Employment numbers are skewed because of people who wouldn't normally work working more to make ends meet and debt keeping on rising and inflation slowing but still unsustainable.
Can you elaborate, maybe point to a data source on this? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. The prime age labor participation rate isn't out of line with historical trends: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
While for most people ends won't meet without working, making the ends meet in this context has a bit more specific meaning you glossed over. The difference is subtle but makes the whole difference.
I honestly cannot tell what the person to whom you're responding is saying. But if they suggesting people are working multiple jobs at a higher rate than the historical average, they would, in fact, be incorrect according to fed data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12026620
However, there are certain factors that can lead to individuals falling out of the official unemployment statistic:
Discouraged Workers: If individuals become discouraged and stop actively seeking employment, they may no longer be counted as part of the labor force or in the unemployment rate calculation.
Underemployed Workers: The unemployment rate may not fully capture those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time employment. These individuals are considered part of the employed category, even if their work hours are insufficient.
Marginally Attached and Particular Job Seekers: Some individuals may have searched for employment in the past but have not actively sought employment in the four weeks preceding the survey. They are classified as marginally attached to the labor force and are not considered part of the unemployed category.
Involuntary Part-Time Workers: People who are working part-time due to economic reasons, such as inability to find full-time work, are included in the employed category but may not be fully reflected in the unemployment rate.
Right, but none of them mentions 6 months. If you're going to use chatgpt at least give a cursory glance to see whether the response is applicable to the topic at hand. I already know that U3 excludes some jobless people, but I'm asking specifically about the 6 months part.
It's the percentage of people aged 25-54 (prime age) who are either employed or unemployed and looking for work. It's considered a good indicator of the health of the labor market.
How insufferable and/or out of touch and/or smartass does one have to be to pretend this qualifies as popularly accessible information? I cannot even imagine...
Edit: Also wanted to throw this in: Average weekly hours of all employees https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP