He’s certainly wrong - comparing like-for-like the unemployment rate is improving. That said, the “double” figure if you add all those other categories in is possibly optimistic - to cite arecent Politifact check on Trump:
As I posted earlier, I couldn’t say that Sanders’ claim about unemployment make him a liar or ignorant.
I don’t think it is unfair to label him as an anti-capitalist, given his repeated statements about how unfair and exploitive it is, etc. He’s a socialist. That is, he thinks he has a better idea. The fact that he has said the same things about unemployment under Bush (I will take your word for it that he has) would indicate that his objections go deeper than who is charge in the White House, and are with the system itself.
Regards,
Shodan
Ok, gotcha. Well yeah, I think that’s the point. I think the idea behind talking about the U6 numbers is to make the rhetorical point that while unemployment has improved, it still has a long way to go–and that the administration, this or any, has a vested interest in touting the numbers that look best, even when they don’t tell the whole story.
(And FWIW, he’s not a socialist in the sense of wanting to destroy capitalism and replace it. He’s a social democrat, interested in making changes to the current system that would push it a bit farther from laissez faire. I’m not sure that makes him “anti-capitalist,” although it certainly makes him anti-laissez faire capitalism. But that’s probably a discussion for another thread, or the Elections forum.)
Looking at the U6 rate over the entire 21 years that it’s been reported shows that we’re modestly above a mid-cycle (i.e. normal) U6 rate of ~9%. That’s what the current 10.3% U6 rate should be compared against. Of course, Sanders and others attacking the official unemployment rate never bother to point out to people that the U6 rate is by definition always higher than the official rate.
A more honest way to criticize the health of the labor market would be to say that the *gap *between the U6 rate and the U3 rate is wider than it has historically been. So while the U3 rate shows we’re at full employment, the U6 rate is still above healthy levels, indicating weakness not captured by the official rate.
I don’t think the U6 rate is a “better” measure per se, but it probably ought to be reported alongside the headline U3 rate. Perhaps doing so would immunize the public to claims like the one Sanders is making.
ETA: The last two times the U3 rate was at 5.1%–March 2008 and May 2005–the U6 rate was 9%. So by that measure, the current U6 rate of 10.3% is high, but not crazy high.
You don’t think that was made clear by Sanders’ statement? I mean, I thought it was, but then I grok the differences in unemployment statistics.
I agree that Sanders, and anyone discussing “real” unemployment numbers, should make that clear.
I’m not sure if that’s just your own politics speaking, but what on earth needs to be “immunized” against? It sounds like you’re of the opinion that Sanders was being dishonest, and I’m not sure that’s a reasonable position to take.
I just think if a data point like the U6 rate is going to be used in political discourse, it’s better for the public to be familiar with it as a metric and have some idea of what its normal historical range is. So we might as well elevate it to the profile of the U3 rate. Otherwise, it just gets abused as a bad-sounding number that the average person has no idea how to interpret.
My political axe is that for the past 6 years, my father-in-law–avid NY Post reader–has chronically wrung his hands to me over the “real” unemployment number being so high, without having any historical context or benchmark other than… you guessed it, the U3 rate. If you just Google “NY Post real unemployment,” you can find lots of articles decrying the high U6 rate, and not one of them puts it in any kind of historical context.
I get that. My axe is the public ignorance part. I guess I see Senator Sanders’ discussion of the U6 rate as a positive thing in terms of addressing that ignorance–most people don’t know that there even exist other metrics.
The point of his saying it is to pander to the public’s ignorance.
“See, everyone! The reeeal unemployment rate is actually 10.5%!!! Despite this not being especially out-of-line with a typical U6 unemployment rate nearing the end of a recovery I’ll just get on my stump and pretend it’s a total catastrophe and OH YEAH VOTE FOR ME CAUSE I WANNA GIVE Y’ALL STUFF”
Sen. Sanders is an economic lightweight. It’s borne of his entire tenure in Congress. His appeal is to debt-laden millennials who think the system is rigged against them. Which has some truth, not that promising free college is any sort of pragmatic solution…
Wow.
I’ll just baaaaack away slowly now.
A nice showcasing [of] intellectual diffidence.
Don’t worry, we’re all convinced Sanders has all the right ideas to fix the economy. I imagine he’ll get the “real” unemployment rate down to 0% once he’s in office. At that point he can readily afford to send all kids to college for free and give us all free healthcare.
Free, free, free. That’s the motto of an economic luminary. To some.
Sure, whatever you say.