Hacker News Reader

Comment by heathrow83829 | Hacker News Reader

>>> "Still, Wednesday’s report also shows that not nearly as many jobs were added in 2025 as thought and last year will go down as the worst year for hiring since 2020, or since 2003 outside of a recession."

Almost no jobs were added net and the few that were, were all in health care, 131K i think the article said.

what i find interesting is that unemployment percent still looks low. is it accurate? even if it's wrong, shouldn't it be correct on a relative basis? why isn't this number climbing?

View on HN

US Unemployment statistics have a number of flaws, including not capturing people who are underemployed (taking any low paying job to try to make ends meet instead of working in a higher paying field they are qualified for) and not capturing those who are no longer searching for a job

These data are also reported by the BLS: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE.

It’s been creeping up for sure, but still historically low. And I’d attest that the headline rate is still the “real” rate.

I agree that the most-commonly reported 'head-line' numbers can be misleading, but more detailed statistics are available. One of my favorites is the labor participation rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

You might want to look at the 'not in labor force' numbers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU05026642

>One of my favorites is the labor participation rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

and also labor participation rate, but for 25-54 Yrs, so you exclude the effect of demographic changes https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

Yes, moreover the whole-population participation rate is basically useless and nobody should look at it.

I find the overall population participation rate as being very informative with respect to the tax base, and more general changes over time.

The second point is hard to quantify. If I just give up searching for a job and live off savings or government assistance, but I would take a job if I could find one, I should probably count as unemployed even though I'm not actively searching for a job. But if I am choosing not to look because I won't take a job, I am technically unemployed by the strict definition of the word but I don't count for what most people care about when thinking about the unemployment rate.

Underemployment is already reported and is distinctly different so I don't think it's fair to say that not counting someone at Burger King who has a Master's degree as unemployed is a "flaw."

>If I just give up searching for a job and live off savings or government assistance, but I would take a job if I could find one, I should probably count as unemployed even though I'm not actively searching for a job.

The current definition makes sense because it's linked to an overt action that can be objectively determined. "Not looking for a job but theoretically would like a job" gets into all sorts of issues like "I want a job as a king if it landed on my lap...".

The problem is how do we tell you from someone who retires early?

Same way we determine all the other inputs that go into the various unemployment rates? Ask.

"Marginally attached" and "discouraged workers" are already tracked and reported in U4, U5, and U6, so this is a strange hypothetical.

We determine unemployment using a survey, so presumably you just ask.

US unemployment statistics capture both of those things very well and in great detail. BLS U-6 tracks "Employed Part-Time for Economic Reasons".

The idea that the BLS lacks detailed labor market data is just internet conspiracy slop.

The US tracks six different unemployment metrics plus overall labor force participation rate. You’re talking about U6 and/or labor force participation rate.

Just because U3 is the measure typically quoted doesn’t mean the others don’t exist.

There are flawed, however, as long as the calculations are consistent then the numbers are reliable across time.

It also doesn’t capture those not on unemployment. Graduate undergrad or grad school and can’t land a job? Government doesn’t know that.

They separately report people who are on unemployment insurance, but the headline unemployment numbers come from a survey of potential workers, which will capture recent graduates.

Source: 15 years ago I was one of the people they surveyed. Every month for a year they called me, once a month, to ask what my employment status last week was, if I was actively looking, etc. (It was all synchronized around one week a month, but I don't remember which one it was they cared about.)

But I think in this case an aging population can hold down the official unemployment rate, even when there are no new jobs outside services for the aged.

What stops it from being a more useful metric is that it doesn't account for someone who was employed with benefits five or ten years ago, but today has some crappy gig economy job with no health insurance. They show up as employed either way.

> Almost no jobs were added net and the few that were, were all in health care, 131K i think the article said.

I wonder what those folks in health care are doing, because (once again) after dealing with the US healthcare system, it seems like it's about 1% doctors, 10% other staff and 90% useless billing/scheduling/collections, designed to extract the maximum possible amount of money from a patient and provide the minimum amount of care.

More jobs being added in health care seems to be an indicator for it getting even worse.

Native population is declining (and prime-age workforce is retiring), and the Trump admin has been extensively working to reduce the size of the immigrant workforce.

So the unemployment rate is staying low, but the absolute number of workers is flat or declining.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com