First, I apologize in advance to the mod that will have to put this in the correct forum. I’m sorry, I always get it wrong.
I believe that the following statement is not factual, but don’t know the best way to refute it.
“The true unemployment rate is 17%. The numbers are skewed because they stop counting all the people that have stopped looking for work.”
Can someone please help me with this. I want to fight some ignorance, but need to start with my own. 
Well, for starters, “true unemployment rate” is not a precisely-defined term.
Why do you believe the statement is not factual?
Well, this is why I’m constantly asking people to make an argument for a position. What you have there is a mere assertion. You can’t fight against assertion, you can just say “Nope”–counter-assertion is just as powerful as assertion.
At the very least, you need to get the speaker of that sentence to define “true unemployment rate.” The folks that measure unemployment do have all sorts of different measures of unemployment, which then gets distilled down into “the unemployment rate,” so he may actually have a point and not be a complete loony.
Panache45, Mostly because I don’t trust the guy saying it, to be honest. But also, I think I’ve seen this topic debated a bit here. I can’t remember the best arguments about it though.
I don’t know about the percentage, but to the best of my understanding, government numbers on unemployment indeed do not include those who have ceased looking for work. I think the best place to start would be to check government reports on unemployment, things like that.
There are several official unemployment statistics. Here is a chart of the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures; I believe U3 at around 10% is usually what’s tossed around as “the unemployment rate”, it includes short-term and long-term unemployed people. The U6 statistic is around 17%; that figure also includes people who have given up, and people who have settled for part time jobs. ETA: Technically U6 is more of an “underemployment” rate, but I think it’s worth discussing.
Missed edit: Here’s a chart of the most recent BLS statistics. U6 is now around 15%; U3 at 8%. The “discouraged” and “marginally attached”, the people who have “given up” or have been out of work for a year, is about 1.5% (U5 - U3).
The problem isn’t that the claim is not factual.
The problem is that, for political reasons, some people are trying to change the way unemployment is measured, right in the middle of an election campaign.
If we want to embrace the new measurement, then, in all honesty, we have to go back to 1980 or so, and draw up new charts, showing what the rate would have looked like if that specific measurement technique had been in play all along.
Suddenly coming along and saying, “We’re measuring in a new way now… Whoa! Looky! The rate just jumped by three whole percentiles! Wow, the economy really sucks under Obama!” is – fallacious.
I distinctly recall people saying the same thing under Bush, so this is neither new nor Obama-specific.
Right. As well they should not. If you’re not actively seeking employment, you are not unemployed. You are simply no longer employed.
Horse shit. How about the The Thirteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians in 1982?
So, no. This is not a new definition, nor is it political spin. It is not an idea borne exclusively of US ideology, nor democratic spin. It’s possible that there were first world countries spinning numbers prior to 1982. It’s possible that the US was. I was only 11, so they probably could have fooled me, but I think this was a well defined definition of “unemployed” long before '82.
The “true unemployment rate” is the percentage of citizens of a given population who are actively seeking employment and can’t find any, as formalized in 1982 by an international labor board. “Really distraught and given up hope” doesn’t count. Nor does “really rich and don’t want to work.”
I just wanted to point out that I wasn’t trying to attack you. Only to point out that the first quote is every bit as fallacious as the second. The claim is not factual. The claim is either the product of poor logic or malicious intent.
Then again, I may be misunderstanding your first statement. I really dislike double negatives, for that very reason.
Counting “anybody who doesn’t have a job” as unemployed wouldn’t be a good measurement: it counts students whose fellowships or aid are sufficient, it counts SAH people, it counts many people who do not have a job but also no interest in one. Depending on how it’s done, it even counts babies and people in vegetative states…
“Those who do not have a job and are looking for one” is a better measure.
Bingo! A hole-in-one for Mr. Boink. The Mods could have closed the thread after this response.
True. Start your own BBQ Pit thread for this, preferably under the title “Things too obvious to mention.”
No, I think Trinopus is correct in how many, but not all, people are using the “new” “real unemployment” “statistic”. Remember when we had 5% unemployment under Bush (early in the term)? Do ANY people who say “wow, the REAL unemployment rate is 17%, some recovery Obama has there!” go back and say “well, under Bush the REAL unemployment rate averaged around 10% and then spike to the current 17% at the end of his term [to randomly grab number]”. No, they don’t. They prefer to leave the implication dangling that Bush had 5% unemployment while Obama has 17% (to the extent of course that Presidents own the rate.)
So to answer the OP, if the “fact” comes up in a conversation, you can ask the other person what they think the “true unemployment rate” was in the early 2000s. If they say anything like 5%, then you know they haven’t calculated it for then, and tell them to go back and do their homework.
Thank you! I’d far rather that people attempt to understand other people’s posts, rather than engage in “horse shit” rebuttals.
(I’m vaguely amused by the spread here. One guy says it’s horse shit, and another guy says it’s so obvious that it shouldn’t have been posted at all. I guess it takes a spectrum to make a bell curve, or something.)
And, yes, I do remember the exact same thing being said under Bush, and it was fallacious then, too.
I’m sorry if that’s the way I came across. The simple truths are the best truths. American politics would be revolutionized if Americans only just knew a few of the most obvious truths.
Keep up the good work fighting ignorance, Trinopus. But at the top of my screen now it warns “… since 1973. It’s taking longer than we thought.”
Looking at the figures in lazybratsche’s link, the OP could state, using air quotes, ‘Oh, that “true” unemployment rate has always been close to twice the official rate. Nothing new there.’
He should probably look it up for earlier years, if he wants to be safe, but it sounds like the guy he’s talking to isn’t that specific with figures anyway.
"Gingrich’s claim that “the biggest contribution” behind easing unemployment “was 1.2 million people leaving the workforce” is based on a bad interpretation of the data that is easy to avoid.
BLS numbers suggest the number of those not in the workforce is actually shrinking. Other measures support this conclusion.
How can the “biggest contribution” to a decline in unemployment be a shrinking workforce when the numbers suggest the opposite is taking place?
Gingrich earns a False"
