Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The True Rate of Unemployment

lisep.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#41

Post by strix_varius »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #26
pknomad wrote: post #11

I am not an economist but I do follow economic policies, usually in the form of blogs written by economists such as Noah Smith, Greg Mankiw, et al. I will leave this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/jd3p0l/axios_... to show why LISEP's measure of unemployment is problematic. I haven't had chance to look at the methodology for this particular piece but I suspect it's also got few holes/unmentioned…

That reddit comment is itself opinionated. The poster says that you don't want to count people who are disabled or who don't want to work. I'd argue we should count those people. If someone has failed to find a job they want for a long time, they might give up. That reduces the numerator and denominator each by 1, reducing the calculated unemployment rate. Does that make any sense?

Agreed. Similarly, "who [is] disabled" is far from objective:

https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

18.7% of West Virginians are on disability, so aren't counted as unemployed. Meanwhile only 10.5% of New Jerseyans are. Are West Virginians really almost twice as likely to be physically disabled as their near-neighbors in NJ?

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#42

Post by CydeWeys »

comte7092 wrote: post #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 tha…

Yeah, it's just downright misleading to qualify someone working a full time job making $24k/yr as unemployed. The US national minimum wage, believe it or not, only amounts to $15k/yr for full time employment (40 hrs/wk!).

I think you could certainly call these people "poor", but not unemployed. That word means something different.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#43

Post by whats_a_quasar »

comte7092 wrote: post #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 tha…

The Bureau of Labor Statistics literally publishes six different unemployment rates, each of which includes different combinations of unemployed, discouraged people who are not job searching, "marginally attached workers", and people working part time who want to be full time.

Here is the table of 2023 averages by state for each of these six rates:

https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The "True unemployment rate" from the link is basically U-6, except they use $25k as a cutoff to define marginally attached workers. It isn't immediately obvious how BLS defines marginally attached workers, so that might be different. It's not some government secret!

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#44

Post by ta2234234242 »

janalsncm wrote: post #34
ta2234234242 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but not everyone stays in the bottom 25%. College students would be one category that you would expect this to be true of. I was certainly in the poverty level in college, but not anymore. What we really care about are the people who are persistently in poverty and whether or not that number grows or shrinks. If it shrinks the economy is helping real people, if it's not, it's helping the well off.

I don’t think college students would be counted in this metric because it only counts people who want a full time job. A full time college student likely does not.

You've never known college students to work full time jobs and take night school?

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#45

Post by strix_varius »

williamcotton wrote: post #33
strix_varius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to use data to mislead; you see this all the time in organizations of any size, but especially in larger organizations - why would you expect the government to be the sole exception? For example, it's been demonstrated that workers on disability is inversely correlated with unemployment: https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ West Virginia, Mississippi, and Kentucky all have almost 20% of their adult populati…

A politician is not the government.

To be clear, your stance is that https://www.kentucky.gov/ does not represent the government?

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#46

Post by janalsncm »

ta2234234242 wrote: post #44
janalsncm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think college students would be counted in this metric because it only counts people who want a full time job. A full time college student likely does not.

You've never known college students to work full time jobs and take night school?

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen I’m just saying it’s not a large enough demographic to explain why the bottom 25% should go down.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#47

Post by williamcotton »

strix_varius wrote: post #45
williamcotton wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A politician is not the government.

To be clear, your stance is that https://www.kentucky.gov/ does not represent the government?

My stance is that whoever the governor of KY is is not “the government” and will cherry pick stats for his own personal gain.

The actual government is reporting the real rates of unemployment. Partisans are the issue.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#48

Post by Spivak »

CydeWeys wrote: post #42
comte7092 wrote: post #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 tha…

Yeah, it's just downright misleading to qualify someone working a full time job making $24k/yr as unemployed. The US national minimum wage, believe it or not, only amounts to $15k/yr for full time employment (40 hrs/wk!). I think you could certainly call these people "poor", but not unemployed. That word means something different.

The word is underemployed and for the author's purposes are still job-seekers who quality for government benefits. The practical difference between them and actual unemployed people isn't much when it comes to policy.

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#49

Post by strix_varius »

voxl wrote: post #39
strix_varius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to use data to mislead; you see this all the time in organizations of any size, but especially in larger organizations - why would you expect the government to be the sole exception? For example, it's been demonstrated that workers on disability is inversely correlated with unemployment: https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ West Virginia, Mississippi, and Kentucky all have almost 20% of their adult populati…

Being disabled does not preclude you from being employed.

Being on disability - which is what this data shows - precludes you being employed 99% of the time. It also legally limits how much you can be employed.

The rules are complex, but for every $1 you earn you lose roughly $0.50 in benefits, until they quickly reach $0 for even a modest job.

> Fewer than 1 percent of those who were on the federal program for disabled workers at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce since

Re: The True Rate of Unemployment

#50

Post by ta2234234242 »

janalsncm wrote: post #46
ta2234234242 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never known college students to work full time jobs and take night school?

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen I’m just saying it’s not a large enough demographic to explain why the bottom 25% should go down.

You didn't say that. I said it was only one category. There are perhaps others.

Again, you need to look the number of people in poverty. Is it growing or shrinking? That's the true metric of an economy.

When you get to 50% or more in poverty, that's revolution territory.

Post reply on HN