Today's entry derives from what should be a helpful explanation of what the unemployment really is. What's truly irritating is that the author is described as a 20 year economics reporter for the NYT. Phooey. He either makes rookie mistakes, or he's in on the gag.
His thesis is that the top-line monthly unemployment number doesn't tell the whole story. D'oh!!! Of course it doesn't, which has been discussed in these endeavors more than once. He could simply direct the reader to the BLS site which gives the alternative numbers (in table A-15), to which he makes oblique reference, but never spends a word or two to mention or explain. U-3 is the top-line number, while U-6 is the larger definition. Come on!!!
Moreover he says
Older people typically don't participate in the work force to the degree that younger people do...
While historically true before the Baby Boomers began aging, and supporting their geezer parents both directly and indirectly, it hasn't been true for some time. As you can see, geezers participation has been rising for the simple reason that retirement benefits have largely disappeared for today's Geezer Boomers. While it hasn't reached the level of middle age prime earners, necessity is the mother of retention.
And, naturally, we can't forget The (would be) Manchurian President's biggest lie
I've seen numbers of 24 percent -- I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent.
Of course, pure bullshit. Almost. If you know where to look (now you do) there is a number from BLS that's in the 40% ballpark. It's the employment/population ratio, which if inverted gets that fantastic number. Of course, it makes no sense to call sick 80 year geezers and infants as unemployed.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
No comments:
Post a Comment