Unemployment Rate Improves Again: 4.7%

[pinqy]

Just so I can say I at least partially answered your question (for posterity).

This - from the FOMC minutes, June 15/16 - is just a tiny example of the myriad sources of information the Fed uses.

'Most judged it appropriate to avoid overweighting one or two
labor market reports in their consideration of the economic
outlook, but they indicated that the recent slowing
in payroll employment gains had increased their uncertainty
about the likely pace of improvements in the
labor market going forward. Many noted that the slowdown
could be a temporary aberration and that other labor
market indicators—such as new claims for unemployment
insurance, the rate of job openings, and readings
on consumers’ perceptions of the labor market—
remained positive. Some of them judged that labor market
conditions were now at or close to the Committee’s
objectives and pointed out that some moderation in employment
gains was to be expected when such conditions
were near those consistent with maximum employment.
However, other members observed that the recent
soft readings on payroll jobs as well as the decline
in the labor force participation rate and the absence of
further reductions in the number of individuals who
were working part time for economic reasons in recent
months suggested a possible downshift in the pace of
improvement in the labor market.'

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20160615.pdf

FRB: Press Release--Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, June 14-15, 2016--July 6, 2016


If you read the entire minutes, you will see it is incredibly obvious that the Fed no longer uses the U-3 as the primary source of employment data...quite the opposite. Of course, you probably would not agree with that even if the Fed said 'the U-3 sucks'.


Once again, adios.

Once again, you have me confused. Did I misunderstand your earlier claims? I interpreted your claim as being that the FED has abandoned using the U-3 (abandoned meaning no longer using, referencing, or paying attention to) because they claimed it was not a reliable indicator of the unemployment situation. I asked you to clarify, but you refused. I'll ask again...what precisely did you mean when you said the FED abandoned using the u-3? You cannot mean they stopped using it as the only indicator of unemployment (because they never used it as the sole indicator). You can't mean they no longer consider the U-3 to be THE unemployment rate, because clearly they do.

And yet you think your link and your quotation support your claim. So either you are misinterpreting what they mean or I am misinterpreting what you meant.