3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#United_S... If you read that and you will

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#United_S... If you read that and you will quickly realize that most of the changes have been to ignore large portions of the unemployed population. Essentially, if you become unemployed, you are counted starting when you are 1 month unemployed (not from the day you lose your job) and you stop being counted in the 7th-8th month of your unemployment (depending on a few factors, can be up to 12 months). So the vast majority of drop in unemployment rate is government lying. Gig economy actually increases the unemployment rate. Why ? Because it enables the long term unemployed to be employed for a short while, then "lose the job" for valid reasons (ie. lack of demand), and then get unemployment benefits again for 8 months. I'm convinced many unemployed have realized this, and use it. This enables them to not lose benefits and as a side effects reintroduces them to the stats. But the vast majority of the time, they're unemployed. And some periods of the year, e.g. Christmas, it's easy to pull of.

dragonwriter 9y ago
You've linked to info about unemployment benefit and you are pretending that rules about eligibility for those benefits have something to do with the unemployment rate. But, that's completely wrong. See, e.g., https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm – particularly the second question, which addresses directly the mistake underlying your entire post.
- 0x445442 9y ago
  http://www.shadowstats.com/ http://www.shadowstats.com/ If the spirit of the post was a critique on the Gubment's official unemployment rate, I'd say the post was on point.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > If the spirit of the post was a critique on the Gubment's official unemployment rate, I'd say the post was on point Since every single claim it makes about the method in which things contribute to the official unemployment rate is false (because it is based on rules for qualifying for unemployment benefits that are irrelevant to being counted as unemployed in the unemployment rate), I can't see any reasonable way it can be described as an “on point” critique. It’s conclusionay align with a belief that you bring with you from elsewhere, but that doesn't make it a good argument for that conclusion, irrespective of whatever merit that conclusion has separate from the actual argument offered in the post.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Thanks for that link with the very detailed explanation. That's really informative, even though it's pretty in line with what is reported on financial websites. So this does not improve my opinion on the government's falsification at all. Especially how the numbers have changed over the years is telling (see later). Even discounting changing the reporting, it seems extremely unfair in a number of ways, for instance how part-time work is counted (anyone who made or did something attempting to make 1$ in the past week is employed. Worked 2h babysitting ? You're employed) (especially this affects a LARGE number of workers) To make matters worse, anyone "temporarily unemployed" is considered employed. For instance, if you're a freelance construction worker that didn't do anything for a month, you're employed. Anyone employed by a bankrupt business is employed, despite of course very likely neither working nor getting paid. Furthermore they demand active job search methods only. So anyone who's passed by every employer in their town ... is not unemployed from that point forward. This is, of course, bullshit. Reality is that anyone who wants a job but doesn't have one is unemployed. Anybody forced to work less than they want to is partially unemployed (this is a large number of people). This is not measured at all. And the changes in methodology are the really telling part. An example: > Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%. One might wonder, was the purpose of the government's changes to increase accuracy, or was it to falsify the number ? Well one can easily distinguish between these 2 goals. If the goal was increased accuracy, then the BLS would have been instructed to adjust it's historical time series, at least in estimation, so that comparisons would be fair. If the goal was falsification, then numbers from the old and new methodology would be reported, with no or hidden references to the changed methodology. The situation is that the latter is what was done [1]. The difference in methods is downplayed to an extreme degree, clearly indicating that falsification was the goal. The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all changed the methodology of counting the numbers, and especially Obama, but also Clinton are guilty of claiming what are very clearly statistical artifacts from changing the methodology as accomplishments of their administrations. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/u-3-unemployment-rate-was-4-point-5-percent-in-march-2017-u-6-was-8-point-9-percent.htm?view_full https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/u-3-unemployment-rate-was-... <- zero mention of methodology changes

dragonwriter 9y ago

You've linked to info about unemployment benefit and you are pretending that rules about eligibility for those benefits have something to do with the unemployment rate. But, that's completely wrong. See, e.g., https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm – particularly the second question, which addresses directly the mistake underlying your entire post.

0x445442 9y ago
http://www.shadowstats.com/ http://www.shadowstats.com/ If the spirit of the post was a critique on the Gubment's official unemployment rate, I'd say the post was on point.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If the spirit of the post was a critique on the Gubment's official unemployment rate, I'd say the post was on point Since every single claim it makes about the method in which things contribute to the official unemployment rate is false (because it is based on rules for qualifying for unemployment benefits that are irrelevant to being counted as unemployed in the unemployment rate), I can't see any reasonable way it can be described as an “on point” critique. It’s conclusionay align with a belief that you bring with you from elsewhere, but that doesn't make it a good argument for that conclusion, irrespective of whatever merit that conclusion has separate from the actual argument offered in the post.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Thanks for that link with the very detailed explanation. That's really informative, even though it's pretty in line with what is reported on financial websites. So this does not improve my opinion on the government's falsification at all. Especially how the numbers have changed over the years is telling (see later). Even discounting changing the reporting, it seems extremely unfair in a number of ways, for instance how part-time work is counted (anyone who made or did something attempting to make 1$ in the past week is employed. Worked 2h babysitting ? You're employed) (especially this affects a LARGE number of workers) To make matters worse, anyone "temporarily unemployed" is considered employed. For instance, if you're a freelance construction worker that didn't do anything for a month, you're employed. Anyone employed by a bankrupt business is employed, despite of course very likely neither working nor getting paid. Furthermore they demand active job search methods only. So anyone who's passed by every employer in their town ... is not unemployed from that point forward. This is, of course, bullshit. Reality is that anyone who wants a job but doesn't have one is unemployed. Anybody forced to work less than they want to is partially unemployed (this is a large number of people). This is not measured at all. And the changes in methodology are the really telling part. An example: > Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%. One might wonder, was the purpose of the government's changes to increase accuracy, or was it to falsify the number ? Well one can easily distinguish between these 2 goals. If the goal was increased accuracy, then the BLS would have been instructed to adjust it's historical time series, at least in estimation, so that comparisons would be fair. If the goal was falsification, then numbers from the old and new methodology would be reported, with no or hidden references to the changed methodology. The situation is that the latter is what was done [1]. The difference in methods is downplayed to an extreme degree, clearly indicating that falsification was the goal. The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all changed the methodology of counting the numbers, and especially Obama, but also Clinton are guilty of claiming what are very clearly statistical artifacts from changing the methodology as accomplishments of their administrations. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/u-3-unemployment-rate-was-4-point-5-percent-in-march-2017-u-6-was-8-point-9-percent.htm?view_full https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/u-3-unemployment-rate-was-... <- zero mention of methodology changes