The True Rate of Unemployment
lisep.org
The True Rate of Unemployment
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#2>Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes.
So many discussions online about unemployment take a framing like this, implying not so subtly that the government is lying about what unemployment _actually_ is. But the feds are publishing all of this data and being transparent about it. Nothing about having some arbitrary cap at salaries below 25,000 make this a “truer” metric.
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#3>Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes. So many discussions online about unemployment take a framing like this, implying not so subtly tha…
Looking at the first graph, it doesn't seem like this is a "shadowstats" group of cranks trying to tell you that the economy is worse than it is. According to their "true rate", the unemployment situation (as they define it) is now better than it has ever been. The "true" stats look better than the real ones.
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#4The rates in that article are absolutely eye popping. I don’t understand their methods but I can say the charts align with what I witness.
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#5>Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes. So many discussions online about unemployment take a framing like this, implying not so subtly tha…
If you renamed it "applying some artistic license to motivate the populace" instead of "lying" could we then talk about it without being called cranks?
Anything stated by the government about the economy has an effect on said economy, so it makes sense to massage the metrics. But what makes the government's chosen cutoff truer than another one?
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#6>Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes. So many discussions online about unemployment take a framing like this, implying not so subtly tha…
Looking at the first graph, it doesn't seem like this is a "shadowstats" group of cranks trying to tell you that the economy is worse than it is. According to their "true rate", the unemployment situation (as they define it) is now better than it has ever been. The "true" stats look better than the real ones.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re tracking the wrong thing and we’ve lost sight of why we even started tracking these type of stats to begin with.
Are Americans prospering? Can they afford minimum needs like food and housing? Is the average American quality of life remaining consistent or increasing?
I want to see America as a whole do better and sometimes I wonder if stats are being deliberately reported in a way that obscures the truth of the matter.
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#7I think what's going on is, we're having period of high inflation. Here's my theorey: this high inflation is effectively lowering the minimum wage level because minimum wage isn't keeping pace with the real rate of inflation. and because minimum wage is decreasing in real terms, this opens up lots of new positions that were made illegal by minimum wage. and so more and more people are finding jobs at the low end of the spectrum just above minimum wage and it's why the official reported Unemployment rates are so low and yet we have one hell of a sluggish economy.
Conclusion: the low official Unemployment rates are not a reflection of a healthy economy, they are a reflection of decreasing minimum wages.
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the first graph, it doesn't seem like this is a "shadowstats" group of cranks trying to tell you that the economy is worse than it is. According to their "true rate", the unemployment situation (as they define it) is now better than it has ever been. The "true" stats look better than the real ones.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re tracking the wrong thing and we’ve lost sight of why we even started tracking these type of stats to begin with. Are Americans prospering? Can they afford minimum needs like food and housing? Is the average American quality of life remaining consistent or increasing? I want to see America as a whole do better and sometimes I wonder if stats are being deliberately reported in a way that obs…
I once got downvoted into oblivion on this very website for advocating for a society with 90% unemployment. The stats are just stats but they're not necessarily what we should be chasing.
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#9If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable?
Also, why include people with no jobs? That would include stay-at-home parents and even FIRE folks that retired early
Re: The True Rate of Unemployment
#10Then you scroll down to their time series showing "True Unemployment" is at historic lows