3 ms·

You are downplaying reporting of +5% unemployment in 3 months, the difference between now and 2019 is that unlike 2019 those persons were either reemployed or c

You are downplaying reporting of +5% unemployment in 3 months, the difference between now and 2019 is that unlike 2019 those persons were either reemployed or counted as unemployed…now 14M Americans (aged 18-34) are immediately removed from the workforce instead of being counted as unemployed. You can claim all you want that is not data, but it is and it is telling from a policy perspective. Since when have 18-34 year olds that quit been immediately removed from the workforce? I’ll take a guess that you neither are an employer, low wage worker or government worker, because you seem pretty far removed from the reality facing the vast majority in the US.

saeranv 5y ago
>> You are downplaying reporting of +5% unemployment in 3 months Maybe it is significant, but even if it was the author's data provides no context to evaluate the 3.9, 3.9, 4.3 million sequence. >> the difference between now and 2019 is that unlike 2019 those persons were either reemployed or counted as unemployed… Are you sure? I can't find this particular statement in the article. Did I miss something? >> now 14M Americans (aged 18-34) are immediately removed from the workforce instead of being counted as unemployed. Again, a single number with no context literally says nothing! If I came to you and said over the last three months our quantity of X increased by 400k from 3.9M, and and the total accumulation of some subset of X was now at 14M, do you have enough information to tell if this is unusually high, low or normal behaviour for X?