Lies, Statistics and Unemployment Figures

[JimC]

[Hermit]

That links to another general mod warning.

My bad...

Now edited to have the correct link...

I actually used the report button quite soon after you posted the good news to get the error fixed. BP closed the report shortly thereafter. I wonder if he even read it.

I fixed the link.... and Jim fixed it again!

Thousands wouldn't believe you, but I do. I really do.

[Forty Two]

Failing to look for work makes you not unemployed. Not being ready, willing or able to work makes you not unemployed (even though you are eligible to be in the labor force).

It doesn't follow.

It's the way the statistics on unemployment have been calculated for many decades. If you aren't ready, willing, and able to work, then you're not in the labor force, and not considered unemployed. In the EU, for example, the unemployed are persons of working age who, in a specified period, are without work and are both available for and are actively seeking work.

There are many unemployed that are totally discouraged from seeking employment. The government chose not to count them, because it suits their figures.
Let's say for instance mothers of young children, who can't afford child care. They wouldn't be counted as unemployed now would they?

the method of who to count and who not to count have been the same for many decades.

Mothers of young children who are not actively seeking work would not be considered unemployed, whether in the US or in the EU, or elsewhere in the OECD. That's correct. Nor were they considered "unemployed" in 2016, 2009, 2008, 2001, 1999, or 1992.....

There are, however, various statistics that do capture discouraged and marginally attached workers - see the various rates which in the US are "U1, U2, U4, U5 and U6. The national rate - the one used in the media - is U3, and that "official national unemployment rate" is calculated the same way as all other western industrialized countries have done for decades.

[pErvinalia]

It's amazing how you think this is a Europe vs US thing. You just can't help yourself, can you?

[Forty Two]

It's amazing how you think this is a Europe vs US thing. You just can't help yourself, can you?

What are you on about?

Rainbow said that the actual, literal definition of the official unemployment rate "doesn't follow." I responded that Europe, the US, and the rest of the OECD all use the same concept: unemployed means ready, willing and able to work and actively seeking employment.

Not only does it "follow", it's the same method used for many decades. It's not controversial at all. Similar methods are used for comparison purposes, so when you see the unemployment rate for the EU being, say, about 6.5% and the rate in the US being 3.8%, those numbers are comparable.

In the US, the "side" advancing this kind of point switches with the party in power. When Obama was President, it was Republicans who would claim that the "real" unemployment rate was so much higher than the official rate, and suggesting that the numbers were polished and scrubbed to paint a rosy picture. When Bush (and now Trump) became President, the roles reversed, and it was the Democrats claiming the unemployment numbers were cooked because they don't even count discouraged workers, etc. Yet, the methodology hasn't changed and the numbers are comparable.

[rainbow]

It's the way the statistics on unemployment have been calculated for many decades.

the method of who to count and who not to count have been the same for many decades.

Yes, yes.

Just because it has suited governments to lie about the real situation, doesn't make it valid.

[Forty Two]

It's the way the statistics on unemployment have been calculated for many decades.

the method of who to count and who not to count have been the same for many decades.

Yes, yes.

Just because it has suited governments to lie about the real situation, doesn't make it valid.

It's not a lie, as the definition is public, prominent, and clear. Not only that, but the official unemployment rate (in the US) is called "U-3" -- there are six different stats, with the one you're more interested in being U-6. Just because you prefer to look at U-6 doesn't mean U-3 is somehow invalid. They're different stats, with different uses.

This is neither nefarious, nor unusual.

[rainbow]

Not only that, but the official unemployment rate (in the US) is called "U-3" -- there are six different stats, with the one you're more interested in being U-6. Just because you prefer to look at U-6 doesn't mean U-3 is somehow invalid. They're different stats, with different uses.

Fascinating

I didn't say u-3 was invalid. It is misleading.

How was that difficult to understand?

[Forty Two]

Not only that, but the official unemployment rate (in the US) is called "U-3" -- there are six different stats, with the one you're more interested in being U-6. Just because you prefer to look at U-6 doesn't mean U-3 is somehow invalid. They're different stats, with different uses.

Fascinating

I didn't say u-3 was invalid. It is misleading.

How was that difficult to understand?

It's not misleading. The criteria are well-known. It's just that you want the number to be worse, now. So, rather than understand that relative to the U-3 number for the past 50 years, it's phenomenal - practically the lowest ever. Comparing apples to apples, Trump's unemployment numbers are fantastic. Can't get around that. So, you go for a tangential attack - let's just pretend the entire system is invalid, and so we can't trust the numbers...now, of course... they were certainly trustworthy when Obama was taking credit for them in 2016....

[Brian Peacock]

The problem here is in focusing only on one set of numbers or another to infer wider un/employment trends. What proportion of the working age population in the US are economically inactive, for example? Identifying the number of people of working age outside the labour market as a percentage of the working population as a whole helps to give a broader picture of these trends. In the UK and the EU that % has been falling since c.2014 after steep post-crash rises - currently at c.18% EU-wide {lowest: Slovenia 9.7%, highest: Italy 32.7%}.

[rainbow]

It's just that you want the number to be worse, now.

I do?
Perhaps you need to get a refund from your "Mind Reading in 15 Days!!!" course?

[Forty Two]

The problem here is in focusing only on one set of numbers or another to infer wider un/employment trends. What proportion of the working age population in the US are economically inactive, for example?

Labor participation rate is about 63% right now. That's the percentage of working age population who are available for work. I.e., that's the employed plus the unemployed (the labor force). Europe overall is at about 57% give or take (end of 2018 numbers), and some countries are higher and others lower, obviously.

Identifying the number of people of working age outside the labour market as a percentage of the working population as a whole helps to give a broader picture of these trends. In the UK and the EU that % has been falling since c.2014 after steep post-crash rises - currently at c.18% EU-wide {lowest: Slovenia 9.7%, highest: Italy 32.7%}.

Can you cite to the stat on this?

I agree, no one measure, whether it be official unemployment rate, wealth inequality, etc. is determinative of the health and well being of an economy or a society. That's why there are many different numbers.