4 ms·

That's U-3. U-6 is at 7.2%. In general the claim that many people are not returning to work after COVID lockdowns is true. The reasons are up for debate, but

by IncRnd 5y ago

That's U-3. U-6 is at 7.2%. In general the claim that many people are not returning to work after COVID lockdowns is true. The reasons are up for debate, but that's not the point. The U-3 rate is an artificial rate to claim as the truth. That's moving the goal posts in order to get the win. Plus there are a record number of unfilled job openings.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Your argument is a non sequitur to me: > Plus there are a record number of unfilled job openings. Yes, which would basically imply that it's incredibly easy for anyone who wants a job to get one.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  > Your argument is a non sequitur to me: For something to be a non sequitur, it must be a non sequitur to everyone, not just to one. This is not a non sequitur for two reasons. 1) The sentence you quoted was not intended to be a consequence of the earlier statement. Unemployment rate and number of job openings are connected, but not as you believe. Correlation is not causation. You are drawing inferences without cause. 2) Full employment depends upon the number of job openings as well as the unemployment rate, which you ignored from my comment. > Yes, which would basically imply that it's incredibly easy for anyone who wants a job to get one. No. That is your inference but is clearly not implied.
bskap 5y ago
U-6's 7.2% is compared to 7.0% in February 2020 and 8.1% in February 2007. So even that is similar to pre-Covid levels and better the the peak before the last recession.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  How does that apply to full employment?
  - bskap 5y ago
    The 5% = full employment threshold has always been calculated based on U3. That's what they measured to come up with that estimate. If you want to talk about how U6 is better, then you need to compare it to previous U6 measurements, not previous U3 measurements. If, as you were implying, U3 was hiding extra unemployment right now but U6 was more accurate, then it wouldn't be so closely tracking U3.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by IncRnd 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Your argument is a non sequitur to me: > Plus there are a record number of unfilled job openings. Yes, which would basically imply that it's incredibly easy for anyone who wants a job to get one.

IncRnd 5y ago
> Your argument is a non sequitur to me: For something to be a non sequitur, it must be a non sequitur to everyone, not just to one. This is not a non sequitur for two reasons. 1) The sentence you quoted was not intended to be a consequence of the earlier statement. Unemployment rate and number of job openings are connected, but not as you believe. Correlation is not causation. You are drawing inferences without cause. 2) Full employment depends upon the number of job openings as well as the unemployment rate, which you ignored from my comment. > Yes, which would basically imply that it's incredibly easy for anyone who wants a job to get one. No. That is your inference but is clearly not implied.

bskap 5y ago

U-6's 7.2% is compared to 7.0% in February 2020 and 8.1% in February 2007. So even that is similar to pre-Covid levels and better the the peak before the last recession.

IncRnd 5y ago
How does that apply to full employment?
- bskap 5y ago
  The 5% = full employment threshold has always been calculated based on U3. That's what they measured to come up with that estimate. If you want to talk about how U6 is better, then you need to compare it to previous U6 measurements, not previous U3 measurements. If, as you were implying, U3 was hiding extra unemployment right now but U6 was more accurate, then it wouldn't be so closely tracking U3.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]