3 ms·

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

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.

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.