4 ms·
Does that make any sense? If unemployment is people looking divided by people available and you remove people available, you're increasing unemployment. Regar
by bdjsiqoocwk 3y ago
Does that make any sense?
If unemployment is people looking divided by people available and you remove people available, you're increasing unemployment.
Regardless. Don't be shocked. Changing the definition over time isnt in itself a problem - in all aspects of life we have to adapt as we go. What would be a problem is if the government is changing the definition in order to give a certain appearance. Let me know if you think you have evidence of that.
This post is garbage. It's written in order to suggest something nefarious, though no such evidence is present. As an example, look at this:
> The payroll numbers released by the BLS also show a similar story. Overall, there appears to be job growth on the surface, but when we look under the hood, part time workers are increasing, while full-time employment keeps falling.
The author's looks at aggregates and when he breaks it down it looks different. Whose fault is it for the initial erroneous interpretation of the data? But all through out he presents it as deception.
- kemotep 3y agoThe U6 figures are where all the people this person thinks aren’t being counted are counted. Because the media only reports on U3 doesn’t mean the Bureau of Labor Statistics isn’t counting these people. I mean if they think U6 is inaccurate where are all the people over the age of 18, who aren’t in school, who aren’t retired, who aren’t disabled and not looking for work, who have a part time job and don’t want a full time one, who haven’t been working and looking for a job in the past few years? Are we to believe that there are millions of people who are in that group and fall through the cracks of the BLS figures, which adjusting to be more accurate after more data comes in is supposed to be them hiding something?