The real unemployment rate........ 22%?

[danarhea]

There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Needless to say, our government likes statistics, but there is some evidence that the REAL unemployment rate, that is, people actually out of work, is around 22%, just 3% lower than it was during the Great Depression.

Read this article.

So, what is the real unemployment rate, and what are factors that makes any figure today different than the Great Depression number of 25%?

Discussion?

 

[Redress]

There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. Needless to say, our government likes statistics, but there is some evidence that the REAL unemployment rate, that is, people actually out of work, is around 22%, just 3% lower than it was during the Great Depression.

Read this article.

So, what is the real unemployment rate, and what are factors that makes any figure today different than the Great Depression number of 25%?

Discussion?

U6 is the "real" unemployment rate. In June, it was 16.5 %. Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

BY the way, U6 is calculated by the government...

Edit: Hey look, apparently the page I linked to timed out or something. But anyway, BLS tracks U6 unemployment, and has June at 16.5.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It's difficult to make the comparison because durring the time of the great depression, the elderly still worked in large numbers which could skew the numbers.

I think it's probably some where between 16%-25%.

 

[The Dane]

Yeah the real unemployment rate is higher. But why count people who aren't looking for a job. I mean if they really can afford to just not look for a job then why count them? The acurate unemployment rate is the one currently being used. It measures how weak or strong the labor pool is and is much more useful for both economists and politicians in both negative and positive ways.

It is very difficult to measure an economy's health from unemployment. A better rate is how many people were added to the payrolls on a monthly or yearly basis.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Yeah the real unemployment rate is higher. But why count people who aren't looking for a job. I mean if they really can afford to just not look for a job then why count them? The acurate unemployment rate is the one currently being used. It measures how weak or strong the labor pool is and is much more useful for both economists and politicians in both negative and positive ways.

It is very difficult to measure an economy's health from unemployment. A better rate is how many people were added to the payrolls on a monthly or yearly basis.

Because those people could have just gotten frustrated and stopped looking after failing for a long time. Just because they quit looking doesn't mean they have a job thus they should be included.

 

[PeteEU]

Yeah the real unemployment rate is higher. But why count people who aren't looking for a job. I mean if they really can afford to just not look for a job then why count them? The acurate unemployment rate is the one currently being used. It measures how weak or strong the labor pool is and is much more useful for both economists and politicians in both negative and positive ways.

It is very difficult to measure an economy's health from unemployment. A better rate is how many people were added to the payrolls on a monthly or yearly basis.

Because the US unemployment number is basically a poll and not an actual counting of unemployed persons. That is why it is highly inaccurate to show actual unemployment and has been for decades. Also the US unemployment number base number (as in the number who can work) changes dramatically every month. It is not just adding newly educated or young people and removing pensioners and dead people.. it is also if you have not found a job after X time, then you are classified as "not looking for work" and hence are taken out of the statistics. Now you chances are you are still looking for work but the statistics dont show it. Hence unemployment numbers in the US are not representative of actual fact (not even remotely) and that is especially during a crisis when finding jobs is hard.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah the real unemployment rate is higher. But why count people who aren't looking for a job. I mean if they really can afford to just not look for a job then why count them? The acurate unemployment rate is the one currently being used. It measures how weak or strong the labor pool is and is much more useful for both economists and politicians in both negative and positive ways.

It is very difficult to measure an economy's health from unemployment. A better rate is how many people were added to the payrolls on a monthly or yearly basis.

It depends on why they aren't looking for a job. If they wish they had a job yet still aren't looking, we should count them. If they don't have a job and don't want a job, we should not count them.

 

[danarhea]

It's difficult to make the comparison because durring the time of the great depression, the elderly still worked in large numbers which could skew the numbers.

I think it's probably some where between 16%-25%.

I think another difference is that, in the 1930's, most women were not part of the workforce, as they are today.