4 ms·

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 ye

by 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..
      - makomk 10y ago
        The definition of "prime-age labour force" is under 55, which also excludes the author of this piece (and is about a decade under the age at which most people can claim retirement benefits). It also excludes under-25s who have a much lower labour force participation and higher unemployment rate.
        mikeyouse 10y ago
        Great, so use the full labor participation number, then spend some time disentangling the impacts of rising college attendance and the waves of retirements of Baby Boomers. I don't care which metric is your preferred one, the point is, they are all in the very same report. Nobody's hiding anything.

by vtlynch 10y ago

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..
    - makomk 10y ago
      The definition of "prime-age labour force" is under 55, which also excludes the author of this piece (and is about a decade under the age at which most people can claim retirement benefits). It also excludes under-25s who have a much lower labour force participation and higher unemployment rate.
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
        Great, so use the full labor participation number, then spend some time disentangling the impacts of rising college attendance and the waves of retirements of Baby Boomers. I don't care which metric is your preferred one, the point is, they are all in the very same report. Nobody's hiding anything.