4 ms·

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 somet

by 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 makomk 10y ago

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.