4 ms·
The meaning of the word and the ever changing definition are two different things causing the idea that they are fake and real. By the definition they are corr
by ipaddr 3y ago
The meaning of the word and the ever changing definition are two different things causing the idea that they are fake and real.
By the definition they are correct. The definition is fake as in the formula is changed to suit political goals and doesn't reflect what an unemployed person is.
If a period of time passes where you still can't find a job you get excluded. You are no longer unemployed. Tell that to your parents/wife. That alone makes the entire definition more than suspect. Onr might even say fake.
- gruez 3y ago> The meaning of the word and the ever changing definition are two different things causing the idea that they are fake and real. What do you mean by "ever changing definition"? The U-3 definition has been used for decades. At some point you've just got to admit you had the wrong definition rather than blaming other people for using "fake" numbers. >If a period of time passes where you still can't find a job you get excluded. You are no longer unemployed. Tell that to your parents/wife. That alone makes the entire definition more than suspect. Onr might even say fake. I'm not sure what you got that from, but this contradicts the definition from the BLS: >In the Current Population Survey, people are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: > They were not employed during the survey reference week. > They were available for work during the survey reference week, except for temporary illness. > They made at least one specific, active effort to find a job during the 4-week period ending with the survey reference week (see active job search methods) OR they were temporarily laid off and expecting to be recalled to their job. https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#unemployed https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#unemployed
- gymbeaux 3y agoI think that last point is what they are referring to with the unemployment rate not counting you after some period of time, and it’s true- if you are “discouraged”, you aren’t counted in that unemployment rate figure that people like to refer to (U-3 I guess?).
- gruez 3y agoThat's directly contradicted by the definitions on the BLS site. If don't have a job, want a job, and tried to look for a job in the last 4 weeks, you're counted towards the U3 number. Aside from the "tried to look for a job in the past 4 weeks", how long you've been unemployed doesn't factor into it.
- gymbeaux 3y agoYeah what I'm saying is if I didn't try looking for a job in the last four weeks, I am not counted in that figure. So even though I have been unemployed for the last 6 months, I've apparently only been counted in U-3 as of January because that's when I started looking and applying.
- gruez 3y agoIf you aren't even trying, that's why should you be counted towards unemployment? The only reason I can think of is the naive thinking that "unemployment = 100% - employment", which anyone who does a cursory search will find out is wrong. Accusing the statistic as "fake", implying that there's some sort of deception going on when the explanation is readily available makes as much sense as accusing 2x4s as being "fake" because they don't measure 2 inches by 4 inches.
- gymbeaux 3y agoI don't really have a dog in the fight, I'm just trying to bridge the communication gap between you and the other guy.