8 ms·

I would like to know why this is being downvoted. I cannot speak for the US, but the same has been happening in Germany in the last 20 or so years, at least ane

I would like to know why this is being downvoted. I cannot speak for the US, but the same has been happening in Germany in the last 20 or so years, at least anecdotally. The reported unemployment rate peaked at 13% in 2005 (which, whether coincidentally or not, is also the year when Merkel was first elected), then fell steadily [1] and is currently at 5-6%. Critics attribute a fair amount of that positive trend to tampering with the statistics. For example, unemployed people are excluded from the statistic while they are going through government-mandated job training. I've heard stories of people who had to sit through the same Excel course over and over again because the stat was lower while they did so. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyUnemploymentRate.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyUnemploymentR... - Notably, it's very hard to see the Great Recession in this chart. There is only a small negative dent in the overall positive trend.

existencebox 9y ago
The specific metric you and the parent are looking for is "Labor Participation Rate".[0] This is a personal favorite metric of mine, because it makes readily apparent some of the distortions the parent brought up. I imagine they're likely being downvoted for some combination of more vociferous language, less citations, different perspectives on the merit of the math/historical comparison the poster is referring to, as well as good old "you're wrong" downvotes, but I certainly found myself agreeing with the thrust of the point. (that unemployment and in related fashion CPI are regularly distorted for one agenda or another; for a recent example of this look at the application of C-CPI in the latest tax code to help address budget shortfalls in a way one might fairly call "slight of hand."[1]) [0]https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-permanent-tax-increase-inside-the-tax-cut-act https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-p...
- cm2187 9y ago
  But it is also skewed by the “papy boom”, wealthy post war generation going into retirement, leaving the workforce. So it’s not trivial to read the participation rate either.

existencebox 9y ago

The specific metric you and the parent are looking for is "Labor Participation Rate".[0] This is a personal favorite metric of mine, because it makes readily apparent some of the distortions the parent brought up. I imagine they're likely being downvoted for some combination of more vociferous language, less citations, different perspectives on the merit of the math/historical comparison the poster is referring to, as well as good old "you're wrong" downvotes, but I certainly found myself agreeing with the thrust of the point. (that unemployment and in related fashion CPI are regularly distorted for one agenda or another; for a recent example of this look at the application of C-CPI in the latest tax code to help address budget shortfalls in a way one might fairly call "slight of hand."[1]) [0]https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-permanent-tax-increase-inside-the-tax-cut-act https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-p...

cm2187 9y ago
But it is also skewed by the “papy boom”, wealthy post war generation going into retirement, leaving the workforce. So it’s not trivial to read the participation rate either.