Unemployment statistics do not show an accurate picture of the people who are unemployed based on the definition of unemployed that is used by regular human beings.
I understand the stat looks good, because the definition of the stat excludes growing groups of people who we would consider unemployed.
Well what I’m seeing in this thread is two metrics, BLS and LISEP, with the argument being that the distinction between them doesn’t matter because unemployment is right now historically low by both measures (I don’t really know the difference between them myself, or whether these are the only meaningful ways to measure it). And you’re reiterating that there exists some measure where it is high, but I think for that to be a convincing counterargument you would need to say more about what that measure is, show that unemployment is high by that measure, and make an argument why that specific way of measuring things is more relevant than the other ones.
Unemployment statistics do not show an accurate picture of the people who are unemployed based on the definition of unemployed that is used by regular human beings.
I understand the stat looks good, because the definition of the stat excludes growing groups of people who we would consider unemployed.
Well what I’m seeing in this thread is two metrics, BLS and LISEP, with the argument being that the distinction between them doesn’t matter because unemployment is right now historically low by both measures (I don’t really know the difference between them myself, or whether these are the only meaningful ways to measure it). And you’re reiterating that there exists some measure where it is high, but I think for that to be a convincing counterargument you would need to say more about what that measure is, show that unemployment is high by that measure, and make an argument why that specific way of measuring things is more relevant than the other ones.