4 ms·

Talking about unemployment numbers without talking about how they are routinely massaged, and the calculations changed, is either stupid (for the journalist not

Talking about unemployment numbers without talking about how they are routinely massaged, and the calculations changed, is either stupid (for the journalist not knowing about it) or evil (if the journalist does and is merely trying to toe a line). See shadowstats.com for instance - they (the BLS) have changed the way unemployment (and many other stats such as CPI) are calculated over the years, and are no longer very accurate.

joe_the_user 13y ago
Sure but I actually think this article comes closer to talking about the real situation than most.
adventured 13y ago
Every time I read an article about our supposedly improving unemployment picture, I try to figure out if the author is ignorant or malicious, because it's the same story with every article. As though the 6.6% number were even remotely real. 13.5% U6 unemployment [1]. Down 5.x million full-time jobs [2] since the recession began (which even ignores population expansion and the expectation that we should have more full-time jobs now). Records on poverty, food stamps and SS disability fraud. A continuing plunge in the labor force participation rate [3] that makes it look like we're knee deep in a depression. We routinely drop a city the size of Pittsburgh out of our labor force. There has only been a recovery in asset prices, and that's strictly due to the Fed's QE programs [4] massively artificially suppressing the real cost of debt (which you can see in real-time effect when there's talk of, or an actual tapering to the QE program). [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/full-time-vs-total-employment-chart-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/full-time-vs-total-employment... [3] http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [4] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-06/sp-and-without-qe http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-06/sp-and-without-qe
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Prime age employment (18-54) is lower than it's been since around 1985. http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2014/01/were-not-seeing-lot-of-progress-here.html http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2014/01/were-not-seeing...
yummyfajitas 13y ago
Changing definitions? Citation needed. A detailed link, not a vague referral to a conspiracy site.
- patrickg_zill 13y ago
  Are you trolling or just woefully underinformed to be throwing around the words "conspiracy site"? The computations were changed in a major way during the Clinton administration . http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Read your link. The definition of unemployment didn't change. They just stopped calculating u3 and u4 and relabeled u5 to u3.
    - patrickg_zill 13y ago
      Try looking at the bottom of page 25 (as marked in the PDF), under the heading APPENDIX. The CPS, which the unemployment stats use, was redesigned in 1994; the last time it was changed was 1967. If I really wanted to debate with you I would point out the birth/death rate adjustments... but you are acting rather trollish. plonk

joe_the_user 13y ago

Sure but I actually think this article comes closer to talking about the real situation than most.

adventured 13y ago

Every time I read an article about our supposedly improving unemployment picture, I try to figure out if the author is ignorant or malicious, because it's the same story with every article. As though the 6.6% number were even remotely real. 13.5% U6 unemployment [1]. Down 5.x million full-time jobs [2] since the recession began (which even ignores population expansion and the expectation that we should have more full-time jobs now). Records on poverty, food stamps and SS disability fraud. A continuing plunge in the labor force participation rate [3] that makes it look like we're knee deep in a depression. We routinely drop a city the size of Pittsburgh out of our labor force. There has only been a recovery in asset prices, and that's strictly due to the Fed's QE programs [4] massively artificially suppressing the real cost of debt (which you can see in real-time effect when there's talk of, or an actual tapering to the QE program). [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/full-time-vs-total-employment-chart-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/full-time-vs-total-employment... [3] http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [4] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-06/sp-and-without-qe http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-06/sp-and-without-qe

pessimizer 13y ago
Prime age employment (18-54) is lower than it's been since around 1985. http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2014/01/were-not-seeing-lot-of-progress-here.html http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2014/01/were-not-seeing...

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Changing definitions? Citation needed. A detailed link, not a vague referral to a conspiracy site.

patrickg_zill 13y ago
Are you trolling or just woefully underinformed to be throwing around the words "conspiracy site"? The computations were changed in a major way during the Clinton administration . http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Read your link. The definition of unemployment didn't change. They just stopped calculating u3 and u4 and relabeled u5 to u3.
  - patrickg_zill 13y ago
    Try looking at the bottom of page 25 (as marked in the PDF), under the heading APPENDIX. The CPS, which the unemployment stats use, was redesigned in 1994; the last time it was changed was 1967. If I really wanted to debate with you I would point out the birth/death rate adjustments... but you are acting rather trollish. plonk