7 ms·

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is ther

That unemployment graph is rather breathtaking, both because it illustrates how impactful the '08 crash was, and how little we've recovered since then. Is there any chance that the graph could be misleading, or should it be believed at face value that one in four people are unemployed?

opendais 12y ago
The graph represents a 4% chance in the size of the active labor force. In good times, 1 in 5 people don't work. So saying 1 in 4 is a massive change [when it is 5%] isn't really correct. It also is only 'prime' so 25-54. 55-65, people still work. Same with under 25.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > It also is only 'prime' so 25-54. 55-65, people still work. Same with under 25. Does the Social Security Administration release data on the number of people collecting SS benefits who are also working? Very interested in the number of people delaying retirement in order to keep working (either because base SS doesn't cover their living expenses, or because they're delaying collecting SS to increase their monthly benefit).
  - opendais 12y ago
    Its done by the Census, the SSA doesn't track it that I noticed: http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2013/02/11/why-more-americans-are-working-past-age-65 http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2013/02/11... Turning 65 is no guarantee that you will be ready or willing to retire. A rapidly growing number of Americans are continuing to work beyond their 65th birthday. The proportion of people age 65 and older in the workforce grew to 16.1 percent by 2010, up from 12.1 percent in 1990, according to a recent Census Bureau report. And the percentage of people between ages 65 and 69 who are working grew 9 percentage points to 30.8 percent in 2010. Its still age 65 for the people who have hit age 65 so that is close enough I think?
michaelbuckbee 12y ago
One potentially misleading aspect of the chart is that it covers only 25-54 year olds and one result of the downturn was that older workers have remained in their jobs longer, delayed retirement, etc.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Edit added above. I chose prime-age because baby boomers.
dllthomas 12y ago
I think this includes people who are not working by choice (wealthy and idle, stay-at-home parent, student, &c).
- homotopy 12y ago
  It indeed does, the graph is of Labor Force Participation rate among ages 25 to 54, so that is the portion of people that age that are working over the total people that age eligible to work. Now the unemployment numbers(U3) that you hear on the TV do not include these people typically, that is the discourages workers and those that are underemployed, it only includes people that are actively looking for a job.
nostrademons 12y ago
The graph doesn't start at 0 on the Y-axis. It would be a lot less striking if the scale ran from 0-100 instead of the cherrypicked 74-81 scale. Also, this is labor force participation, not unemployment. If you carried this back to the 1950s, it would be around 60%, because most women didn't work back then. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Are you really accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cherry-picking the scale, or do you mean to use a different word?
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    The scale is cherry-picked to fit the change in the graph - you can see that just by looking at the Y-axis. It makes sense for what I assume the BLS assumed the purpose of the graph is, visualizing the direction of the trend over time. However, you can't draw conclusions on the magnitude when the magnitude is arbitrarily chosen. So yes, I am really accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cherry-picking the scale. I don't assume any malice on their part, only that they intended the graph to be used for purposes other than how it is used here.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      You honestly think that the scale was hand picked, rather than being determined by the software being used to generate every graph on the site? The scale looks to be determined by the floor of the lowest value, and the ceiling of the highest.
      - nostrademons 12y ago
        I didn't say hand-picked. By cherry-picked I mean that the software picked out two arbitrary values that are just outside of the range of the data. The values are still arbitrary: they show direction well but magnitude poorly.
endersshadow 12y ago
This is an employment to population ratio, so 1 in 4 people, ages 25-54 do not work. That does not mean that they are unemployed! Unemployed people are those looking for work that don't have employment. Plenty of people voluntarily leave the "labor force" (employed + unemployed people), such as stay-at-home parents, trust fund kids, or independently wealthy and retired folks. That said, "unemployment" is a very tough figure to calculate (as are most macroeconomic figures), and there's a lot of pseudo-controversy about what the numbers mean. Wiki does a good job summarizing how the BLS calculates unemployment [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bur...
- esbranson 12y ago
  It does mean that they are unemployed. Merriam-Webster defines unemployment as "the state of not having a job". Its very binary: you either have a job or you don't. You have mistaken bureaucratic doublespeak for English. I think it clear we are speaking in standard international English here. Letting the US government redefine words such as "unemployment" to mean something other than "the state of not having a job" is something straight out of a dystopian novel.
DangerousPie 12y ago
Very misleading Y axis. Here is the same plot with a proper axis: http://i.imgur.com/k4ClDSF.png http://i.imgur.com/k4ClDSF.png
- pessimizer 12y ago
  That one is the misleading one. We're interested in the magnitude of the change vs. the recovery, not the numbers 0 to 100. A graph of GDP plotted as a percentage of current GDP at that scale could make the recession seem like a tiny little 2% blip.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    The recession is a tiny little 2% blip, if you're one of the ~85% of people who were not laid off and didn't have any trouble finding a job. And it's a very large 2% blip if you're one of the people who are. My point is that perspective matters - a lot. By the numbers, this recession is worse than any since the Great Depression. By the numbers, this recession is only a small percentage of the total U.S. economy. Which numbers are correct? Well, they're actually the same numbers, what matters is how you use them and what conclusion you're trying to draw. From my personal perspective, the recession was great. It meant I could actually get decent rents in the Bay Area for the first two years after I moved out here, and I could pick up stocks for relatively cheap, and I had no problem getting a job. I realize this is not the perspective of many other people, and the numbers help tell me how many other people. And one of my professional startup interests is finding better ways to help people manage their careers, so I'm quite interested in hearing other people's perspectives (if you have stories or want to vent, feel free to e-mail me...I'm quite happy to listen, my e-mail address is in my profile.) But understand that numbers always require interpretation - whether the graph is misleading or not depends entirely on where you're leading people.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Agreed. My point is that the data that we're examining are the changes in employment to population surrounding the housing bubble. Measuring on a 0% to 100% scale whether we've begun a recovery from a recent drop in the rate of employment is like measuring the tides from the sea floor. Personally, my salary has tripled since the recession, and my wealth increased by a factor of five or six. The adult, established upper-middle class is doing fine. My pre-tax savings rate is over 50% though, so I'm not doing a consumption-driven economy any favors.

opendais 12y ago

The graph represents a 4% chance in the size of the active labor force. In good times, 1 in 5 people don't work. So saying 1 in 4 is a massive change [when it is 5%] isn't really correct. It also is only 'prime' so 25-54. 55-65, people still work. Same with under 25.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
> It also is only 'prime' so 25-54. 55-65, people still work. Same with under 25. Does the Social Security Administration release data on the number of people collecting SS benefits who are also working? Very interested in the number of people delaying retirement in order to keep working (either because base SS doesn't cover their living expenses, or because they're delaying collecting SS to increase their monthly benefit).
- opendais 12y ago
  Its done by the Census, the SSA doesn't track it that I noticed: http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2013/02/11/why-more-americans-are-working-past-age-65 http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2013/02/11... Turning 65 is no guarantee that you will be ready or willing to retire. A rapidly growing number of Americans are continuing to work beyond their 65th birthday. The proportion of people age 65 and older in the workforce grew to 16.1 percent by 2010, up from 12.1 percent in 1990, according to a recent Census Bureau report. And the percentage of people between ages 65 and 69 who are working grew 9 percentage points to 30.8 percent in 2010. Its still age 65 for the people who have hit age 65 so that is close enough I think?

michaelbuckbee 12y ago

One potentially misleading aspect of the chart is that it covers only 25-54 year olds and one result of the downturn was that older workers have remained in their jobs longer, delayed retirement, etc.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 12y ago
Edit added above. I chose prime-age because baby boomers.

dllthomas 12y ago

I think this includes people who are not working by choice (wealthy and idle, stay-at-home parent, student, &c).

homotopy 12y ago
It indeed does, the graph is of Labor Force Participation rate among ages 25 to 54, so that is the portion of people that age that are working over the total people that age eligible to work. Now the unemployment numbers(U3) that you hear on the TV do not include these people typically, that is the discourages workers and those that are underemployed, it only includes people that are actively looking for a job.

nostrademons 12y ago

The graph doesn't start at 0 on the Y-axis. It would be a lot less striking if the scale ran from 0-100 instead of the cherrypicked 74-81 scale. Also, this is labor force participation, not unemployment. If you carried this back to the 1950s, it would be around 60%, because most women didn't work back then. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART

pessimizer 12y ago
Are you really accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cherry-picking the scale, or do you mean to use a different word?
- nostrademons 12y ago
  The scale is cherry-picked to fit the change in the graph - you can see that just by looking at the Y-axis. It makes sense for what I assume the BLS assumed the purpose of the graph is, visualizing the direction of the trend over time. However, you can't draw conclusions on the magnitude when the magnitude is arbitrarily chosen. So yes, I am really accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cherry-picking the scale. I don't assume any malice on their part, only that they intended the graph to be used for purposes other than how it is used here.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    You honestly think that the scale was hand picked, rather than being determined by the software being used to generate every graph on the site? The scale looks to be determined by the floor of the lowest value, and the ceiling of the highest.
    - nostrademons 12y ago
      I didn't say hand-picked. By cherry-picked I mean that the software picked out two arbitrary values that are just outside of the range of the data. The values are still arbitrary: they show direction well but magnitude poorly.

endersshadow 12y ago

This is an employment to population ratio, so 1 in 4 people, ages 25-54 do not work. That does not mean that they are unemployed! Unemployed people are those looking for work that don't have employment. Plenty of people voluntarily leave the "labor force" (employed + unemployed people), such as stay-at-home parents, trust fund kids, or independently wealthy and retired folks. That said, "unemployment" is a very tough figure to calculate (as are most macroeconomic figures), and there's a lot of pseudo-controversy about what the numbers mean. Wiki does a good job summarizing how the BLS calculates unemployment [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bur...

esbranson 12y ago
It does mean that they are unemployed. Merriam-Webster defines unemployment as "the state of not having a job". Its very binary: you either have a job or you don't. You have mistaken bureaucratic doublespeak for English. I think it clear we are speaking in standard international English here. Letting the US government redefine words such as "unemployment" to mean something other than "the state of not having a job" is something straight out of a dystopian novel.

DangerousPie 12y ago

Very misleading Y axis. Here is the same plot with a proper axis: http://i.imgur.com/k4ClDSF.png http://i.imgur.com/k4ClDSF.png

pessimizer 12y ago
That one is the misleading one. We're interested in the magnitude of the change vs. the recovery, not the numbers 0 to 100. A graph of GDP plotted as a percentage of current GDP at that scale could make the recession seem like a tiny little 2% blip.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  The recession is a tiny little 2% blip, if you're one of the ~85% of people who were not laid off and didn't have any trouble finding a job. And it's a very large 2% blip if you're one of the people who are. My point is that perspective matters - a lot. By the numbers, this recession is worse than any since the Great Depression. By the numbers, this recession is only a small percentage of the total U.S. economy. Which numbers are correct? Well, they're actually the same numbers, what matters is how you use them and what conclusion you're trying to draw. From my personal perspective, the recession was great. It meant I could actually get decent rents in the Bay Area for the first two years after I moved out here, and I could pick up stocks for relatively cheap, and I had no problem getting a job. I realize this is not the perspective of many other people, and the numbers help tell me how many other people. And one of my professional startup interests is finding better ways to help people manage their careers, so I'm quite interested in hearing other people's perspectives (if you have stories or want to vent, feel free to e-mail me...I'm quite happy to listen, my e-mail address is in my profile.) But understand that numbers always require interpretation - whether the graph is misleading or not depends entirely on where you're leading people.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Agreed. My point is that the data that we're examining are the changes in employment to population surrounding the housing bubble. Measuring on a 0% to 100% scale whether we've begun a recovery from a recent drop in the rate of employment is like measuring the tides from the sea floor. Personally, my salary has tripled since the recession, and my wealth increased by a factor of five or six. The adult, established upper-middle class is doing fine. My pre-tax savings rate is over 50% though, so I'm not doing a consumption-driven economy any favors.