Who should be officially classified "Unemployed" and why?

[pinqy]

no it doesn't as a person can work for 1 hour and show that they were employed.
how does that honestly show the labor market?
hmm?

it doesn't.

That would still be employed in the U-5 and U-6.

But where would you make the cut-off? I've had more than one job where I normally worked less than 5 hours/week. That was all I wanted. How would you classify me if not employed? It wasn't part time for economic reasons.

The definition has to be objective, and arbitrarily stipulating a number of hours to be employed is very subjective.

Are you claiming that including those who only worked a few hours in the week changes the rate? It doesn't...it's too small.

 

[ludin]

That would still be employed in the U-5 and U-6.

But where would you make the cut-off? I've had more than one job where I normally worked less than 5 hours/week. That was all I wanted. How would you classify me if not employed? It wasn't part time for economic reasons.

The definition has to be objective, and arbitrarily stipulating a number of hours to be employed is very subjective.

Are you claiming that including those who only worked a few hours in the week changes the rate? It doesn't...it's too small.

nope that is why I prefer the U5 and U6 numbers because it takes those people into account
and counts them as unemployed.

the U3 number doesn't it does the exact opposite.

 

[pinqy]

The problem with the topic as stated is that it functions to divert attention from the fact that the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) statistics as obtained from their present gathering method are woefully inaccurate.

Unsupported assertion. How is the present method "woefully inaccurate" and what would be more accurate?

Nevertheless, relying on the monthly BLS figures to accurately, even close to accurately, present the conditions they imply is a serious mistake.

which conditions are implied, how are they inaccurate, and what would be better?

As to the topic, the problem with the BLS definition as stated in the OP is that the public at large simply doesn't and won't ever likely know that the term "unemployed" as used by the BLS doesn't mean what they think it means.

But the people who actually use the data do know what it means. A definition should be based on usefulness and accuracy, not public understanding. And all the methodology and definitons are publically available.

Another problem is that the media usually simply just announces the simplistic U1 unemployment rate in a bullet-like tweet without diving down into the other Us, what those other Us mean, and, of course, presenting the woeful inaccuracy of the information itself.

The U-1 is those unemployed 15 or more weeks as a percent of the labor force. It's currently at 2.1% I've never seen it reported in the media.

Still another problem with the OP definition of "unemployed" is that it makes assumptions with regard to acceptable behavior to demonstrate a desire to work. These assumptions fall far short of matching said desire in the real world.

It's bad enough that people are out of work when they don't want to be, but when they're told they don't count because they didn't demonstrate sufficient government-stipulated criteria to be counted as existing in unemployed status, it adds insult to injury.[/quote]

Wait....you're suggesting a technical defintion in a scientific field should be changed because some people might be insulted? Really?

But I'm curious....the criteria are very loose with the basic philosophy of "anything that could result in gaining employment." What about the criteria do you consider too strict?

Better would be to have two classifications of unemployed: 1) unemployed, able to work, and accepting of work at this time if it was offered, and 2) unemployed, able to work, but would not accept work at this time if it was offered (for whatever reason).

How are those useful and what makes them better? If a person isn't doing anything about work, they will not be hired, so it is irrelevant if they want or could take a job (as far as measuring currently available labor).

And .. just so others know .. Pinqy works for the BLS, or used to work for them (I don't recall which), and I've found that he still quite idealizes the BLS such that he exhibits contempt for those who pose intelligent arguments against BLS aspects.

I haven't heard any intelligent arguments. You did not make an argument. You made assertions and proposals, but you didn't support your premises and you never explained your reasoning other than catering to the public's lack of understanding.

 

[pinqy]

nope that is why I prefer the U5 and U6 numbers because it takes those people into account
and counts them as unemployed.

the U3 number doesn't it does the exact opposite.

You are mistaken. The U-5 is unemployed plus the marginally attached. The marginally attached are those who want a job, are available to start, actively looked in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks. The marginally attached are NOT counted as employed in the U-3...they are Not in the Labor Force. And people who worked 1 hour are still classified as employed. Oh, and the marginally attached are not counted as unemployed, they're just added to the numerator and denominator.

The U-6 is unemployed plus the marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons. These are people who want to and are available to work 35 or more hours a week, but during the reference week worked 34 or fewer hours due to slow business or inability to find a full time job or began or ended a full time job but didn't work the full week. Someone who voluntarily worked 1 hour, or only worked 1 hour due to weather, illness, injury, etc would still be employed.

That's the main conceptual flaw of wanting to call "Part time for economic reasons" unemployed: You could have Person A working 4 hours a week voluntarily (as I have done) and be Employed, and Person B working 34 hours a week due to being cut one shift and s/he would be Unemployed. That's extremely subjective.

 

[Slyfox696]

the U3 numbers ignore certain worker statuses and doesn't count them.
The U5 number includes people that have dropped out of the workforce or those that have quit looking for a job.
the U6 number includes those people plus part-time workers that are working part time for economic reasons, and
it also includes marginally attached workers.

You provided definitions of which I'm already aware (although your definitions are not aligned with the actual definitions) and can easily find. Please answer the question.

Of what is it a better reflection?

the real unemployment rate is somewhere between the U5 and the U6 number.

What does that even mean, the "real" unemployment rate? What makes it real?

the U3 number is purely a political number

How so? I think you are having a hard time differentiating between the data and how it is used. I think the issue you have (and others) is how the data is used in media/popular culture, not with what the data reflects.

that is used that is why the formula was changed.

Please provide your source which shows the reason they changed the definition was political. Thanks.

But where would you make the cut-off? I've had more than one job where I normally worked less than 5 hours/week. That was all I wanted. How would you classify me if not employed? It wasn't part time for economic reasons.

For most people, I suspect your classification would be based on the political affiliation of the President. As I said to ludin, I believe the problem most people have is how the numbers are used in political discourse as an overstated description of economic health.

 

[ludin]

You are mistaken. The U-5 is unemployed plus the marginally attached. The marginally attached are those who want a job, are available to start, actively looked in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks. The marginally attached are NOT counted as employed in the U-3...they are Not in the Labor Force. And people who worked 1 hour are still classified as employed. Oh, and the marginally attached are not counted as unemployed, they're just added to the numerator and denominator.

they are still unemployed and looking for work. to exclude them as not unemployed is dishonest at best lying at worst.
it is a much better picture than the U3 number. if you work 1 hour you are not employed. that is political nonsense to say that they are.
yet the U3 number counts them as employed. the U5 and U6 do not thereby giving a better picture.

The U-6 is unemployed plus the marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons. These are people who want to and are available to work 35 or more hours a week, but during the reference week worked 34 or fewer hours due to slow business or inability to find a full time job or began or ended a full time job but didn't work the full week. Someone who voluntarily worked 1 hour, or only worked 1 hour due to weather, illness, injury, etc would still be employed.

the U6 number counts those people who work 1 hour as unemployed as they should be counted.

That's the main conceptual flaw of wanting to call "Part time for economic reasons" unemployed: You could have Person A working 4 hours a week voluntarily (as I have done) and be Employed, and Person B working 34 hours a week due to being cut one shift and s/he would be Unemployed. That's extremely subjective.

which is why I stated that a better more true count of unemployed people is somewhere between the U5 and U6 number.
the U3 number is simply a distorted political muck used for political purposes.

 

[ludin]

You provided definitions of which I'm already aware (although your definitions are not aligned with the actual definitions) and can easily find. Please answer the question.

they are close enough for this discussion. I did answer the question.

Of what is it a better reflection?

the unemployment rate.

What does that even mean, the "real" unemployment rate? What makes it real?

as I said the U3 number excludes many people from the unemployment rate.
it is often quoted but it is really there for political purposes only.

How so? I think you are having a hard time differentiating between the data and how it is used. I think the issue you have (and others) is how the data is used in media/popular culture, not with what the data reflects.

no I don't think that the numbers used to determine the rate accurately describe what is really going on.
someone that works 1 hour should not be counted as employed yet in the U3 number they are.

that gives a false narrative.

the U3 number says if I have 10 people and they all work 1 hour then then my unemployment rate is 0.
which is utterly stupid.
Please provide your source which shows the reason they changed the definition was political. Thanks.
For most people, I suspect your classification would be based on the political affiliation of the President. As I said to ludin, I believe the problem most people have is how the numbers are used in political discourse as an overstated description of economic health.[/QUOTE]

 

[pinqy]

they are still unemployed and looking for work.

By definition they are NOT looking for work: BLS Glossary Marginally attached workers (Current Population Survey) Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached

to exclude them as not unemployed is dishonest at best lying at worst.

Why? Present an argument. What information do they give that is closer to those looking for work than those who don't want to work?

if you work 1 hour you are not employed.

Why not?

yet the U3 number counts them as employed. the U5 and U6 do not thereby giving a better picture.

Yes they do. I don't know why you think they don't.

the U6 number counts those people who work 1 hour as unemployed as they should be counted.

No, it does not.

 

[Slyfox696]

they are close enough for this discussion. I did answer the question.

the unemployment rate.

as I said the U3 number excludes many people from the unemployment rate.

Umm, you are exactly the type of person the OP was talking about. Why is your definition better? How is it a better reflection of the labor market?

no I don't think that the numbers used to determine the rate accurately describe what is really going on.

They don't describe anything. That's exactly the point I was making. All the numbers are are statistics. It is others who try to describe what they mean.

Your post here is exactly what I'm talking about.

someone that works 1 hour should not be counted as employed yet in the U3 number they are.

Why would they not be considered employed? Did they work for pay? If so, how was that not being employed?

The problem here isn't the numbers, but what you think should be interpreted from them. You have a problem with how some people interpret them, not with what the numbers actually are.

that gives a false narrative.

IT's just a number, there is no narrative. You and me and anyone else who talks about it is what provides the narrative, it's what is interpreted from that number which you have an issue with.

You are literally making both my point and pinqy's.

the U3 number says if I have 10 people and they all work 1 hour then then my unemployment rate is 0.

That's correct, because, out of 100%, 0% did not work.

which is utterly stupid.

Okay, which person of the 10 did not work? You yourself said they all worked, so why are you now trying to say it is stupid to say they all worked.

It's really simple...out of 10 people, how many did not do any work? The answer is 0 of them. They all worked. Does that mean they were all fully utilized, assuming they all wanted to work 40 hours? No, obviously they were not. Which is why we have the other statistics, such as the U6.

Again, the problem you have is not with the statistics, but rather with how people, including yourself, interpret them. Let's put it another way...if a baseball player hits the ball 3 times out of 10, we agree his batting average is .300. It doesn't matter if those hits were singles, doubles, triples or home runs, he got three hits out of ten. Maybe they were all singles, so he didn't maximize the amount of bases he could collect, but he still got the hits. That's why we have slugging percentage, so we can see how many bases he collected out of how many were available. But you wouldn't say the batting average was wrong or political, would you?

It's the same thing. All the U-3 is designed to say is whether or not a person got a hit (worked). The U-6 is more akin to the slugging percentage. You seem to have a problem with some people claiming the only stat that matters is the BA and not the SLG, but it doesn't change the fact that BA (U-3) is simply the number.

Make sense?

 

[ludin]

Umm, you are exactly the type of person the OP was talking about. Why is your definition better? How is it a better reflection of the labor market?

My definitions are as close to the others as they need to be.
It gives a better analysis of what is actually occurring than the U3 number.

They don't describe anything. That's exactly the point I was making. All the numbers are are statistics. It is others who try to describe what they mean.

if they didn't describe anything then someone wouldn't use them.

Your post here is exactly what I'm talking about.
Why would they not be considered employed? Did they work for pay? If so, how was that not being employed?

how are they actually employed to be considered?
the U5 and U6 numbers consider them as unemployed.

The problem here isn't the numbers, but what you think should be interpreted from them. You have a problem with how some people interpret them, not with what the numbers actually are.

Nope I am perfectly fine with the U5 and U6 numbers.

IT's just a number, there is no narrative. You and me and anyone else who talks about it is what provides the narrative, it's what is interpreted from that number which you have an issue with.

If there is no narrative then it wouldn't be generated as there wouldn't be a point.

You are literally making both my point and pinqy's.

opinion noted.

That's correct, because, out of 100%, 0% did not work.
Okay, which person of the 10 did not work? You yourself said they all worked, so why are you now trying to say it is stupid to say they all worked.

I never said they didn't work did I? nope
I said they working 1 hour shouldn't be considered employed which is why we have the U5 and the U6 numbers
that account for those.

It's really simple...out of 10 people, how many did not do any work? The answer is 0 of them. They all worked. Does that mean they were all fully utilized, assuming they all wanted to work 40 hours? No, obviously they were not. Which is why we have the other statistics, such as the U6.

again I never said they didn't work. you need to stop strawmaning.
yep which is why the U5 and U6 is a better representation of unemployement.

Again, the problem you have is not with the statistics, but rather with how people, including yourself, interpret them. Let's put it another way...if a baseball player hits the ball 3 times out of 10, we agree his batting average is .300. It doesn't matter if those hits were singles, doubles, triples or home runs, he got three hits out of ten. Maybe they were all singles, so he didn't maximize the amount of bases he could collect, but he still got the hits. That's why we have slugging percentage, so we can see how many bases he collected out of how many were available. But you wouldn't say the batting average was wrong or political, would you?

Yep I have a problem when numbers are generated to give a false narrative and so should you.

It's the same thing. All the U-3 is designed to say is whether or not a person got a hit (worked). The U-6 is more akin to the slugging percentage. You seem to have a problem with some people claiming the only stat that matters is the BA and not the SLG, but it doesn't change the fact that BA (U-3) is simply the number.

Make sense?

work =/= employment.

 

[SocialD]

Every month we have the claims of the "real unemployment rate," and even Trump and Sanders have questioned the official definitions.

Whenever people claim that the discouraged, or marginally attached, or part time workers or whoever should be I always ask WHY?...hoping for an intelligent argument. But I never get one....just assertions and claims of "they're really unemployed." Or even dictionary defintions, which are worse than useless because they would include children and dead people and just not useful in any way.

So....who should be classified as Unemployed and why is that definition more useful than the current? Questions that must be considered are "Why do we want to know this information?" "What use will knowing it be put?" "Is this definition the most useful for our purposes?'

As a review...the definition before 1967 was:

Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be
residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.​

​

From 1967-1993:

Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days​

From 1994-Present:

Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.​

Everyone who doesn't currently have a job is age 16+ who is legally able to work (is a citizen, resident or has a work visa), is not retired, disabled or institutionalized. That should be the official unemployed.

 

[pinqy]

how are they actually employed to be considered?
the U5 and U6 numbers consider them as unemployed.

They really don't. Please show us how you're getting the idea they do.
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
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
NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

I never said they didn't work did I? nope

You did say they are unemployed,though.

work =/= employment.

actually, it does. Employment =/= job, though, and I think that's the distinction you're missing.

 

[pinqy]

Everyone who doesn't currently have a job is age 16+ who is legally able to work (is a citizen, resident or has a work visa), is not retired, disabled or institutionalized. That should be the official unemployed.

Why? What information does that tell us and why do you think it is more informative about the use of available labor than current methods?

 

[DA60]

Why? What information does that tell us and why do you think it is more informative about the use of available labor than current methods?

You are missing the point.

I realize you are probably not going to understand/agree with what I mean...but I am bored right now.


You are asking a potentially emotional question and looking for a statistical answer (theoretically).

You asked 'Who should be officially classified "Unemployed" and why?'

'Should' means different things to different people. Should can mean scientifically speaking. Or should can mean that 'morally, this is who the unemployment rate should encompass'. Morals are not statistics, they are thoughts and feelings.


Asking why an unemployment rate should include this person or that person is like asking why should abortion be legal. There is no scientific answer...it is all based on emotion/ethics.


If you wanted a purely scientific answer, you should have phrased it like 'What is the best statistical method (outside of moral/emotional issues) for tabulating the state of unemployment in America' Or something like that. But then you would have to set the parameters of EXACTLY what you want that statistic to represent. Not just the unemployed; but for what reason and within what boundaries.


It makes no sense to ask a question which allows for an emotional answer and then ask the emotion behind the answer to be stated in some sort of scientific manner...not realistically possible.

 

[SocialD]

Why? What information does that tell us and why do you think it is more informative about the use of available labor than current methods?

Because what I said is a true representation of unemployment. everyone of age who can work who is not working.

 

[DA60]

Everyone who doesn't currently have a job is age 16+ who is legally able to work (is a citizen, resident or has a work visa), is not retired, disabled or institutionalized. That should be the official unemployed.

I agree with this except I would include 'those who want a job'...though maybe you took this as an assumption.

If you do not want a job, I do not think you should be counted as 'officially' unemployed.

But technically, in terms of what words mean (the word 'unemployed'), I agree with what you typed as is.

 

[SocialD]

I agree with this except I would include 'those who want a job'...though maybe you took this as an assumption.

If you do not want a job, I do not think you should be counted as 'officially' unemployed.

But technically, in terms of what words mean (the word 'unemployed'), I agree with what you typed as is.

Yes I can see what you are saying. most know there are multiple unemployment figures. the official is the U3. each one includes different things.
So yea the official unemployed that is reported could disclude those who do not wish to have a job. They could still keep track of that though.

 

[Lafayette]

Oh, mes excuses, I didn't notice you were from France. France used to go solely by unemployment insurance, as did Germany and some other EU countries. But these are countries with more generous benefits and government job-placement services. We don't have government job placement in the U.S. and unemployment benefits are more limited as to who is eligible. So while adequate for much of Europe, it would not be feasible in the U.S. or Canada.

However, the Eurostat guidelines for measuring unemployment follow the ILO guidelines, and those call for a household survey. So INSEE has conducted a quarterly survey for at least the last 10 years, using similar methods and defintions as the U.S. Insee - Indicateur - Chômage au sens du BIT et indicateurs sur le marché du travail (résultats de l'enquête emploi) On the right of the page is a link to the methodology.

Le Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi, de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social publishes the data for registered job seekers, (Dares Indicateurs) though they do reconcile that data with the Labor Force Survey (if my French reading comprehension is working).

Well, well, well - you've done your homework!

Very interesting, but if we want "commensurate" data, then I suggest we consider the work of the OECD - which organizes the data comparatively amongst its 27 (or so) member countries. (The head of the economics department at the OECD is a Yank.)

The OECD data regarding unemployment are "harmonized". It's for people like us who nitpick the available data in order to understand it comparatively with good sense. There is NO consistent economic unemployment data-set across the world. Because there is NO agency to insist upon the data reported to be commensurately gathered!

Except maybe the OECD.

So here is their OECD "HURS" reporting, which stands for Harmonized Unemployment RateS. . And, as shown to the left of the screen, the numbers are "Registered Unemployed and Job Vacancies".

The OECD "unemployment rate" for the US is at 4.93% (Q1, 2016), which is about the same as at the BLS (for the same period, that is, 4.9 to 5%).

Enjoy!

 

[Lafayette]

If you do not want a job, I do not think you should be counted as 'officially' unemployed.

As long as the "self-employed" are not omitted from the "UI-system", which they are not if they make payments into it.

But, what if one is living off one's savings/investments? Are they employed or unemployed?

Does employment necessarily mean one is working for some entity paying a salary/wages?

I don't think so and I suggest that to be counted as employed/unemployed, one must be making the "insurance payments" thereto (i.e., paying into the system) ...

 

[Lafayette]

AND ANOTHER THING ...

If you want to live longer, don't remain "poor".

See here: The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014

Excerpt:


POST SCRIPTUM

Who passed the law stipulating that women have longer life-spans than men!

Unfair!!!

(Yes, yes, I know - that's the way the "cookie crumbles" ... ;^)

 

[Lafayette]

PROGRESS

And frankly, at the bottom are a good many who perhaps did not do so good in high-school. All the more reason for the Federal Government to subsidize (up to a per-child limit) state primary-secondary schooling. The kids have got to understand, that in this Brave New Globalized World of ours, there is no economic-guaranty of a "well-paying job".

Our world is changing inescapably forever - and though (given the present hurt) it doesn't seem so - the change is called "progress". It's up to each nation and each individual to take advantage of the new-opportunities that come. But only a solid tertiary-education (vocational, 2- & 4-year) will guaranty it - as well as (quite likely) continued upgrade training throughout one's employment.

That SmartPhone aint gonna bring you longevity - cuz ther'aint no "app" yet built for a long lifespan ...

 

[Lafayette]

If you do not want a job, I do not think you should be counted as 'officially' unemployed.

Why - because such a person would collect ad-infinitum UI? (Which is limited in total tenure in most developed nations of the world, I gather.)

What matters, I insist, in the numbers is the "tenure" and not the "quality" of employment or non-employment. That is, how long a person is unemployed, not whether they want or not to be thought unemployed.

If you are unemployed for more than two-years (and you do not collect UI), isn't it evident that you do not care to be employed?

 

[Lafayette]

Note in the above info-graphic that the gap between the two sexes (in terms of life-span) diminishes with increases in Household Income.

I can't help wondering if this is due to the "grunt-work" of lower incomes where men are more "capable" of doing highly-physical work.

Dunno, maybe that point is debatable ...

 

[pinqy]

You are missing the point.

I'm really not, though you and I certainly disagree on priorities.

You are asking a potentially emotional question and looking for a statistical answer (theoretically).

You asked 'Who should be officially classified "Unemployed" and why?'

'Should' means different things to different people. Should can mean scientifically speaking. Or should can mean that 'morally, this is who the unemployment rate should encompass'. Morals are not statistics, they are thoughts and feelings.


Asking why an unemployment rate should include this person or that person is like asking why should abortion be legal. There is no scientific answer...it is all based on emotion/ethics.

I am aware of that and tried to cover it by asking "why is that definition more useful than the current? Questions that must be considered are "Why do we want to know this information?" "What use will knowing it be put?" "Is this definition the most useful for our purposes?'"

But out of curiousity, why would you consider a subjective, emotional, definition useful? To what end?

If you wanted a purely scientific answer, you should have phrased it like 'What is the best statistical method (outside of moral/emotional issues) for tabulating the state of unemployment in America' Or something like that. But then you would have to set the parameters of EXACTLY what you want that statistic to represent. Not just the unemployed; but for what reason and within what boundaries.

I asked people to set and describe their own boundaries. But no one did. No one has given an argument...just assertions of what it "should" be without esplanation of why or for what purpose. ludin has told straight falsehoods about what the U-5 and U-6 cover.

 

[Slyfox696]

My definitions are as close to the others as they need to be.
It gives a better analysis of what is actually occurring than the U3 number.

But they are numbers, not analysis. That's what I keep trying to tell you. YOU analyze, the numbers simply are.

if they didn't describe anything then someone wouldn't use them.

It is the people who analyze them, it's not the numbers who analyze themselves. This really isn't hard to understand.

how are they actually employed to be considered?

Because they worked. That's the point. During the week being surveyed, they were employed. Counting them unemployed, when they were employed, would be false.

the U5 and U6 numbers consider them as unemployed.

No, it doesn't. If they only worked 1 hour, but wanted to work 40, it would count them as "part time for economic reasons".

I'll go ahead and post these links. I know you'll just call them lies like you did with Common Core, even though it is the official site, but if you are genuinely interested, you can at least learn a little:

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Nope I am perfectly fine with the U5 and U6 numbers.

Sure, go ahead. You're welcome to use them, they are there for a reason. But it doesn't change the fact that the U-3 is the official unemployment number for a reason. If you wish to use the numbers to ANALYZE a situation, such as economic strength, you're welcome to do so. What you are not welcome to do is say that U-5 and U-6 are the "real" unemployment numbers, since they really aren't.

If there is no narrative then it wouldn't be generated as there wouldn't be a point.

Sure it would. What's the narrative behind a batting average? There is none, it's only there because it's basic math (3 hits out of 10). That's all the U1-U6 numbers are, basic math. It's what people try to glean from them which is where you are having a problem.

I never said they didn't work did I? nope
I said they working 1 hour shouldn't be considered employed

It's a simple question...did they do work for pay? If the answer is yes, they were employed. Were they underutilized? Very possibly. But they were employed, if only for the hour. Going back to the baseball example, if a batter only gets 1 single out of 10 AB, did he not actually hit the ball at all?

You're trying to insert analysis into numbers. You're welcome to take from the numbers what you will, but it doesn't change the accuracy of the numbers. That's the point.

which is why we have the U5 and the U6 numbers
that account for those.

The U-5 does not. The U-6 does, as it counts them as "part time for economic reasons". But it does NOT count them as unemployed.

again I never said they didn't work.

You said they should not be counted as employed. Which is it? Are they employed or are they not? If they worked for pay, they were employed at some point in the month of April.

you need to stop strawmaning.

I'm not creating a strawman for you. I'm trying to get across the point that if they worked for pay, they were employed, even if it was only for an hour.

yep which is why the U5 and U6 is a better representation of unemployement.

No, it's not. What I THINK you are trying to say is that it is a better representation of the conditions of the labor market. It is NOT, however, a better representation of unemployment (since it includes people who are employed). They are two totally different things.

Yep I have a problem when numbers are generated to give a false narrative and so should you.

But they are not generated for any narrative. It is you (and me and the media, etc.) who generates the narrative from the numbers. Just like a batting average, it's basic math. It's the commentators who tell us a .300 batting average is pretty decent, not the number itself.

work =/= employment.

Agreed. Work for pay/profit = employment.