4 ms·

In what way are unemployment numbers "laughably phony"? You know about [all the different reported metrics](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http:

In what way are unemployment numbers "laughably phony"? You know about [all the different reported metrics](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm), right? So let's look at that most inclusive number, the U-6 (which, of course, would be a crazy number to actually measure unemployment by, which is why everyone talks about U3): http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp?fromYear=1994&toYear=2015 http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp?f... 11%, vs the late 90's "boom" of 8.5%. Early 90's, of course, were also in the low teens. All of this, of course, is ignoring the fact that _wages have been stagnant since the late 70's_ -- even through times of crazy low unemployment (U-6 below 7%).

leereeves 12y ago
I prefer looking at the "employment level" (number of persons employed) and the number not in the labor force. I couldn't find a way to link directly to these statistics but they're available at: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln The estimated number of persons employed today is less than 2% higher than in 2008. The estimated number not in the labor force is 15% higher. About 2 million more people are working now than in 2008, while 13 million more are not working or looking for work. (Disclaimer: These are statistically estimated and seasonally adjusted numbers from the same month.)