Breaking: True Unemployment Rate Is At 24.2%

The U.S. government is cooking the books once again. You can best believe that the lamestream media, which is a public relations outfit for the ruling class, is spinning people's frustrations over how bad the economy is doing by saying how strange they are to feel that way by our "great economy."

New report: TRUE rate of US unemployment now = 24.2%, not US gov't's low "official" numbers. That's why polls show mass US dissatisfaction with the economy. Those people were right; most pundits and politicians were wrong.


https://www.axios.com/newsletters/a...deb6357a.html?chunk=1&utm_term=emshare#story1

 

The U.S. government is cooking the books once again. You can best believe that the lamestream media, which is a public relations outfit for the ruling class, is spinning people's frustrations over how bad the economy is doing by saying how strange they are to feel that way by our "great economy."

New report: TRUE rate of US unemployment now = 24.2%, not US gov't's low "official" numbers. That's why polls show mass US dissatisfaction with the economy. Those people were right; most pundits and politicians were wrong.

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/a...deb6357a.html?chunk=1&utm_term=emshare#story1

 

I've been seeing a lot of stories of how many of the newly employed people in this country weren't born here.

We did it, Joe!

 

The problem with this formula to determine the unemployment rate is that it cannot be compared to historical unemployment rates, it assumes that every member of the labor force wants or is qualified to hold a high paying job, and finally that earning below the poverty rate can be fixed.

 

Counting anyone making less than $25K a year as unemployed is just a different way to cook the books.

 

Any stay-at-home housespouse is unemployed by this definition, even if they have a low-paying job on the side.

 

The left has an answer for that: Force companies to pay higher wages like they do in California and New York. Oh, wait a minute, that isn't working and actually makes the problem worse.

 

You'd have to do some serious book cooking to end up with 24.2%

 

Would you care to post one story?

 

Sounds like a high number to me. I think if the number was that high even the liberal media could not ignore it and would report it. I see a lot of "help wanted" signs at businesses so my common sense just doesn't buy unemployment at 24.2%.

 

When I read the OP, I immediately began sifting data and the way that the relevant data are categorized. There was no way that I could come up with an unemployment rate in 2024 of 24%.

That said, there's no doubt in my mind that government itself does 'cook the books', and it manipulates employment-versus-unemployment by going on hiring binges to make things look better than they really are! The proportion of people hired for civil-service government jobs increased greatly last September and it hasn't stopped yet... but all that hiring hasn't had a real effect on GDP because (as most of you know) government doesn't produce anything.

I'd love to hear what some of the better economic minds in this forum have to say about the REAL rate of employment in this country, like @Zorro , for instance. In the meantime, the best source of information I've found for unemployment information still is found here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The report I always focus on is the one at the bottom -- the "U-6" report:

"U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force."

Currently, the U-6 report shows that the REAL unemployment rate is 7.4%, and, it has been rising slowly since last November.... The government likes to use the U-3 report (3.9%), but even it has been rising slowly during the same period.

 

The method of calculating unemployment has not changed since 1994, but of course partisan minds will always accuse the ruling party of 'cooking the books' when the rate is good.

 

Right wingers have been making that claim since I was a little boy, and I'm 73. All that matters is that whatever system they use to count, that that method is constant, so we can see where the trendline is, and unemployment is going down. That's all that matters.

 

Oh, really? The government doesn't produce anything, you say?

Allow me to disabuse you of that particular myth.

Go out into the world, and look around you. Society at large. The streets, the infrastructure, the mail service, the civil structures, the waterways, the rail ways, the airports, TV, airwaves controlled, airplanes do not crash much, most trains run on time, the courts for redress, criminals in jail, the constitution, the laws, the military, the sea lanes protected throughout the world, parks and forest protected against corporate exploitation, food and drugs made according to federal and state standards, our relationship with other countries, our guarantee that every child will be educated, society as a whole.

Would any of that exist if you lived in a true anarchy the size of America?

No, because it would have been invaded a long time ago and the government would be china or russia.

Yes, the government does produce the most valuable asset you live in.

Your freedom, your country, that thing you pledged the allegiance to every day when you went to school.

 

Liars figure and figures lie.

 

Thanks, I’ve always wanted to be a carpenter, and now that I know the house i bought means that I made it, I really am a carpenter!

 

Axios is not a right wing source.

“The big picture: The True Unemployment rate tends to track — but also be much higher than — the headline unemployment rate published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

• That's because the BLS rate excludes people who might be earning only a few dollars a week; LISEP, by contrast, counts as unemployed anybody earning less than $25,000 per year.
• The BLS, unlike LISEP, also excludes anybody who has stopped looking for work or is discouraged by a lack of jobs or the demands of child care.

Zoom in: Many rich towns have much lower True Unemployment than the national average.

• Bend, Oregon, is at 11%; Topeka, Kansas, is at 15%; Denver and Nashville are both at 16%.
• At those levels, the numbers are low enough that they could mostly include people so rich they don't need to work.”
• AXIOS, 1 big thing: Where the living-wage jobs are (and aren’t), By Felix Salmon Emily Peck, May 03, 2024.
• True Rate of Unemployment, 2023
• https://www.axios.com/newsletters/a...deb6357a.html?chunk=1&utm_term=emshare#story1
  AXIOS, 1 big thing: Where the living-wage jobs are (and aren’t), By Felix Salmon Emily Peck, May 03, 2024.
  True Rate of Unemployment, 2023
  https://www.axios.com/newsletters/a...deb6357a.html?chunk=1&utm_term=emshare#story1

 

Ok. Let's go with the True Unemployment method.
Oh wait! What's that? Using the TRU method, Biden has the BEST numbers since as long as you can track this back by LISEP who are responsible for these numbers. 22.5 to 24.9. Trump's numbers using the LISEP method are actually worse than when you compare U3 methods for both of them. (he's more in the 24.3 to 27.7 range. And I am not counting his covid year where it peaked at 34.3).
So here are your options:
1) admit that by using the criteria that you brought up for "true" unemployment, Biden's results are far better than Trump's
2) admit that you didn't realise that you didn't know that this metric existed in parallel to the more commonly used method, so you were mistaken into comparing the U3 method for Trump to the TRU method for Biden
3) Admit that you knew you were comparing apples to oranges, and just thought that we were dumb enough to beleive it

Pleas look at the chart below using the method that YOU believe is the most representative.


https://www.lisep.org/tru

It is rare to just flat out win an argument at PF. But if the OP has any integrity he Willa admit he was wrong

 

Premise is off point.

 

That's a fairly ridiculous way to calculate unemployment when republicans don't even want to make the minimum wage a living wage.

Unemployment is an inappropriate description for the statistic as described. Maybe the non-living wage rate, poverty wage index, or something catchier.

 

I don't have time to get into the weeds of this article, so I fed it to AI for its critique:

The argument presented by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) about "True Unemployment" offers an alternative perspective on labor market conditions in the U.S., focusing on income adequacy and job quality, which are indeed crucial aspects of economic analysis. Here are several critiques and considerations regarding the argument:

Strengths of the Argument

1. Broader Definition of Unemployment: LISEP’s measure of unemployment includes those earning below a living wage and those who are underemployed, addressing a significant gap in traditional unemployment metrics that fail to capture the economic reality for many workers.
2. Highlighting Regional Disparities: The data illustrates the economic diversity and disparities between different geographic locations in the U.S., providing a deeper understanding of local economic health beyond national averages.
3. Focus on Economic Inequality: By differentiating between areas and considering the quality of jobs, the argument sheds light on broader issues of inequality, which are often overlooked in standard economic measures.

Critiques of the Argument

1. Definitional Concerns: The definition of "True Unemployment" by LISEP is unconventional. While it captures underemployment and low wages, it deviates significantly from standard labor economic definitions. This can lead to confusion and difficulties in comparing it with other data sources or historical trends.
2. Methodological Transparency: The proprietary nature of LISEP’s methodology could be a limitation. Without full transparency in how the data is collected and analyzed, it is difficult to assess the accuracy, reliability, or bias of the findings.
3. Potential Misinterpretations: The inclusion of all individuals earning less than $25,000 as "unemployed" might overstate the problem by including part-time workers by choice, students, retirees, or others who might not seek full-time employment or higher income.
4. Economic Context: The argument could benefit from a deeper discussion on the economic contexts of the regions mentioned. For instance, high unemployment in border towns could be influenced by factors beyond individual qualifications, such as macroeconomic conditions, trade impacts, or immigration policies.
5. Comparison Issues: By significantly expanding the definition of unemployment, comparisons with BLS data or other standard economic measures become less direct, which can obscure rather than clarify economic conditions.

Additional Considerations

• Economic Diversification: An exploration of how economic diversification or the lack thereof impacts these unemployment rates could enrich the analysis.
• Policy Implications: Discussing potential policy responses or interventions that could address the specific types of unemployment identified by LISEP might provide a more constructive outlook on solving these issues.

In summary, while the LISEP's approach provides valuable insights into aspects of the labor market that are often neglected, its methodology and the broad definition of unemployment raise questions about comparability and interpretation. A balanced discussion would benefit from more methodological details, consideration of local economic contexts, and potential policy implications to address the highlighted issues.


*****************************************


Conservatives make this argument. They count as 'unemployed' folks who make less than $25k a year, but vote against livable wages that would pay more than that.

Conservatives vote against legislative measures that help women with childcare needs so they can work.

That means they are the cause of their own stat.

I asked AI does my claim above, have merit?

This could indeed suggest a scenario where they are contributing to the perpetuation of the statistics they use to argue for greater recognition of economic issues.

Now, you could argue AI is wrong (it doesn't claim to be always correct, but it is, most of the time) and that's fine. I think it's accurate unless you have a point to make not being looked at, above.

 

I think we are at full employment, real wages are lagging due to our open borders and we still have segment of the population that got accustomed to not working, and our social safety network is generous enough, that they can get by without working.



Running $1.7T in annual deficit, while at full employment, and unable to control inflation, is fiscal insanity. And it won't change under the current government. Change will require a clear message from the voters and more fortitude than Johnson and McCarthy demonstrated. And McConnell seems to find the whole subject far less interesting than the opportunities for graft that are represented by all this spending.

 

Yes, Patricio, all of the things you listed exist, and, that government uses them in needed functions, but the actual products in use, the actual devices themselves, the TV stations, the steel, concrete, and asphalt in airports, on and on and on, were manufactured by private enterprise corporations using materials supplied by other private enterprise corporations (which hire workers that actually do PRODUCE things). Government entities put out requests-for-bids, award contracts, guarantee compliance with the terms and conditions, etc., but government itself actually PRODUCES nothing. Government workers work -- yes -- but they produce nothing.

 

Again, Axios is not a conservative or right wing source. Beyond that, the AI analysis does not contradict the Axios article's critique of the economy and unemployment. AI points out that the article could have gone further providing more detailed comprehensive analysis and suggested specific solutions for the exposed economic/social problems.

IOW, the authors could have done more. Which, sadly, is always the case with every project attempted by mere humans.
AI must know that. Why do you suppose AI did not point that out?

 

You are correct! Axios is actually listed as "leans Left" by the AllSides bias analysis site.
Link: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/axios