3 ms·
I think it's fair to say that regardless of the historical precedent, the way we measure unemployment now is not representative of the situation out there. Hug
by pmichaud 10y ago
I think it's fair to say that regardless of the historical precedent, the way we measure unemployment now is not representative of the situation out there.
Huge numbers of people are chronically underemployed, and an unprecedented number of people have simply given up finding work, neither of which is reflected in the top line "historically low unemployment."
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- npongratz 10y agoIndeed, the official participation rate may perhaps offer a better indicator of overall employment in the US [edit: than employment rate alone]: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 Zooming out and eyeballing it, it appears the last time such a small proportion of people were working was circa 1978.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoThat is correct, the 'counted' workforce is at 1978 levels. It's systemically dangerous to have a large disenfranchised population for too long. Eventually they get to the point where they're so beaten down they'll be okay with beheading a King. I mean, it sounds extreme but just look at the last electoral process - a resounding message of sending a demented Chimpanzee with a razor blade to destroy the Federal Government under the guise of helping. Heh.
- sgt101 10y agoThis! "Economic inactivity" is UNEMPLOYMENT! LOOK https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRIN25MAUSM156S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRIN25MAUSM156S v.interesting that the UK's looks completely different and UK productivity has been in a tailspin vs US!
- surfmike 10y agoThat is especially interesting since they also did massive QE like the US. So it seems other factors are at play.