6 ms·

Also, when you see the US press - including Vox - talk about how low unemployment is, bear in mind that she doesn't count as unemployed. When the fact checkers

by makomk 10y ago

Also, when you see the US press - including Vox - talk about how low unemployment is, bear in mind that she doesn't count as unemployed. When the fact checkers point at Trump's claims about unemployment and say they're lies, they're treating people like her who're forced into early retirement they can't afford because the jobs have gone away as success stories in the fight for full employment and insisting it's stupid to think otherwise. Even before she officially retired, she probably didn't count because she was still freelancing.

vtlynch 10y ago
Which is how they have always measured it, as far as I am unaware. While you may not like the measurement, this allows you to make actual comparisons to past years data, instead of comparing two different metrics.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  They measure it many ways. They just report it with the lower statistical number so that it doesn't seem that bad. I would prefer all numbers to be given out. If I am the only person working in my family supporting 9 other people so that they can do other things we are not exhibiting 100% employment. 10% of the people are working to support the whole. If that works, great, but on the level of society as a whole you want to know all of the numbers.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    All numbers are given out.. In fact they're in the exact same report from the BLS every month. This is the most nonsensical conspiracy theory. We report U3 most widely because it matches the historical rate and the rate used by other countries in their reporting. If you prefer U4/5/6 just read one sentence further, is not like Trump's team found some deep government secret... Here's the table from the monthly report; http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Or you could look at any of the data viz sources that are more user-friendly than the BLS to see trends; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7tTt https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7tTt
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I'd love to see a candidate seriously discuss the different published numbers, what each one means, and the overall implications for the economy. But instead, we just get "the official numbers are a hoax."
    - jimmydddd 10y ago
      Re: "nonsensical conspiracy theory." I'm not with any candidate, but I don't think it's a conspiracy. And I think it makes sense. I think the point is that many people have given up looking for work and are no longer counted as unemployed in the statistics. Many speculate that this number is larger than in the past, due to corporate downsizing and automation. So, even if the amount of people who have given up looking was always ignored in statistics in the past, it's not an apples to apples comparison because that ignored number is now larger than in the past. Also, while the second link shows data for Marginally Attached Workers, the government definition for that term is those who have looked in the last 12 months. So those who have given up for more than 12 months are not considered unemployed. See also discouraged workers.
    - makomk 10y ago
      I've no doubt it matches how other countries report unemployment; the UK's about as bad. Also, one of the things that annoys me is exactly that this isn't something that Trump pulled out of his hat - the existence of unemployment that's hidden by the statistics has been a topic of discussion for a long time, especially on the left. Then Trump comes along and the fact checkers declare that U3 is the one true definition of unemployment and anything above that is an unpatriotic lie designed to undermine America. It's all been a bit much really. (Though even U6 isn't broad enough to help much here.)
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
        Of course it's been discussed, it's a serious problem. Nobody has ever claimed that U3 is the measure of unemployment, it's just one in a series but happens to be the one with the most history. If you want to look at the impacts of long-term unemployed or the falling mix, check out the prime-age labor force participation rate.. another metric that is also in the same report: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7ujb https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7ujb There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers, they're reported dutifully every month. It's been discussed by politicians, economists, journalists..
coredog64 10y ago
That's U6 (or U5) vs. U3.

by makomk 10y ago

vtlynch 10y ago

Which is how they have always measured it, as far as I am unaware. While you may not like the measurement, this allows you to make actual comparisons to past years data, instead of comparing two different metrics.

dexterdog 10y ago
They measure it many ways. They just report it with the lower statistical number so that it doesn't seem that bad. I would prefer all numbers to be given out. If I am the only person working in my family supporting 9 other people so that they can do other things we are not exhibiting 100% employment. 10% of the people are working to support the whole. If that works, great, but on the level of society as a whole you want to know all of the numbers.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  All numbers are given out.. In fact they're in the exact same report from the BLS every month. This is the most nonsensical conspiracy theory. We report U3 most widely because it matches the historical rate and the rate used by other countries in their reporting. If you prefer U4/5/6 just read one sentence further, is not like Trump's team found some deep government secret... Here's the table from the monthly report; http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Or you could look at any of the data viz sources that are more user-friendly than the BLS to see trends; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7tTt https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7tTt
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'd love to see a candidate seriously discuss the different published numbers, what each one means, and the overall implications for the economy. But instead, we just get "the official numbers are a hoax."
  - jimmydddd 10y ago
    Re: "nonsensical conspiracy theory." I'm not with any candidate, but I don't think it's a conspiracy. And I think it makes sense. I think the point is that many people have given up looking for work and are no longer counted as unemployed in the statistics. Many speculate that this number is larger than in the past, due to corporate downsizing and automation. So, even if the amount of people who have given up looking was always ignored in statistics in the past, it's not an apples to apples comparison because that ignored number is now larger than in the past. Also, while the second link shows data for Marginally Attached Workers, the government definition for that term is those who have looked in the last 12 months. So those who have given up for more than 12 months are not considered unemployed. See also discouraged workers.
  - makomk 10y ago
    I've no doubt it matches how other countries report unemployment; the UK's about as bad. Also, one of the things that annoys me is exactly that this isn't something that Trump pulled out of his hat - the existence of unemployment that's hidden by the statistics has been a topic of discussion for a long time, especially on the left. Then Trump comes along and the fact checkers declare that U3 is the one true definition of unemployment and anything above that is an unpatriotic lie designed to undermine America. It's all been a bit much really. (Though even U6 isn't broad enough to help much here.)
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      Of course it's been discussed, it's a serious problem. Nobody has ever claimed that U3 is the measure of unemployment, it's just one in a series but happens to be the one with the most history. If you want to look at the impacts of long-term unemployed or the falling mix, check out the prime-age labor force participation rate.. another metric that is also in the same report: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7ujb https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7ujb There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers, they're reported dutifully every month. It's been discussed by politicians, economists, journalists..

coredog64 10y ago

That's U6 (or U5) vs. U3.