Pretty much what you’d think he would say. “For every person who found a job, almost four people quit looking. That’s not a recovery; that’s limping along. That’s stagnant growth.”
– There are 254 miilion people in the US workforce, using the governments own definition of “worker”.
– There are close to 9o million unemployed from that group, again using the governments own definition of “unemployed worker”.
– The government, in an effort to keep public alarm down, and help the WH, does not tie its published unemployment figures to the proper reference, but rather to a misleading one in order to game the numbers.
– The actual percentage of unemployed, referenced properly to the total workfotce, is:
BBH, I think you significantly overstate the problem. Labor force participation has never been much higher than 2/3rds, even in the best of times. Before women joined the workforce in force, it never got much above 60%. A significant portion of your numbers is going to be stay-at-home moms, college kids, and early (voluntary) retirees.
I wouldn’t doubt that true unemployment is in the high teens, but I’m just not buying the idea that it’s more than a third. I live in a basic working-class neighborhood, and I figure the unemployed on my block is closer to 1-in-5 than it is 1-in-3.
Hope!
Paul Ryan has his say.
What say he? Is there a transcript?
Pretty much what you’d think he would say. “For every person who found a job, almost four people quit looking. That’s not a recovery; that’s limping along. That’s stagnant growth.”
Then a litany of what he and Mitt want to do.
– There are 254 miilion people in the US workforce, using the governments own definition of “worker”.
– There are close to 9o million unemployed from that group, again using the governments own definition of “unemployed worker”.
– The government, in an effort to keep public alarm down, and help the WH, does not tie its published unemployment figures to the proper reference, but rather to a misleading one in order to game the numbers.
– The actual percentage of unemployed, referenced properly to the total workfotce, is:
(90/254) x 100 = 36.34%
– It’s not rocket surgery.
One finds a job and four stop looking? That’s a disaster.
Okay. Time to bring in a competent manager, the current hire isn’t making it and I see no prospect of him ever figuring this out.
BBH, I think you significantly overstate the problem. Labor force participation has never been much higher than 2/3rds, even in the best of times. Before women joined the workforce in force, it never got much above 60%. A significant portion of your numbers is going to be stay-at-home moms, college kids, and early (voluntary) retirees.
I wouldn’t doubt that true unemployment is in the high teens, but I’m just not buying the idea that it’s more than a third. I live in a basic working-class neighborhood, and I figure the unemployed on my block is closer to 1-in-5 than it is 1-in-3.
I had four meetings cancel today. I mowed, watched the entire second season of Archer on Netflix, and by 3pm had two for next week cancel as well.
Cancel, not reschedule. Its going to get worse, not better.
Russ Roberts and John Taylor: The Numbers Game