3 ms·
the unemployment is what the government makes it out to be, the number employed is a better measure. when you look at the number who could hold jobs or full tim
by Shivetya 11y ago
the unemployment is what the government makes it out to be, the number employed is a better measure. when you look at the number who could hold jobs or full time jobs where they do not the number doesn't look that great (this means, avoid that silly number some like to throw out of ninety plus million as that includes retirees and college kids)
- rayiner 11y agoI'm not really convinced by this argument. If more families than ever can send their kids to college (I.e. four year vacation), instead of working during that time, how is that a bad thing? Is it better if disabled people are trying to support themselves instead of being out if the workforce and being in SSIDI?
- SilasX 11y agoOne word: Arms-race. If everyone has to signal what percentile of competence they are, and you offer cheap loans to people who provide a certain signal, then everyone will start having to buying the service that send that signal. People are collectively blowing a lot of resources to signal the same thing (and irrespective of how much they value having such a vacation). Scott Alexander provides a great exposition of that dynamic in "Against Tulip Subsidies": http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies...
- tptacek 11y agoA benchmark doesn't have to be perfect in isolation to be valuable relative to previous measurements. Has something changed about the economy to break this metric?