3 ms·
Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad. The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though
by Bartweiss 10y ago
Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad.
The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago> It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference. Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.
- evanpw 10y agoIt seems to be mostly back to normal: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
- Bartweiss 10y agoInteresting - I wonder why that's basically recovered, but labor force participation is still at a 30 year low?
- toomuchtodo 10y agohttp://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/bls-chief-school-retirement-and-safety-net-explain-94m-people-who-are-not http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/bls-chief-sc...
- Bartweiss 10y agoI don't think we actually disagree? I meant "better number" as in "far more representative than the jobless-and-looking rate". I objected to calling it the "unemployment rate" without caveat, because that term usually refers to jobless-and-looking and therefore threatens to cause confusion.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoHN was throttling me, preventing from me responding, but I believe you're correct and we're not disagreeing. Apologies for that!