The Potemkin Economy
dollarendgame.substack.com
dollarendgame.substack.com
Unemployment is calculated as # of people looking for work actively divided by the people available to work (workforce). The government can change the denominator by artificially removing people from the workforce, and claiming therefore that unemployment is falling since the overall labor pool has lessened.
If unemployment is people looking divided by people available and you remove people available, you're increasing unemployment.
Regardless. Don't be shocked. Changing the definition over time isnt in itself a problem - in all aspects of life we have to adapt as we go. What would be a problem is if the government is changing the definition in order to give a certain appearance. Let me know if you think you have evidence of that.
This post is garbage. It's written in order to suggest something nefarious, though no such evidence is present. As an example, look at this:
> The payroll numbers released by the BLS also show a similar story. Overall, there appears to be job growth on the surface, but when we look under the hood, part time workers are increasing, while full-time employment keeps falling.
The author's looks at aggregates and when he breaks it down it looks different. Whose fault is it for the initial erroneous interpretation of the data? But all through out he presents it as deception.
I mean if they think U6 is inaccurate where are all the people over the age of 18, who aren’t in school, who aren’t retired, who aren’t disabled and not looking for work, who have a part time job and don’t want a full time one, who haven’t been working and looking for a job in the past few years?
Are we to believe that there are millions of people who are in that group and fall through the cracks of the BLS figures, which adjusting to be more accurate after more data comes in is supposed to be them hiding something?