Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by kitten_mittens_ 105 days ago
U-3 Unemployment doesn't include people not actively looking for work, people making less than they'd like, or working less than they'd like.

https://www.lisep.org has alternate measures that try accounting for take home wages as well as seasonal variability (construction is noted as being volatile but relatively well paying).
2 comments
hypeatei 105 days ago
The graph ("vs. Headline Rate")[0] follows the same trend lines as the BLS numbers just with a higher percentage. I don't see how the "poverty wage" methodology (which is arbitrary) is helpful here, it doesn't take into account caregivers or disabled people who may be keeping their wage low on purpose due to benefits cliffs.

Effectively they just take the official numbers and add a constant.

0: https://www.lisep.org/tru

link
gruez 105 days ago
>U-3 Unemployment doesn't include people not actively looking for work, people making less than they'd like, or working less than they'd like.

That seems fine? It's the unemployment rate, after all, not "likes how much money they're making" rate.

Moreover if you compare these alternate measures, they more or less match the same trend as U-3. For instance:

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/alternative-...

So if the alternate measures mostly follow the same trend as U-3, and the numbers are only higher because they use a looser criteria, what's the point of bringing them up, other than as a cheap rhetorical device?

Suppose we had some way of objectively determining happiness on a 1-10 scale. The government puts out a metric called the "sad rate", which is people who are 2 or less on the scale. What's the point in coming along and declaring "the real sad rate is not actually 5%. If we change the cutoff to 3, it's actually 10%!"? Heck, why stop at 3? Why not declare everyone under 5 sad? Then the sad rate would be even bigger, great for doomposting!

link