4 ms·

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 unemploymen

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.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      No, because that it not what "unemployed" means according to the definition of the unemployment rate. This is not a secret or a conspiracy. I learned this in every economics class I ever took, including one in high school. Economists and the government are aware of the tradeoffs involved. If you want to know how many people gave up looking for work, that is tracked too, but not as well: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=aAf https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=aAf It becomes pretty difficult to categorize people as "discouraged workers" because it lumps together a lot of people whose situations are different. For example, a lot of older people who get laid off and can't find another job similar to their previous one might retire early. Should they count as discouraged workers? If so, should they count that year, or for the rest of their lives? What about the many young people who got laid off during the recession and chose to go to grad school during that time because their job prospects weren't good? Were they discouraged workers or not? If the government elevated the discouraged worker rate to the same level of importance as the unemployment rate, it wouldn't be very reliable, and most researchers would end up ignoring it because they have serious problems with the methodology.

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.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    No, because that it not what "unemployed" means according to the definition of the unemployment rate. This is not a secret or a conspiracy. I learned this in every economics class I ever took, including one in high school. Economists and the government are aware of the tradeoffs involved. If you want to know how many people gave up looking for work, that is tracked too, but not as well: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=aAf https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=aAf It becomes pretty difficult to categorize people as "discouraged workers" because it lumps together a lot of people whose situations are different. For example, a lot of older people who get laid off and can't find another job similar to their previous one might retire early. Should they count as discouraged workers? If so, should they count that year, or for the rest of their lives? What about the many young people who got laid off during the recession and chose to go to grad school during that time because their job prospects weren't good? Were they discouraged workers or not? If the government elevated the discouraged worker rate to the same level of importance as the unemployment rate, it wouldn't be very reliable, and most researchers would end up ignoring it because they have serious problems with the methodology.