3 ms·

The BLS reports 6 different unemployment metrics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Several of th

The BLS reports 6 different unemployment metrics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Several of them do measure underemployment.

alistairSH 6y ago
This is the key. The government and media largely rely on U-3 (IIRC) when reporting unemployment. The upside is consistency - they all use the same number. The downside is this figure may not be fully representative of the economy. I would argue that U-5 or U-6 better represent the state of the economy (as it relates to employment), as both included some set of under-employed and recently-given-up would-be workers. But, we'd have to make a concerted effort to cut over to those numbers to avoid confusion.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  U-3 will still be useful for answering many questions even if it becomes a lesser-used stat among politicians, because it's been tracked for much longer and because it's tracked by almost every nation. You're not going to magically squeeze U-6 numbers out of Ireland in 1952. Examples: "How bad is our current recession compared to the great depression for the workforce?" "How might raising the top marginal income tax bracket to 70% affect the labor market?" "How does relaxing strict immigration policies contribute to job loss in a nation (if at all)?"
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    Absolutely true. No disagreement there. But, given an increasing income disparity between the top ~5% and bottom half, and a continuing sense of "being left behind" by many workers in labor-intensive industries, it seems doing a better job of describing those disenchanted workers (whether they be part-time at AutoZone, or recently given up looking, etc) would be beneficial to all. For one of those disenchanted employees, seeing "Unemployment is at all-time lows! The DOW is at a record high!" on the evening news (while they're working 3 part-time jobs for $9/hour and zero benefits) isn't just unhelpful, it's insulting.

The BLS reports 6 different unemployment metrics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm Several of them do measure underemployment.

alistairSH 6y ago

This is the key. The government and media largely rely on U-3 (IIRC) when reporting unemployment. The upside is consistency - they all use the same number. The downside is this figure may not be fully representative of the economy. I would argue that U-5 or U-6 better represent the state of the economy (as it relates to employment), as both included some set of under-employed and recently-given-up would-be workers. But, we'd have to make a concerted effort to cut over to those numbers to avoid confusion.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
U-3 will still be useful for answering many questions even if it becomes a lesser-used stat among politicians, because it's been tracked for much longer and because it's tracked by almost every nation. You're not going to magically squeeze U-6 numbers out of Ireland in 1952. Examples: "How bad is our current recession compared to the great depression for the workforce?" "How might raising the top marginal income tax bracket to 70% affect the labor market?" "How does relaxing strict immigration policies contribute to job loss in a nation (if at all)?"
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Absolutely true. No disagreement there. But, given an increasing income disparity between the top ~5% and bottom half, and a continuing sense of "being left behind" by many workers in labor-intensive industries, it seems doing a better job of describing those disenchanted workers (whether they be part-time at AutoZone, or recently given up looking, etc) would be beneficial to all. For one of those disenchanted employees, seeing "Unemployment is at all-time lows! The DOW is at a record high!" on the evening news (while they're working 3 part-time jobs for $9/hour and zero benefits) isn't just unhelpful, it's insulting.