LogFAQs > #924333085

OniRonin posted...

Taily_Po posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"Lowest unemployment in X" is kind of a meaningless stat, when you realize that unemployment stats generally only count people collecting unemployment, which means anyone who has been unemployed long enough to stop being eligible for unemployment no longer exist according to the statistics.

That's actually a common misconception. In reality, it's apparently done by survey.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

Unless it works differently for some of these alternative media and they choose to rely on something else.

the most commonly cited unemployment number is U-3 unemployment, which explicitly excludes discouraged workers

...the U3 is a BLS statistic literally gathered the way I just said. Something like the U6 counts *underemployment*, which matters more if you're specifically trying to argue that employment is a meaningless statistic. However, I'm not entirely sure whether something like the U6 would be able to track people who were switched from unemployment/welfare to disability under Bill Clinton (which was how he "solved" unemployment)

Archgoat posted...

It is funny that it was a fudge stat when unemployment was low under Obama, but now that stat is just fine. The same report still not including people no longer looking for work.

Almost as funny as when it was good under Obama, but questionable under GWB, right?
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.