*gauge, btw

Do you want the stay at home mom to get unemployment benefits?

It tells you its context. It tells you how they measure it, and the way they measure it makes sense. It’s accurate.

It's not accurate of what it says it is.

We've agreed on that.

If you believe that, then someone has misled you about what it says it is.

Open skull
Take out any original thoughts
Let the mass liberal media brainwash you
Stupidly and inaccurate call anyone who doesn't think exactly like you alt-right
Act complete pompous and superior
Call yourself liberal.

The title of the statistic told me that.

You yourself has said the title is misleading.

I know what the statistic is and measures and it's not what the title says.

And because there’s no reason to measure OUTSIDE of the workforce, it’s not misleading to think it measures anything outside of what it measures.

To think it doesn’t measure*

My god, Kansas - the government posts like a half dozen different measures of unemployment. That the media focused on the headline employment (which is misleading, you are correct) doesn't mean anything other than mainstream media is dumb. He'll, just listen to Bloomberg even and they usually skip over the U-3 to look at the U-6

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

If you don't trust government statistics in the United States, then you're a fool. These statistics are the foundation not only for most academic research in the country, but almost all major business and investment decisions. Note, I'm only saying the statistics themselves, not how they're interpreted. GDP figures alone are corrected 3 times before they're made official, just to make sure they got things right.

As for the labor force aspect, that is captured in a different statistic. Lord help us if you needed to use multiple measures to only start seeing what the picture is

https://www.bls.gov/bls/cps_fact_sheets/lfp_mock.htm

“That the media focused on the headline employment (which is misleading, you are correct) ”

Which I’ve said from the first post yet you guys still want to argue despite both agreeing it is misleading.

“it’s not misleading to think it measures anything outside of what it measures.”

It is misleading in that it measures something different than what it’s titled.

We’ve all agreed on that which was my point.

Yet you guys instead on having your panties in a bunch because a so called conservative was right.

this conversation about government stats is simultaneously the most entertaining, horrifying, and educational discussions i've seen in a while -- entertaining to watch someone confronted with facts over and over continue to try to find a way around them.....horrifying because this represents the population segment that is running things in the USA right now.....and educational because it all makes sense how a moronic con man was elected prez almost a year ago.

we are all gonna die.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point I see.

No, it's not titled misleadingly. The title is:

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

That is 100% accurate. To be unemployed, you must be searching for work. This measures exactly that and is, by definition of all the terms, the unemployment rate in the nation.

What can be misleading are the definitions that it is based on, because it provides a narrower picture than is sometime helpful. The U-6 is not, by definition, the unemployment rate in the country, despite the fact that it gives a better picture of the labor market **when put in context with the unemployment rate**. Without the U-3 to base things off of, the U-6 is meaningless *because* it encompasses so much.

So no, your original statement is incorrect in every possible way.

You said "The govt provided unemployment statistic is one of the least accurate statistics you can find. "

Which is wrong in two ways. First, the government provides multiple unemployment measures, one of which exactly matches what you describe. Second, based on the statistical definition of unemployment, the official unemployment rate does measure exactly what it says it does. The confusion comes from a misunderstanding the media makes on the statistics, which is what everyone has been trying to say.

The U-3 is a very narrow definition of the word “unemployed”.

A person could have been actively been looking for work for 24 of the last 25 months but if they didn’t look for work in the past four weeks but will look for work in the next 24 months would not be included in the current “unemployment rate”

The surveys done to come up with the stat could also be made inaccurate based on the answers of those being polled. Maybe they are tired of taking the survey and simply reply they’ve found a job so they won’t be surveyed any longer.

“ The confusion comes from a misunderstanding the media makes on the statistics, which is what everyone has been trying to say”

It’s not just the media but also the government.

In any government release the term unemployment rate refers to the U3

Right, it refers to that because based on the definition of unemployment, that is the rate. Your example, technically, is of someone not in the labor force.

You're pulling hairs now, which leads me to think that you don't trust any sort of statistic. They do their best to make sure answers are accurate. I don't know how they conduct surveys, so I won't speculate on whether they call the same people or not.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

They explicitly take into account the possibility of someone getting tired. They have invested reasons to make sure the data is as accurate as possible.

“Your example, technically, is of someone not in the labor force.”

Not counting someone who is looking for work in what, 48 of 49 months, as someone in the labor force is truly splitting hairs.

The only problem for the "not looking for work" measurement, is it's a bit outdated. Actually going in and having interviews is a qualifications but "passive" methods of looking for work are not counted

Give it's the new tech age, there have been some economists wanting to change the measuring polls a bit

But @Kansas, they're not massively off, and we can tell that by wage and tax data, and also if there were massive swaths of unemployed not being counted, we'd be seeing other economic effects that we currently are not seeing- various affects in the labor market and demand Shifts towards maintenance + inferior goods

In the end, it's up to YOU to prove the measurements ARE wrong, not that they MIGHT be

There are plenty of other sources who also believe they are inaccurate from Forbes to CBS News.

Google is your friend.

Catch 22 there eh? Who to believe the gov’ment or the “lame stream media”?

Kansas “You believe government stats? I prefer baseless chain emails”

I just think it strange that a person so adamantly disbelieving of government stats that have more oversight from more people; then say they Forbes and CBS are adequate sources. Both of these have bias and that bias is unchecked as they are privately owned.

Let me give you an example of bias; if a Clinton campaign email said:
How was Clinton’s performance in the election?
Great
Good
Okay
Other

Youd day that the question is not biased but the options to answer are.

Now imagine when CBS says they conducted a poll; can you believe they asked unbiased questions, provided unbiased answers, or resoresented the data in an unbiased way?

The reason government DATA is reliable is because it’s usually raw data, like how many people live in this county, how many have registered firearms, how many are white, Jewish, or Latino. The data I use for my research is raw data untouched by a biased media body.

@Kansas Also for my curiosity do you see how that question is biased?

“The inaccuracy comes from the way the numbers are portrayed by the media”

“Yeah well the media says the numbers are inaccurate so checkmate libs”