2 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoGreat, 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.