Funny cartoon about Unemployment Stats:

[WhipperSnapper]

I just discovered this funny cartoon about the unemployment stats. You can find it here:

Another exciting episode of...Are you Unemployed?

 

[glenn1]

I just discovered this funny cartoon about the unemployment stats. You can find it here:

Another exciting episode of...Are you Unemployed?

All this proves is that the cartoonist is ignorant of the difference between the BLS U3 ("headline unemployment") and U6 (U3 + marginally attached workers, etc) figures, both of which are published. You can use whichever figure you like, just like "core" inflation or inflation including food + energy.

 

[Zebo]

All this proves is that the cartoonist is ignorant of the difference between the BLS U3 ("headline unemployment") and U6 (U3 + marginally attached workers, etc) figures, both of which are published. You can use whichever figure you like, just like "core" inflation or inflation including food + energy.

What's your point?

Since the Clinton years, discouraged workers looking for a job for more than one year are not counted in the U3 anymore so the definition did in fact change for "headline unemployment" making historical comparison difficult. Furthermore numbers were deflated for political points just like this cartoon is trying to convey.

 

[shortylickens]

Wasnt that funny, but the point is very clear.
My business professor taught us about that last semester. Because of the bullshit way the govt calculates unemployment, the actual number is usually double what they claim.
If they say 10% of Americans, its really more like 20%. They'd rather prevent widespread panic than actually deal with problems.

 

[Throckmorton]

Wasnt that funny, but the point is very clear.
My business professor taught us about that last semester. Because of the bullshit way the govt calculates unemployment, the actual number is usually double what they claim.
If they say 10% of Americans, its really more like 20%. They'd rather prevent widespread panic than actually deal with problems.

How do you "deal with problems"? It was hard enough passing the stimulus we did...

 

[Budmantom]

How do you "deal with problems"? It was hard enough passing the stimulus we did...

The stimulus raised unemployment from 8% to 10%.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

According to Shadowstats, the real unemployment figure is close to 22% while the U6 reads 17%.

One thing the U6 might not account for is unemployment where someone just retires early because they could not find work or a spouse decides to stay at home, either as a parent or a homemaker, because they couldn't find work (or work that makes it worthwhile to put the kids in daycare).

 

[cubeless]

According to Shadowstats, the real unemployment figure is close to 22% while the U6 reads 17%.

One thing the U6 might not account for is unemployment where someone just retires early because they could not find work or a spouse decides to stay at home, either as a parent or a homemaker, because they couldn't find work (or work that makes it worthwhile to put the kids in daycare).

or with extended unemployment it's more lucrative to stay home...

 

[charrison]

Wasnt that funny, but the point is very clear.
My business professor taught us about that last semester. Because of the bullshit way the govt calculates unemployment, the actual number is usually double what they claim.
If they say 10% of Americans, its really more like 20%. They'd rather prevent widespread panic than actually deal with problems.

I guess he he did not teach the difference between u3 and u6?

 

[Patranus]

I guess he he did not teach the difference between u3 and u6?

Two made up statistics designed to show something that is really nothing.

Hey, I know a baseball player that bats 1000 with runners on first and third, 1 out, 2 balls, 1 strike, and during a game starting at 12:35 against right handed pitching.

 

[LegendKiller]

What's your point?

Since the Clinton years, discouraged workers looking for a job for more than one year are not counted in the U3 anymore so the definition did in fact change for "headline unemployment" making historical comparison difficult. Furthermore numbers were deflated for political points just like this cartoon is trying to convey.

You know, I have seen this claim time and again, yet I've never actually seen any official announcement of the change or rationale why, if it were changed, there wasn't a huge jump (or decline) in the unemployment number at the time of the change.

As far as the government "manipulating" the number. They can't manipulate it effectively without keeping the process a black box. Since they release ALL of the information for the calculation, the "market" can recalculate at will.

Every economic metric has its pluses and minuses, one isn't "better" than another, they all measure different things.

As far as Shadowstats, that's more of a black box and I don't think it is correct.

 

[Elias824]

This cartoon was not funny at all

 

[Jhhnn]

It's tough to measure underemployment over the long term, I suspect. I work with people whose incomes never recovered after the tech bust 10 years ago. Yeh, sure, they're making decent money again, sometimes after a long dry spell, but not as much even just in terms of raw dollars as previously. I doubt they're considered under employed at this point...

Lots of that kind of downward mobility all around us, and more to come, I suspect...

Meanwhile, the people at the tippy-top are headed for financial orbit... if they're not already there...

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

The stimulus raised unemployment from 8% to 10%.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[shortylickens]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Correlation is not causation?

 

[soccerballtux]

You know, I have seen this claim time and again, yet I've never actually seen any official announcement of the change or rationale why, if it were changed, there wasn't a huge jump (or decline) in the unemployment number at the time of the change.

As far as the government "manipulating" the number. They can't manipulate it effectively without keeping the process a black box. Since they release ALL of the information for the calculation, the "market" can recalculate at will.

Every economic metric has its pluses and minuses, one isn't "better" than another, they all measure different things.

As far as Shadowstats, that's more of a black box and I don't think it is correct.

Well of course the number wouldn't change that much if you change the definition during a boom while everybody is employed.

Rationale for change was simply that people who were unemployed for a year stopped looking for jobs, and therefor aren't technically "unemployed" anymore because they're not looking.

 

[LegendKiller]

Well of course the number wouldn't change that much if you change the definition during a boom while everybody is employed.

Rationale for change was simply that people who were unemployed for a year stopped looking for jobs, and therefor aren't technically "unemployed" anymore because they're not looking.

It would change quite a bit. Of course, nobody can pinpoint when it was changed. If it was early in Clinton's term, it would have changed a lot. Less so later, but it still would have moved.

Notice how not a single person has come forward with evidence.