[Bartweiss]

Lowest labor participation since the '80s, and minimal recovery? Hell, I didn't know things were that bad.

The 9% figure is all-source underemployment, though. It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.

[toomuchtodo]

> It's a way better number than unemployment rate, but it's misleading to cite it as though it's the same number politicians reference.

Respectively disagree! U-6 is the perfect indicator of why we're having a terrible recovery.

[Bartweiss]

I don't think we actually disagree?

I meant "better number" as in "far more representative than the jobless-and-looking rate". I objected to calling it the "unemployment rate" without caveat, because that term usually refers to jobless-and-looking and therefore threatens to cause confusion.

[toomuchtodo]

HN was throttling me, preventing from me responding, but I believe you're correct and we're not disagreeing. Apologies for that!

[evanpw]

It seems to be mostly back to normal: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

[Bartweiss]

Interesting - I wonder why that's basically recovered, but labor force participation is still at a 30 year low?

[toomuchtodo]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/bls-chief-sc...