IMO, the U6 is the best to publish as a general employment guideline. There are good reasons not to use the LFPR. The U3 is complete garbage and I can't make a single reasonable argument in favor of using it as a headline number.
No, I was pointing out the fact that Tsing Tao was posting stats directly from the BLS, you were trying to point to someones internet interpretation. I saw a sad but true comic strip a few weeks ago, some guy standing there with a need-a-job-been-looking-for-2-years sign...... the other guy says "you're in luck, you're no longer unemployed. By dropping those people who's unemployment benefits have expired, those who have had to take a much lower paying job because of the lack of benefits, not factoring in those who's self employed businesses have failed, and the multitude of others that fall between the cracks .......... then taking that falsified bogus number and parading around, patting yourself on the back for a job well done is a slap to every person who's hurting in this suck ass economy. The *Ahem* Official Unemployment Rate, is a joke and noting to be happy about.
Well said. I'm happy to admit that the real unemployment/underemployment situation is not good, not good at all. So the retort that I've received before, regarding people on social assistance and the nonsense of just cutting them off, that "they should just get a fucking job", is itself nonsense. The jobs are not there. Some righties box themselves in. The job situation is terrible when they're evaluating Obama, but the job situation is not terrible when they're evaluating the social safety net.
LOL Even the Congressional Budget Office recently said that unemployment is actually around 10%. "Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent" Translation: CBO just admitted that the BLS numbers are bogus and real unemployment is 10%. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released
I'm all for helping people, specially helping people to learn to help themselves. Do you think someone who's receiving unemployment, who's suppose to be looking for a job, albeit there's few to find, should pass a drug test? They will probably have to pass one to get a job?
The U6 includes those persons with "shit jobs"? I guess that's a good thing, our economy is producing more of those it seems, and they are better than nothing.
The U6 is reflective of all people who want a job but don't have one. That is the only number anyone really cares about, but the number is not reported. It is completely bogus ask someone if they are still looking for a job, they tell the BLS they've given up after a year, and then the BLS says, "Great, you're no longer unemployed then". This is the U3.
I am with you on the U3 being complete garbage, and the U6 being a better stat. I think the best is the LFPR, but can agree that there are times when it is not the best to use - depending on what you are looking for. But the fact remains, the media touts the U3 headline number as if it were the true employment situation, and it is SO not.