5 ms·

This is a myth. The government publishes multiple unemployment rates (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t

by rmah 4y ago

This is a myth. The government publishes multiple unemployment rates (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm) along with the "official" headline rate. You probably want the U-4 or U-5 rate. In reality, all of the rates are highly correlated and what's important is the rate relative to historical norms.

marcosdumay 4y ago
Yes, you can discover the more useful number of how many people in working condition do not have a job. It's not hidden or anything. But that number is not the unemployment rate. That means the graph on the article uses the less useful number. And the GP's notice is relevant.
- rmah 4y ago
  I don't know, it seems to me the ratio of "jobs available" vs "people looking for a job" is more useful and meaningful than "jobs available" vs (people looking for a job + people disgusted with working so not looking). But maybe that's just me.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >people disgusted with working so not looking That's pretty absolute. There are plenty of people above a certain age who depending on skills, preferences, and savings are in some gray area between working, zero interest in working for pay at all (whether "disgusted" by work or just ready to move on), and will do a little work on the side for the money/human contact/intellectual stimulation etc.
anonporridge 4y ago
Myth is an overly harsh label. When the headline unemployment rate is the only thing the vast majority of people hear about and what politicians boast about, it's entirely reasonable to remind people that it's common to misunderstand what "unemployment rate" actually means. Most people do think it's something closer in relation to labor participation rate.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  The different rates are all highly correlated, though, so it hardly even makes a difference when you are looking at a trend over time.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    Right, most of it is just report the U-3 rate because we've always reported the U-3 rate. You can infer the U-x rate by multiplying the U-3 by some fixed scaling factor (i.e., x1.9 for U-6). I feel like people love to call the the U-6 the "real" unemployment rate because it looks far worse than it actually is. But, in reality it doesn't matter if your preffered figure feel from 10% to 6% or from 17% to 10% over a time period.
macinjosh 4y ago
Sure. But the press will report the absolute numbers when and in whatever way it benefits each publication's political wing. This is done under terms like "unemployment rate" which every reasonable person takes to mean that it includes _all_ unemployed people. So sure, the government bureaucracy is correctly doing its bureaucratic job but politicians, press, and pundits abuse the complicated data by presenting it in deceptively vague terms.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  The press almost always uses U-3, which is the government's official unemployment rate. There's nothing vague about it. BLS is clear about what each category includes. The only confusion is caused by a certain subpopulation who likes to toss out U-6 as some sort of "gotcha!" whenever unemployment makes the news.
  - macinjosh 4y ago
    Next time you are on the street ask some random passersby what the difference between the U-3 unemployment rate and the U-6 unemployment rate. You're gonna get a bunch of blank stares unless you are on the campus of an economics college.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      Random passersby is a really low bar. Many won't be able to place nations on a map or name the Speaker of the House either. Which is why throwing out U-6 as a "gotcha!" is so dangerous - somebody who doesn't know better might believe the government is trying to hide something.

by rmah 4y ago

marcosdumay 4y ago

Yes, you can discover the more useful number of how many people in working condition do not have a job. It's not hidden or anything. But that number is not the unemployment rate. That means the graph on the article uses the less useful number. And the GP's notice is relevant.

rmah 4y ago
I don't know, it seems to me the ratio of "jobs available" vs "people looking for a job" is more useful and meaningful than "jobs available" vs (people looking for a job + people disgusted with working so not looking). But maybe that's just me.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >people disgusted with working so not looking That's pretty absolute. There are plenty of people above a certain age who depending on skills, preferences, and savings are in some gray area between working, zero interest in working for pay at all (whether "disgusted" by work or just ready to move on), and will do a little work on the side for the money/human contact/intellectual stimulation etc.

anonporridge 4y ago

Myth is an overly harsh label. When the headline unemployment rate is the only thing the vast majority of people hear about and what politicians boast about, it's entirely reasonable to remind people that it's common to misunderstand what "unemployment rate" actually means. Most people do think it's something closer in relation to labor participation rate.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
The different rates are all highly correlated, though, so it hardly even makes a difference when you are looking at a trend over time.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  Right, most of it is just report the U-3 rate because we've always reported the U-3 rate. You can infer the U-x rate by multiplying the U-3 by some fixed scaling factor (i.e., x1.9 for U-6). I feel like people love to call the the U-6 the "real" unemployment rate because it looks far worse than it actually is. But, in reality it doesn't matter if your preffered figure feel from 10% to 6% or from 17% to 10% over a time period.

macinjosh 4y ago

Sure. But the press will report the absolute numbers when and in whatever way it benefits each publication's political wing. This is done under terms like "unemployment rate" which every reasonable person takes to mean that it includes _all_ unemployed people. So sure, the government bureaucracy is correctly doing its bureaucratic job but politicians, press, and pundits abuse the complicated data by presenting it in deceptively vague terms.

alistairSH 4y ago
The press almost always uses U-3, which is the government's official unemployment rate. There's nothing vague about it. BLS is clear about what each category includes. The only confusion is caused by a certain subpopulation who likes to toss out U-6 as some sort of "gotcha!" whenever unemployment makes the news.
- macinjosh 4y ago
  Next time you are on the street ask some random passersby what the difference between the U-3 unemployment rate and the U-6 unemployment rate. You're gonna get a bunch of blank stares unless you are on the campus of an economics college.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Random passersby is a really low bar. Many won't be able to place nations on a map or name the Speaker of the House either. Which is why throwing out U-6 as a "gotcha!" is so dangerous - somebody who doesn't know better might believe the government is trying to hide something.