3 ms·

Yes, it's like people think they've stumbled upon something novel by "exposing" the definition of the U3, which has been in place and largely unchanged for a lo

by nkozyra 12y ago

Yes, it's like people think they've stumbled upon something novel by "exposing" the definition of the U3, which has been in place and largely unchanged for a long time. It would be equally "misleading" to just say 11% of people are unemployed by using the U6. There's nuance to these numbers. This article calls the official unemployment rate "misleading." That's moronic. It's explicitly detailed and if you prefer to use a different metric, do so. The value of the # is not the specific percentage itself, it's the trend. Follow any trend you like, they've all had a similar trajectory the last few years.

Terr_ 12y ago
I think it's the difference between "This is intrinsically misleading" versus "People who want to mislead you may use this when they try".
- niels_olson 12y ago
  > This is intrinsically misleading Exactly. Reporting the same number over time sounds very serious and correct, unless the nature of the market itself is what changed. In which case the reporting may totally miss the real event worth reporting. That said, the conversation here is rich in part because at least people are aware that the underlying market may have changed.
  - Terr_ 12y ago
    > Exactly. Wait... exactly what? I'm confused because the "quote" you're using from my post is (ironically?) deeply misleading.
    - niels_olson 12y ago
      Reporting U3, or any other number, as "the unemployment rate" is intrinsically misleading if the underlying reality has changed. The system under discussion is not a physical system that we are discovering, it's an economic system that we are constantly manipulating. Frequently, the system is manipulated specifically to push one number or another in a politically desirable direction. This makes the reporting of any given number potentially "intrinsically misleading". By contrast "People who want to mislead you" may try to use this number, but even their attempts are undermined by changes in the underlying dynamics.
  - SixSigma 12y ago
    Isn't one of the points in the OP that the market itself has changed?
danielweber 12y ago
> Yes, it's like people think they've stumbled upon something novel by "exposing" the definition of the U3 For literally every President for the past 25 years, I've had someone breathlessly tell me "they just changed the way they calculate the unemployment rate so it doesn't look so bad!!!!!11"
- ikeboy 12y ago
  They probably make small methodology changes all the time.
  - nkozyra 12y ago
    They do, but they're published and very rarely are they significant.
- tsotha 12y ago
  Well, some of them were right. That has less to do with U3/U6 than it does the way data is gathered and the birth/death model they use. Actually trying to figure out how many people have full time jobs isn't a trivial task, and it's very much open to manipulation.
discardorama 12y ago
> It would be equally "misleading" to just say 11% of people are unemployed by using the U6. There's nuance to these numbers. How about those on SSDI? Are they included in any of the numbers? My neighbor used to work as a landscaper, but now collects SSDI while doing odd (cash) jobs here and there.

by nkozyra 12y ago

Terr_ 12y ago

I think it's the difference between "This is intrinsically misleading" versus "People who want to mislead you may use this when they try".

niels_olson 12y ago
> This is intrinsically misleading Exactly. Reporting the same number over time sounds very serious and correct, unless the nature of the market itself is what changed. In which case the reporting may totally miss the real event worth reporting. That said, the conversation here is rich in part because at least people are aware that the underlying market may have changed.
- Terr_ 12y ago
  > Exactly. Wait... exactly what? I'm confused because the "quote" you're using from my post is (ironically?) deeply misleading.
  - niels_olson 12y ago
    Reporting U3, or any other number, as "the unemployment rate" is intrinsically misleading if the underlying reality has changed. The system under discussion is not a physical system that we are discovering, it's an economic system that we are constantly manipulating. Frequently, the system is manipulated specifically to push one number or another in a politically desirable direction. This makes the reporting of any given number potentially "intrinsically misleading". By contrast "People who want to mislead you" may try to use this number, but even their attempts are undermined by changes in the underlying dynamics.
- SixSigma 12y ago
  Isn't one of the points in the OP that the market itself has changed?

danielweber 12y ago

> Yes, it's like people think they've stumbled upon something novel by "exposing" the definition of the U3 For literally every President for the past 25 years, I've had someone breathlessly tell me "they just changed the way they calculate the unemployment rate so it doesn't look so bad!!!!!11"

ikeboy 12y ago
They probably make small methodology changes all the time.
- nkozyra 12y ago
  They do, but they're published and very rarely are they significant.
tsotha 12y ago
Well, some of them were right. That has less to do with U3/U6 than it does the way data is gathered and the birth/death model they use. Actually trying to figure out how many people have full time jobs isn't a trivial task, and it's very much open to manipulation.

discardorama 12y ago

> It would be equally "misleading" to just say 11% of people are unemployed by using the U6. There's nuance to these numbers. How about those on SSDI? Are they included in any of the numbers? My neighbor used to work as a landscaper, but now collects SSDI while doing odd (cash) jobs here and there.