4 ms·

When was the US unemployment rate definition changed? I know there are debates around whether the rate we normally talk about is the most important indicator, b

When was the US unemployment rate definition changed? I know there are debates around whether the rate we normally talk about is the most important indicator, but the definition has remained the same for decades, AFAIK.

ProAm 10y ago
Correct I see how I didn't explain well the point I was trying to make. Its always been the same, but it's a tad shady on what they actually count as unemployed. For instance they do not count discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers, or people who stopped looking because they simply cannot find work. The unemployment percent in the US is largely a political talking point/fodder wherein the government doesn't do much to change it.
- organsnyder 10y ago
  As long as you're tracking the same metric over time, it's still useful. I haven't studied the data to back this up, but I suspect that it and other unemployment metrics will tend to follow parallel trajectories over time. That's not to say that we can ignore the other metrics—they obviously provide useful information—but it still provides a good year-over-year comparison. I see two scenarios that could be "shady": 1. The metric calculation is drastically changed (hasn't happened, to my knowledge) 2. The government somehow manages to "tweak" the economy in a way that artificially alters this metric (unlikely) Regarding unemployment percent: The government doesn't have a lot of direct control over this (though federal spending does provide tons of jobs, obviously), but policy certainly can cause major implications. Health care, banking, and environmental regulations (to name a few) can cause massive shifts in employment. Come to think of it, I can see a scenario where federal policy could keep the unemployment rate lower relative to other metrics: The Affordable Care Act made it easier for people to get coverage outside of employment. Perhaps this allowed some people to settle for less-than-full-time positions, or to remain unemployed for longer than they would have (perhaps to care for family, or to pursue an entrepreneurial dream, or education...). This could cause the traditional unemployment rate to remain artificially low, compared to before the ACA was implemented. No idea if this is actually true, and one could debate whether it's a good outcome or not, but it's an interesting possibility.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    I disagree, that's like asking a scientist to collect false facts and report on it every year? Is that still good science? No. Will the scientist still get funding and look like he is doing something meaningful? Yes. Is society better off because of his work? No.
    - organsnyder 10y ago
      They're not "false facts". We're interested in the change of the metric from year to year. Unless there are other factors gaming the statistics, the change over time is valid and useful.
      - ProAm 10y ago
        > Unless there are other factors gaming the statistics Would you not consider people who gave up looking for work because they cannot find employment as unemployed?
        InitialLastName 10y ago
        I wouldn't expect somebody taking a survey to distinguish between "not looking for work [because X reason that counts as willfully unemployed]" and "not looking for work [because gave up on finding employment]". We use the numbers and information that we have access to. They're all flawed, they're mostly better than nothing.
        Steko 10y ago
        No because I'm familiar with the definitions the BLS uses. There are plenty of technical definitions that contradict the laypersons gut understanding of something which is why they have published 6 (formerly 7) different measures of unemployment/underemployment for 40 years and have grappled with defining the terms for at least twice that long. There are dozens of shades of gray in the categories of "discouraged workers" and other people "marginally attached to the workforce" and in the practice of counting them, they had a hard time categorizing these people consistently which is where these definitions come from. Maybe familiarizing yourself with why these measures are used instead of pretending they don't exist or exist as part of some grand conspiracy is a better way forward.
rhizome 10y ago
1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#1994_revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#1994...

ProAm 10y ago

Correct I see how I didn't explain well the point I was trying to make. Its always been the same, but it's a tad shady on what they actually count as unemployed. For instance they do not count discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers, or people who stopped looking because they simply cannot find work. The unemployment percent in the US is largely a political talking point/fodder wherein the government doesn't do much to change it.

organsnyder 10y ago
As long as you're tracking the same metric over time, it's still useful. I haven't studied the data to back this up, but I suspect that it and other unemployment metrics will tend to follow parallel trajectories over time. That's not to say that we can ignore the other metrics—they obviously provide useful information—but it still provides a good year-over-year comparison. I see two scenarios that could be "shady": 1. The metric calculation is drastically changed (hasn't happened, to my knowledge) 2. The government somehow manages to "tweak" the economy in a way that artificially alters this metric (unlikely) Regarding unemployment percent: The government doesn't have a lot of direct control over this (though federal spending does provide tons of jobs, obviously), but policy certainly can cause major implications. Health care, banking, and environmental regulations (to name a few) can cause massive shifts in employment. Come to think of it, I can see a scenario where federal policy could keep the unemployment rate lower relative to other metrics: The Affordable Care Act made it easier for people to get coverage outside of employment. Perhaps this allowed some people to settle for less-than-full-time positions, or to remain unemployed for longer than they would have (perhaps to care for family, or to pursue an entrepreneurial dream, or education...). This could cause the traditional unemployment rate to remain artificially low, compared to before the ACA was implemented. No idea if this is actually true, and one could debate whether it's a good outcome or not, but it's an interesting possibility.
- ProAm 10y ago
  I disagree, that's like asking a scientist to collect false facts and report on it every year? Is that still good science? No. Will the scientist still get funding and look like he is doing something meaningful? Yes. Is society better off because of his work? No.
  - organsnyder 10y ago
    They're not "false facts". We're interested in the change of the metric from year to year. Unless there are other factors gaming the statistics, the change over time is valid and useful.
    - ProAm 10y ago
      > Unless there are other factors gaming the statistics Would you not consider people who gave up looking for work because they cannot find employment as unemployed?
      - InitialLastName 10y ago
        I wouldn't expect somebody taking a survey to distinguish between "not looking for work [because X reason that counts as willfully unemployed]" and "not looking for work [because gave up on finding employment]". We use the numbers and information that we have access to. They're all flawed, they're mostly better than nothing.
      - Steko 10y ago
        No because I'm familiar with the definitions the BLS uses. There are plenty of technical definitions that contradict the laypersons gut understanding of something which is why they have published 6 (formerly 7) different measures of unemployment/underemployment for 40 years and have grappled with defining the terms for at least twice that long. There are dozens of shades of gray in the categories of "discouraged workers" and other people "marginally attached to the workforce" and in the practice of counting them, they had a hard time categorizing these people consistently which is where these definitions come from. Maybe familiarizing yourself with why these measures are used instead of pretending they don't exist or exist as part of some grand conspiracy is a better way forward.

rhizome 10y ago

1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#1994_revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#1994...