14 ms·

This has sadly been the case for a long time. Some people try to defend it for various reasons and keeping track of this figure isn't a problem for me personall

by 93po 6y ago

This has sadly been the case for a long time. Some people try to defend it for various reasons and keeping track of this figure isn't a problem for me personally, but calling it the unemployment rate and acting like it's representative of reality bugs the heck out of me

qppo 6y ago
It is reality. What it reflects about reality may not be immediately obvious but that's true of most metrics. It's important to understand that the value of the unemployment rate is not the absolute number but its change over time. We also have other metrics published alongside the unemployment rate, like labor participation.
- kyriee 6y ago
  It’s seldom mentioned when talking about unemployment. Particularly when it comes to titles, so it’s fair to say excluding the hopeless from unemployment makes it a misleading metric
  - Mary-Jane 6y ago
    Which again, has been the case for a very long time. The participation rate has been tracked for as long; rather than changing how unemployment is calculated the media could just reporting that metric instead. Seems like a simpler solution.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > Which again, has been the case for a very long time. We all seem to be admitting that it's a bad, misleading statistic. So why are we so committed to keeping it around forever? Why not change the definition? People say "for historical comparison", but what's the point of a historical comparison of a statistic that we all admit now is bad and misleading? The fact that something has always been done a certain way is no justification for continuing to do it, especially if the initial decision was misguided in some way.
  - qppo 6y ago
    I don't think it's seldom mentioned - it's both common knowledge among people who pay attention to financial/economic news and repeated monthly (when the new jobs report comes out). They're usually reported side by side. It's much more misleading to suggest that the people not included in the unemployment rate are the "hopeless" since it includes children, the retired, and those unable to work.

by 93po 6y ago

qppo 6y ago

It is reality. What it reflects about reality may not be immediately obvious but that's true of most metrics. It's important to understand that the value of the unemployment rate is not the absolute number but its change over time. We also have other metrics published alongside the unemployment rate, like labor participation.

kyriee 6y ago
It’s seldom mentioned when talking about unemployment. Particularly when it comes to titles, so it’s fair to say excluding the hopeless from unemployment makes it a misleading metric
- Mary-Jane 6y ago
  Which again, has been the case for a very long time. The participation rate has been tracked for as long; rather than changing how unemployment is calculated the media could just reporting that metric instead. Seems like a simpler solution.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > Which again, has been the case for a very long time. We all seem to be admitting that it's a bad, misleading statistic. So why are we so committed to keeping it around forever? Why not change the definition? People say "for historical comparison", but what's the point of a historical comparison of a statistic that we all admit now is bad and misleading? The fact that something has always been done a certain way is no justification for continuing to do it, especially if the initial decision was misguided in some way.
- qppo 6y ago
  I don't think it's seldom mentioned - it's both common knowledge among people who pay attention to financial/economic news and repeated monthly (when the new jobs report comes out). They're usually reported side by side. It's much more misleading to suggest that the people not included in the unemployment rate are the "hopeless" since it includes children, the retired, and those unable to work.