Looks like it doesn’t count the people who are not looking for jobs anymore. There goes that argument that we have jobs we can’t fill.
Hasn’t this always been true?
Also this figure really lessens any scare,
Up 0.03% from the previous month. LISEP’s True Rate of Unemployment (TRU
3 Likes
That’s always been true. Nothing new.
If people have decided not to work, not sure why they should be counted in standard unemployment rate. They either can’t find work or don’t want to do what they can find (more likely). And a chunk of those 6M that say they want work but can’t find it are felons.
For the broader 25% number, my wife is in that one. She isn’t working outside the home and has no intention to. Including her in an unemployment number would be distortive. Same for someone that has retired.
For example, BLS found that 5.7 million people who aren’t employed do, in fact, want a job — but they weren’t counted as unemployed because “they were not actively looking for work during the four weeks preceding the survey or were unavailable to take a job,” according to BLS.
This has always been true.
Zero news.
1 Like
That is the 6M that I mentioned above.
In three weeks I’ll join this statistic. It’s called retirement 
8 Likes
congratulations!!
2 Likes
Yeah, LISEP’s “True Rate of Unemployment” is real aggressive.
For what it’s worth, though, it trends pretty similarly to the BLS-reported unemployment rate; even by TRU, we’ve a record low in the time that they’ve tracked it (since 1996), notwithstanding a roughly year-long spike circa March 2020.
Thing about economic stats is it’s important to compare stats that are compiled with the same formula. Even then they can be presented in suspect ways, such as this totally true fact.
Unemployment has risen almost 25%* in the last 2 years. What a disaster! (Sarcasm alert)
*From 3.4% to 4.2%, whoopty doo!
You mean like what some posters do to make Tesla look bad?
1 Like
You can argue 3.4% is running too hot. It depends on what inflation looks like.
1 Like
The “Work Force Participation Rate” is the best measure of employment.
UH…No. Not. Even. Close.
Tesla Europe sales in April were down almost 50% year from 2024 April sales.
Overall Q1 sales down 9% from last year Q1.
These are big, significant stats… especially for a company that is valued based on incredible growth potential. If that growth stops happening…it’s a long fall
1 Like
Jealous… Congrats!
1 Like
lol no… it’s not. That measures something else entirely. Retired septuagenarians and older who are just chilling, children and students etc do not need to be included in an analysis of unemployment.
People who are unemployed and actively looking for work is the best measure of unemployment.
1 Like
The true unemployment rate historically doesn’t count for people that stopped trying . My neighbor sorta stopped trying
Unemployment rates should always be compared to equally calculated stats. U3 is the most used and U6 which includes discouraged workers.
I’ve seen news outlets intentionally cite the two to make a bogus point.
“Traditional Unemployment now is similar to what it was under the last president but wait…if we look at today’s U6 it’s really high!” …intentionally not mentioning that the U6 number they just cited was also the same under the last president. So there is no real improvement or downgrade.
1 Like
And vice versa. We’ve flooded the market with cheap labor that forced a segment of the population to just give up working. Let’s not count them. They don’t count.
They are counted. But people who are not currently looking for employment and have withdrawn from the labor force for whatever reason are categorically different from people actively searching, looking for and needing a job. Influx of cheap labor has been a constant since the founding of this country, that’s not somehow a new thing.
2 Likes