- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
I just want to add, for the record, since you clearly don't spend enough time on this site to know much about me or my position - I have repeated over many years pointed out that the unemployment rate is misleading and misleadingly calculated. I am fully aware of the fact that people who are "not in the labour force" are not counted as unemployed and that is one of the ways that unemployment rates shrink that is misleading. I was specifically criticizing you for not knowing the definition of unemployed.I got my figures from inside that web site where you hope nobody will try to find them.
Those who have given up looking for work are clearly not employed but they are not counted as unemployed because they are not currently looking for work. Obviously if the economy was really picking up then these discouraged people would begin looking for work again (ironically boosting the unemployment rate as the economy improves).
I have issues with the birth/death model which is highly misleading in times of recession as its basic assumption is that a new job is created for each job lost - a simplification very handy for the bean counter but not necessarily robust.
I also don't like how unemployment is condensed into a single metric - usually the friendly U3 rate rather than a fuller dataset including U6, median time spent looking for work, wage of new jobs versus wages of jobs lost, etc. By all of those metrics we are in very bad times indeed. Most people who are working are working for less than their parents worked at the same point in their lives and carry higher debt. It's a trend that has been moving mostly in the wrong direction for over 40 years.