4 ms·

Well, the unemployment rate is inherently a BS, deceptive metric. True Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is a much better one because of who the UR convenie

Well, the unemployment rate is inherently a BS, deceptive metric. True Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is a much better one because of who the UR conveniently excludes. I seriously doubt many policymakers except progressives have "lost faith" in UR because it can be selectively-sculpted to make the economy seem amazing.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
> the UR can be selectively-sculpted to make the economy seem amazing. Beginning a few years after 2008, came endless news reports of our recovering and robust economy. That was hard to reconcile during times mine/other families were eating nothing but rice (except when we couldn't afford rice). Huzzah for only reporting from US's wealthiest regions.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Beginning a few years after 2008, came endless news reports of our recovering and robust economy. Just like the recovery after the 2001 recession, that was hollow as shown by income distributional statistics: yes, there was an aggregate boom in both cases, and in both cases the gains were very concentrated at the top. Unemployment/employment measures are about whether people have work, not whether they have money.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> True Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is a much better one No, it's not, among many other reasons since treating LFPR as if it was unemployment treats, say, a demographic boom reaching retirement age as if it were a mass unemployment event. Or a long term trend of increasing average years of education as, ceteris paribus, a long term trend of increasing unemployment. Or a long-term trend of increasing incarceration and forced labor as, ceteris paribus, a long-term trend of increasing unemployment (it's a problem trend, but it's a completely different problem than unemployment.) And, worst of all, LFPR completely ignores actual unemployment. If no one was employed and everyone was actively looking for work, you would have 100% LFPR even though you had 100% unemployment. Alternative employment/unemployment measures are important to capture different aspects of the employment landscape, which is why they are collected in the first place—the issue isn't unidimensional. But LFPR is not a better (or even a good, or even, without adjective, a) measure of unemployment.
- airhead969 6y ago
  So you're okay with people who could work but have stopped looking for work to not be counted in U3 as unemployed? > Ceteris paribus Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. > If no one was employed and everyone was actively looking for work, you would have 100% LFPR even though you had 100% unemployment. Impossible strawman and lack of common sense. What's your answer then? You didn't provide any specifics. What are these "alternatives?"
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > So you're okay with people who could work but have stopped looking for work to not be counted in U3 as unemployed? Sure. I'm also okay with them being counted in U-4 and U-5, and not being counted in U-1 and U-2. > What are these "alternatives?" U-1 through U-5 (excluding U-3 since it's the headline rate) are alternative measures of unemployment, LFPR is a measure of employment. All are within the scope of “alternative measures of employment/unemployment”. All have some value in understanding the broad issue, and none are perfect, unequivocally better than the others without a fairly specific purpose in mind, and LFPR is about the least useful of the set on its own (and is especially not useful as a measure of unemployment, since it treats classical unemployment as the same as employment.) But a much bigger problem than choosing a less-than-ideal measure of unemployment is excessive focus on unemployment as the key measure of health of the economy. Distributional measures of income (while less conveniently unidimensional than picking one or the other un/employment rate) are much more useful there.
    - airhead969 6y ago
      > Sure. You missed my point that they're not counted meaningfully. U-3 is what is typically reported, so the others are irrelevant. The "health" of the economy is a nebulous, academic abstraction when there are 100 homeless people camping under freeway underpasses outside my window, no federal livable minimum wage, workers gradually being paid less and less over decades while expected to work more and more, swelling ranks of billionaires cashing in on socialism they bought, and the burgeoning ranks of un- and underemployed who go neglected (maybe that explains part of Trump's base?) and undercounted. The MSM loves to parrot how "great" the economy always is because that's what advertisers want to hear, but it's tone-deaf when there was (and may still well be) more real unemployment than during the height of the Great Depression. Wealth equality and employment are all most people care about. No one cares about the "health" of the rich people's casino "economy." Wealth Inequality in America https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

> the UR can be selectively-sculpted to make the economy seem amazing. Beginning a few years after 2008, came endless news reports of our recovering and robust economy. That was hard to reconcile during times mine/other families were eating nothing but rice (except when we couldn't afford rice). Huzzah for only reporting from US's wealthiest regions.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Beginning a few years after 2008, came endless news reports of our recovering and robust economy. Just like the recovery after the 2001 recession, that was hollow as shown by income distributional statistics: yes, there was an aggregate boom in both cases, and in both cases the gains were very concentrated at the top. Unemployment/employment measures are about whether people have work, not whether they have money.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> True Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is a much better one No, it's not, among many other reasons since treating LFPR as if it was unemployment treats, say, a demographic boom reaching retirement age as if it were a mass unemployment event. Or a long term trend of increasing average years of education as, ceteris paribus, a long term trend of increasing unemployment. Or a long-term trend of increasing incarceration and forced labor as, ceteris paribus, a long-term trend of increasing unemployment (it's a problem trend, but it's a completely different problem than unemployment.) And, worst of all, LFPR completely ignores actual unemployment. If no one was employed and everyone was actively looking for work, you would have 100% LFPR even though you had 100% unemployment. Alternative employment/unemployment measures are important to capture different aspects of the employment landscape, which is why they are collected in the first place—the issue isn't unidimensional. But LFPR is not a better (or even a good, or even, without adjective, a) measure of unemployment.

airhead969 6y ago
So you're okay with people who could work but have stopped looking for work to not be counted in U3 as unemployed? > Ceteris paribus Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. > If no one was employed and everyone was actively looking for work, you would have 100% LFPR even though you had 100% unemployment. Impossible strawman and lack of common sense. What's your answer then? You didn't provide any specifics. What are these "alternatives?"
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > So you're okay with people who could work but have stopped looking for work to not be counted in U3 as unemployed? Sure. I'm also okay with them being counted in U-4 and U-5, and not being counted in U-1 and U-2. > What are these "alternatives?" U-1 through U-5 (excluding U-3 since it's the headline rate) are alternative measures of unemployment, LFPR is a measure of employment. All are within the scope of “alternative measures of employment/unemployment”. All have some value in understanding the broad issue, and none are perfect, unequivocally better than the others without a fairly specific purpose in mind, and LFPR is about the least useful of the set on its own (and is especially not useful as a measure of unemployment, since it treats classical unemployment as the same as employment.) But a much bigger problem than choosing a less-than-ideal measure of unemployment is excessive focus on unemployment as the key measure of health of the economy. Distributional measures of income (while less conveniently unidimensional than picking one or the other un/employment rate) are much more useful there.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    > Sure. You missed my point that they're not counted meaningfully. U-3 is what is typically reported, so the others are irrelevant. The "health" of the economy is a nebulous, academic abstraction when there are 100 homeless people camping under freeway underpasses outside my window, no federal livable minimum wage, workers gradually being paid less and less over decades while expected to work more and more, swelling ranks of billionaires cashing in on socialism they bought, and the burgeoning ranks of un- and underemployed who go neglected (maybe that explains part of Trump's base?) and undercounted. The MSM loves to parrot how "great" the economy always is because that's what advertisers want to hear, but it's tone-deaf when there was (and may still well be) more real unemployment than during the height of the Great Depression. Wealth equality and employment are all most people care about. No one cares about the "health" of the rich people's casino "economy." Wealth Inequality in America https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM