unemployed heads of householdsand unemployed persons seeking part-timework should be identified separately in thestatistics have actually been in effect sinceJanuary 1963.
c. The new CPS questionnaire alsoincludes a question on the reasons =em-ployed persons started looking for a job,i.e., whether they lost a job, quit a job, orentered the labor force for the first timeor after a period of nonparticipation.
d. For persons not in the laborforce, information is being obtained onwhen they last worked; the reasons forleaving their last job; the occupation andindustry of that job; whether they want towork at the present time and, if so, the
6
reasons they are not seeking work; andtheir intentions of seeking work in the next12 months. These questions should still beregarded as in an experimental and devel-opmental stage, although they have alreadyyielded a considerable amount of usefulinformation.
Results of the Npw Definitions andProcedures
Prior to July 1965, as has been noted,the testing program was carried out withan independent sample of 8,750 householdsin 105 areas by independent interviewers.Because of the small size of the experi-mental sample, not too much confidencecould be placed in the results. In the sum-mer of 1965, the experimental sample wasdoubled, new interviewers trained, and thetest estimates based on about 17,500households; the staff was still independentof the CPS staff. In November 1965, theestimations were made using exactly thesame procedure as in the CPS. (This is acomposite estimate, based in part on thechange in identical sample units from onemonth to the next and in part on the currentmonth's data alone.) The differences thathave remained between the results of CPSand MLS since November 1965 reflect thenet effect of all the changes in definitionsand question wording, as well as samplingvariability. Comparisons cited below areaverages for the calendar year 1966, un-less otherwise specified, and relate to thecivilian noninstitutional p opul ation 16years of age and over.
I. Summary estimates of employmentstatus
As noted earlier, the experimentalprogram retained the same basic defini-
tion of employment. It is not surprising,therefore, that comparisons of the MLS
and CPS estimates of total, agricultural,and nonagricultural employment have been
well within the expected sampling error.
On balance, the newdefinition of unem-
ployment appears to be slightly more con-sistent than the old and yields a level about
100,000 lower than the official 1966 aver-age--2.8 million in MLS, as comparedwith
2.9 million in CPS (table 1). Most of the
changes in definition tended to be more
restrictive--the requirement that overtsteps be taken to look for work, the test of
current availability, the change in the
definition of persons absent from theirjobs who sought other work. On the other
hand, the extension of the time period for
jobseeking to an explicit 4 weeks prob-ably was less restrictive. The time period
used in the survey prior to 1967 had been
somewhat vague and was probably inter-preted by some women jobseekers to refer
only to the survey week itself.
II. Characteristics of the unemployed
During 1966, the MLS showed a some-
what lower count of unemployed adult men
and higher count of adult women job-
seekers. For adult men, the MLS annual
average was 130,000 lower than CPS and
the jobless rate was 2.2 percent as com-pared with 2.5 (tables 1 and 4). For women,
on the other hand, the MLS level was
100,000 higher and the rate was 4.2 per-
cent as compared with 3.8. These dif-
ferences were well beyond what might be
expected from sampling variability alone.
Special test questions indicate that about
half the difference for adult men could be
attributed to the change in the definition of
7
persons holding jobs who were seekinganother job while absent from work andabout half to the elimination of inactivejobseekers. The higher rates for adultwomen were probably the result of ex-tending the time period for jobseeking to
4 weeks.
Unemployment of teenagers averagedabout 65,000 or 1 fullpercentage point less
in MLS than in CPS. This was mainly theresult of the availability test which elimi-nated many students from the unemployedcount in March, April, May, and June. In
m aking over-the-year or longer-termcomparisons of teenage unemployment for
the spring months (March-June), the sea-sonally adjusted series should be usedsince it would be more comparable than
the unadjusted series. The seasonal fac-
tors developed for teenage unemploymentin 1967 describe a different seasonal pat-tern (one that reflects the effects of theavailability test) from the one prevailing
through 1966 before the change in defini-
tions, but the seasonally adjusted serieswould be fairly comparable.
The MLS shows less long-term unem-ployment of 27 weeks or longer, averagingabout 190,000 in 1966 as compared with
240,000 in the CPS (table 3). The mainreason for this difference is probably the
effect of the additional probing question
on when the unemployed person lastworked. This check question apparently
reminds some respondents of periods of
employment which broke up their spell of
unemployment. Reminding respondents of
intermittent work experience also reduces
the number of unemployed who never
worked. For experienced workers, how-
ever, the distributions by industry and
occupation of last job held were very sim-ilar (table 5).
The new definitions and procedures re-duced the number of unemployed personsseeking full-time work by about 200,000(on an annual average basis) whereas itraised the number seeking part-time jobsby 100,000 (table 7). About half the reduc-tion in full-time jobseekers was amongteenagers, reflecting the effect of theavailability tst in the spring months. Theremainder were adult men 25-54 years ofage. Again, it can be estimated that at leasthalf of this difference resulted from thechange in classification (from unemployedto employed) of persons who had jobs butwere absent the entire survey week andwere seeking other jobs. The increase inpart-time jobseekers occurred among wo-men and teenagers, probably because ofthe extension of the time period for job-seeking to 4 weeks.
III. Characteristics of the employed,
The effect of the change in the defini-tion of persons who had jobs but wereseeking others, which shifted about80,000
persons from the unemployed to the em-ployed, was too small to be perceptiblein the figures on employed persons by age
and sex cr by major occupation group.Most of the comparisons were well with-in the limits of normal sampling vari-ability. Exceptions were the managers,officials, and proprietors group; the salesworkers; and the farmers and farm man-agers; but there is no particular explana-tion of the se differences that can be tracedto changes in definitions or procedures(table 11).
8
The effect of the question as to whethera business was incorporated was to reducethe average level of nonfarm self employ-ment by about 750,000 and to raise wageand salary employment by a correspondingamount. Thus the MLS procedures willtend to reduce the gap between the house-hold and establishment survey estimatesof nonfarm wage and salary employment.
Because of the probing questions onhours of work, the MLS showed about 1.3million more employed persons who wereworking less than 35 hours (table13). Thiswas a 10 percent increase over the CPSlevel of 13.2 million. About two-thirds ofthe additional part-time workers were inthe 30-34 hours category. The MLS pro-cedure resulted in 600,000 more employedpersons working over 40 hours, about a3 percent increase over CPS. Virtually allof these extra part-time and overtimeworkers moved out of the group thatoriginally reported working precisely 40hours. The net affect of all these changeswas to reduce average hours for allworkers and for nonfarm workers by
0.2 hour.
About 900,000 or 70 percent of the1.3 million additional part-time workerswere those who usually work full time butin the survey week worked under 35 hoursfor noneconomic reasonsmainly tem-porary illness or miscellaneous personalreasons (table 14). These workers arealready included in the category designatedas "on full-time schedules° since theirnormal workweek is 35 hours or longer.
The probing question also raised theestimate of persons on part time foreconomic reasons, as. well as those who
usually work part time voluntarily, byabout 200,000 each.
IV. Persons not in th, labor for e
The differences between the CPS andthe MLS in the overall labor forue levels,by sex, were well within the limits ofexpected sampling variabilitt. This wasalso true of the individual age gToups.
Through the Monthly Labor Survey,questions were developed which provideda substantial amount of new informationon the characteristics of persons not inthe labor force. These data will be col-lected regularly from one-fourth of thesample. Current plans are to publishquarterly data based on a cumulation ofinterviews for 3 successive months inorder to reduce the sampling variabilityof the estimates. At the same time,experimentation with new questions andcategories for persons not in the laborforce will continue.
Questions un date of last work ex-parience, reasons for leaving last job,and intentions to seek work are asked ofall persons 16 years of age and over. Forillustrative purposes, the following sectionsummarizes the findings for the first 6months of 1966 for men 18 to 64 yearsof age.
Nearly half of the 1-1/2 million mennot in the labor force in the first 6 monthsof 1966 had been employed in the preceding18 months; about 1.4 million worked during1966, and 750,000 were last employed in1965. Another 900,000 held their last jobsbetween 1961 and 1964. The remaining 1.4million either had not worked in the last
9
5 years or had never worked. Virtuallyall of those who had never worked wereunder age 25 or were unable to work.
The fact that almost one-third of themen not in the labor force had worked inthe previous 6 months suggests that thesemen may still have a strong attachmentto the labor force. Many of them intend toreenter the labor force within the nextyearafter completion of school, dis-charge from the Armed Forces, recoveryfrom temporary illness, or completion ofbrief vacations between jobs.
The 4-1/2 million men not in the laborforce in 1966 included 1 million who wereunable to work because of a long-termphysical or mental disability. When theunable-to-work group is excluded, theproportion having recent work experiencerises sharply. This difference was partic-ularly notable among men of prime workingage (25-54 years). Of those able to work,44 percent had been employed in the pre-ceding 6 months. In some cases, the sameindividuals remain outside the labor forcefor several years oi permanently, butthese long-term nonparticipants are aminority among min in the central agegroups who are able to work. From thenearly 3 million men not in the labor forcewho had worked in the last 5 years, infor-mation was obtained as to why they lefttheir last regular full-time or part-timejob. Included in the 3 million were 500,000men classified as unable to work, virtuallyall of whom had left their previous jobsfor medical or health re asons ;The unable -to-work group is excluded from the follow-ing discussion, leaving nearly 2.5 millionmen who had worked in the last 5 years andwere still able to work.
Only 300,000, about one-eight, of thetotal 2.5 million able to work had lefttheir last jobs for economic reasons."Economic I.( asons" were interpreted toinclude slack work, completion of seasonalor temporary jobs, changes in companymanagement, and similar reasons.
About 60 percent of the 18-64 year-oldmen had left their last jobs for personal,family, school, or other noneconomicreadons. Not surprisingly, 7 out of 8 ofthose age 18-24 years cited these reasons.Personal, family, school, and miscellane-ous nonecomomic reasons were also re-ported for about one-third L,I, the 25-54year-olds, and a similar proportion of thisgroup left their last jobs for medical orhealth reasons. Retirement was the leadingreason for 55-64 year-olds, closelyfollowed by medical or health reasons.
A majority (57 percent) of the 3.4million men not in the labor force whowere able to work intended to seek employ-ment within the next 12 months. Altogether,nearly 2 million men report/ad definite,probable, or possible plans to seek workin the next year. The "maybe" groupincluded persons whose intentions weresomewhat weak or qualified. For example,a man who said he would lot.lt for workif his health permitted would be classifiedas a possible jobseeker. On the otherhand, 1,450,000 (43 percent of the able-to-work total) were reported as not in-tending to look or not knowing whetherthey would look for work in the next year.
Typically, young men most frequentlyreported intentions to seek work. Ap-proximately three-fourths of the 18-24
year-olds planned to look for jobs in thenext 12 months, compared with about halfof the 25-54 year-olds and one-fourth of the55-64 age group. Most of the young mennot intending to seek work probably plannedto continue school or expected to be in theArmed Forces for the next 12 months. Onthe other hand, most of the 55-64 year-oldsnot intending to look were probably re-tirees or men who considered themselvestoo old to work; two-thirds of this groupwere 60-64 years of age.
About 350,000 men age 25-54 yearsreported no intention to seek work; anearly equal number did plan to look. Twofactors, age and recent work experience,have considerable influence on the job--seeking intentions of men in the centralage groups. The group which planned toseek work was significantly younger thanthose who did not. Also, the great majority(85 percent) of the 25-54 year-olds whoplanned to look had worked since 1961.In contrast, only 60 percent of the groupwhich did not intend to look had workedwithin the past 5 years.
Men who left their last jobs for eco-nomic reasons did not appear to have givenup the search for employment. Approxi-mately 75 percent of those reportingunemployment for economic reasonsintended to seek work within the next year.The comparable proportion among thosewho left their previous jobs for non-economic reasons was 65 percent.
Revision in the Historical Data
10
As noted earlier, the historical dataare being revised, insofar as possible, to
provide comparable series based onpersons 16 years of age and over. Apartfrom this revision in the age cutoff, how-ever, the historical data from CPS arenot being revised. For the estimates oftotal and civilian labor force, and fortotal, agricultural, and nongagriculturalemployment, the changes in definition andprocedure had no perceptible effect. Thiswas also true of the age-sex and occu-pational breakdowns. Even for unemploy-ment and the unemployment rate, thedifference between the MLS and CPSestimates for calendar year 1966 was onthe borderline of statistical significance.Thus, for most analytical purposes, thecurrent series in 1967 may be regardedas reasonably comparable to those ofprevious years.
There were a few significant differ-ences in the composition of the unemploy-ed by age and sex, duration of unemploy-ment, and whether seeking full-time orpart-time work and in the composition ofthe employed by hours of work and class
11
of worker. The data from the two surveysfor the overlap year of 1966 are shown intables 1-14 following this article. Thesecomparison tables are provided so thatusers of the data will be able to decidewhether their analyses and conclusionsmight be affected by the changes in de-finition.
Most of the detailed series showedvery small differences which were withinsampling error (tables A and B). Evenwhere significant differences did occur,however, it was not considered tech-nically feasible to revise two decades ofhistorical statistics (which reflected per-iods of war and peace, high and lowemployment, inflation and price stability)on the basis of a single year of data froma relatively small sampleone-half thesize of the sample used for the officialseries. The overlap data are useful,however, as a guide to the analyst inevaluating c o mp arisons between thecurrent period and the period endingDecember 1966.
1
Table A. Standard errors of differences between annual averageestimates based on Monthly Labor Survey
and Current Population Survey
Size of larger of the two estimates(thousands)
Standard error(thousands)
250
5001,000
2,500
5,00010,00025,000
50,000
25
35
50
75
100
120
150
180
Table B. Standard errors of differences between annual average percentagesbased on Monthly Labor Survey and Current Population Survey
r
Base ofPercentage
2 or 5 or 10 or 25 orpercentage (thousands) 98 95 90 75 50