| >whereas the measure given in the article shows that the official unemployment rate for men 25-55 is just 1/3 of the "true" unemployment rate that includes disaffected workers. This is significant. Using that as the "true" unemployment rate is, frankly, bullshit. The number they're citing is the OECD "employment rate"[0][1], defined as the employed share divided by the total population in that demographic. Thus it includes the disabled, stay-at-home-parents, the leisure class, those enrolled in education, and anyone else who is not working but has no desire to do so. The decline is almost entirely driven by the reduction in labor force participation rate from 97+% in that demographic in the 1960s to 88.8% today.[2] Is it unreasonable to expect males may on average voluntarily spend 3 years outside the labor force during their prime years? If you want to count discouraged workers, use U4 — which currently stands at 4.1% vs. the U3 at 3.9%.[3] (U3 is 3.0% for the demographic in question.[4]) U6, which adds all other marginally attached workers and those employed only part-time who'd like to be full-time, stands at 7.4%. If your concern is falling LFPR, say so. If your concern is discouraged workers, use U4/U6. But don't change the denominator on the unemployment rate from the labor force to the whole population and act like it's some huge hidden increase the authorities have been concealing from us. [0] https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate.htm [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSA156S [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRAC25MAUSM156S [3] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm [4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU04000061 |
