U-6 Unemployment Rate (aka the "Real Unemployment Rate") Under Obama vs. Bush and Trump

[mikegriffith1]

The U-6 unemployment rate is widely regarded as the most accurate picture of the employment situation. Even Bernie Sanders has admitted that the U-6 is the best indicator of the employment situation. Well, let's look at the U-6 during Obama's recovery vs. how it did under Bush's recovery and how it's doing under Trump's recovery.

Obama and his defenders claimed that his recovery began in June 2009. Let's look at the U-6 from June 2009 until January 2017. The U-6 never dropped below 9.2% under Obama. Moreover, it did not drop below 13% until 2014, five years into Obama's recovery, and it did not drop below 10% until October 2015, six years into Obama's recovery.

Bush's recovery began in late 2003 and continued until mid-2008. During Bush's recovery, the U-6 never rose above 10%. For 31 months (2 years, 7 months) of Bush's recovery, the U-6 was between 7.9% and 8.9%.

Under Trump, the U-6 has dropped from 9.4% in January 2017 to 7.8% last month (April), a drop of 17% and the lowest U-6 rate since July 2001.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

FYI, for over two years of Bill Clinton's recovery, the U-6 stayed between 6.9% and 7.5% (U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven).

 

[Timmy]

The link has a graph that shows a steady decline since 2010. Thanks for showing us that trump really is riding the obama wave!

 

[Timmy]

 

[mikegriffith1]

The link has a graph that shows a steady decline since 2010. Thanks for showing us that trump really is riding the obama wave!

I take it you didn't bother to read the actual monthly numbers. Graphs can be deceiving. The numbers tell the real story. I give the numbers in the OP.

And, FYI, serious progress only began after the Republicans won control of both chambers of Congress in 2014. Businesses then knew that there would be a check on the Democrats' socialist agenda.

 

[pinqy]

The U-6 unemployment rate is widely regarded as the most accurate picture of the employment situation. .

First of all, the U=6 is not an unemployment rate...its numerator includes some employed and some not in the labor force (neither employed nor unemployed) It is a broader look at the labor market, but certainly not more accurate a measure of the labor market.

Let's break things down. Everyone discussed is age 16 and older, not in the military or prison or an institution.

Employed are those who, during the survey reference week, worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business/farm or did not work at all but had a job they were temporarily absent from due to weather, temporary illness/injury, vacation, strike, etc.

Unemployed are those who did not work at all during the reference week and who actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, and who could have started work during the reference week if they had had an offer. Those on temporary layoff expecting to return to their job are unemployed whether or not they looked for work.

The Labor Force (which is the pool of available labor) is Employed plus unemployed. The U-3 is Unemployed divided by the labor force.

The Marginally Attached to the Labor Force are those who say they do want a job, could start work if offered, and who have looked for work in the last 12 months, but not the last 4 weeks. Most are not looking for personal reasons, such as caring for a family member, daycare issues, lack of transportation, school, illness/injury, etc. A small portion (about 30%) of the marginally attached say they stopped looking because they did not think they'd find a job due to lack of experience, education, training, no jobs in their field, or that they'd face racial/gender/age or other discrimination.

The marginally attached are not considered unemployed because they cannot be hired until/unless they actually look for work. A lot of people trying and failing is a problem...if someone's not trying to work, of course they won't get hired. And it's a subjective category You can have two people in identical situations and one will say they want to work and the other will say he doesn't
Marginally Attached are included in the U-5 and U-6 because they are potentially available and are likely to start looking once their personal issues are resolved or they feel more confident about the labor market.

Part Time for economic reasons are those who, during the reference week, worked under 35 hours but want to, and are able to, work 35 or more hours/week but didn't because their hours were cut for business reasons, or they couldn't find a full time job, or they are a seasonal worker, or they started or ended a job that week. They are obviously employed, but if economic conditions were better, they'd be working more.

Now, since it is impossible for the U-6 to be lower than the U-3, that the U-6 is higher does NOT mean it shows things are worse. It's just measuring something different.

Both the U-3 and U-6 are useful, depending on what aspect of the labor market you want to look at. The U-1, U-2, U-4, and U-5 are also useful for what they measure.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The U-6 unemployment rate is widely regarded as the most accurate picture of the employment situation. .

First of all, the U=6 is not an unemployment rate...its numerator includes some employed and some not in the labor force (neither employed nor unemployed) It is a broader look at the labor market, but certainly not more accurate a measure of the labor market.

Let's break things down. Everyone discussed is age 16 and older, not in the military or prison or an institution.

Employed are those who, during the survey reference week, worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business/farm or did not work at all but had a job they were temporarily absent from due to weather, temporary illness/injury, vacation, strike, etc.

Unemployed are those who did not work at all during the reference week and who actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, and who could have started work during the reference week if they had had an offer. Those on temporary layoff expecting to return to their job are unemployed whether or not they looked for work.

The Labor Force (which is the pool of available labor) is Employed plus unemployed. The U-3 is Unemployed divided by the labor force.

The Marginally Attached to the Labor Force are those who say they do want a job, could start work if offered, and who have looked for work in the last 12 months, but not the last 4 weeks. Most are not looking for personal reasons, such as caring for a family member, daycare issues, lack of transportation, school, illness/injury, etc. A small portion (about 30%) of the marginally attached say they stopped looking because they did not think they'd find a job due to lack of experience, education, training, no jobs in their field, or that they'd face racial/gender/age or other discrimination.

The marginally attached are not considered unemployed because they cannot be hired until/unless they actually look for work. A lot of people trying and failing is a problem...if someone's not trying to work, of course they won't get hired. And it's a subjective category You can have two people in identical situations and one will say they want to work and the other will say he doesn't
Marginally Attached are included in the U-5 and U-6 because they are potentially available and are likely to start looking once their personal issues are resolved or they feel more confident about the labor market.

Part Time for economic reasons are those who, during the reference week, worked under 35 hours but want to, and are able to, work 35 or more hours/week but didn't because their hours were cut for business reasons, or they couldn't find a full time job, or they are a seasonal worker, or they started or ended a job that week. They are obviously employed, but if economic conditions were better, they'd be working more.

Now, since it is impossible for the U-6 to be lower than the U-3, that the U-6 is higher does NOT mean it shows things are worse. It's just measuring something different.

Both the U-3 and U-6 are useful, depending on what aspect of the labor market you want to look at. The U-1, U-2, U-4, and U-5 are also useful for what they measure.

Uh, "first of all," the U-6 most certainly *is* a measure of unemployment, and it has been regarded as such for decades--it is also regarded as such by the Department of Labor.

You guys just can't admit *anything,* can you? If the U-6 rate had been below 10% during most of Obama's recovery, as it was during most of Bush's recovery, and as it is under Trump, you guys would be citing this fact as another indication of sound economic policy. But since the U-6 rate stayed in the TEENS for much of Obama's recovery, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the importance of the U-6, even though Bernie Sanders has.

 

[danielpalos]

The U-6 unemployment rate is widely regarded as the most accurate picture of the employment situation. Even Bernie Sanders has admitted that the U-6 is the best indicator of the employment situation. Well, let's look at the U-6 during Obama's recovery vs. how it did under Bush's recovery and how it's doing under Trump's recovery.

Obama and his defenders claimed that his recovery began in June 2009. Let's look at the U-6 from June 2009 until January 2017. The U-6 never dropped below 9.2% under Obama. Moreover, it did not drop below 13% until 2014, five years into Obama's recovery, and it did not drop below 10% until October 2015, six years into Obama's recovery.

Bush's recovery began in late 2003 and continued until mid-2008. During Bush's recovery, the U-6 never rose above 10%. For 31 months (2 years, 7 months) of Bush's recovery, the U-6 was between 7.9% and 8.9%.

Under Trump, the U-6 has dropped from 9.4% in January 2017 to 7.8% last month (April), a drop of 17% and the lowest U-6 rate since July 2001.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

FYI, for over two years of Bill Clinton's recovery, the U-6 stayed between 6.9% and 7.5% (U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven).

all it shows, is the right wing taking credit for normal market volatility.

 

[imawhosure]

The U-6 unemployment rate is widely regarded as the most accurate picture of the employment situation. .

First of all, the U=6 is not an unemployment rate...its numerator includes some employed and some not in the labor force (neither employed nor unemployed) It is a broader look at the labor market, but certainly not more accurate a measure of the labor market.

Let's break things down. Everyone discussed is age 16 and older, not in the military or prison or an institution.

Employed are those who, during the survey reference week, worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business/farm or did not work at all but had a job they were temporarily absent from due to weather, temporary illness/injury, vacation, strike, etc.

Unemployed are those who did not work at all during the reference week and who actively looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, and who could have started work during the reference week if they had had an offer. Those on temporary layoff expecting to return to their job are unemployed whether or not they looked for work.

The Labor Force (which is the pool of available labor) is Employed plus unemployed. The U-3 is Unemployed divided by the labor force.

The Marginally Attached to the Labor Force are those who say they do want a job, could start work if offered, and who have looked for work in the last 12 months, but not the last 4 weeks. Most are not looking for personal reasons, such as caring for a family member, daycare issues, lack of transportation, school, illness/injury, etc. A small portion (about 30%) of the marginally attached say they stopped looking because they did not think they'd find a job due to lack of experience, education, training, no jobs in their field, or that they'd face racial/gender/age or other discrimination.

The marginally attached are not considered unemployed because they cannot be hired until/unless they actually look for work. A lot of people trying and failing is a problem...if someone's not trying to work, of course they won't get hired. And it's a subjective category You can have two people in identical situations and one will say they want to work and the other will say he doesn't
Marginally Attached are included in the U-5 and U-6 because they are potentially available and are likely to start looking once their personal issues are resolved or they feel more confident about the labor market.

Part Time for economic reasons are those who, during the reference week, worked under 35 hours but want to, and are able to, work 35 or more hours/week but didn't because their hours were cut for business reasons, or they couldn't find a full time job, or they are a seasonal worker, or they started or ended a job that week. They are obviously employed, but if economic conditions were better, they'd be working more.

Now, since it is impossible for the U-6 to be lower than the U-3, that the U-6 is higher does NOT mean it shows things are worse. It's just measuring something different.

Both the U-3 and U-6 are useful, depending on what aspect of the labor market you want to look at. The U-1, U-2, U-4, and U-5 are also useful for what they measure.

Uh, "first of all," the U-6 most certainly *is* a measure of unemployment, and it has been regarded as such for decades--it is also regarded as such by the Department of Labor.

You guys just can't admit *anything,* can you? If the U-6 rate had been below 10% during most of Obama's recovery, as it was during most of Bush's recovery, and as it is under Trump, you guys would be citing this fact as another indication of sound economic policy. But since the U-6 rate stayed in the TEENS for much of Obama's recovery, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the importance of the U-6, even though Bernie Sanders has.

I really hope you belong to more political boards than this one, and engage in twitter.

You are basically arguing with 2 or 3 far Leftists with multiple accounts (ok, maybe 4) who's job it is in all honesty, is to gaslight!

And besides a passing person or 2, we have the same people over, and over, and over again. That doesn't mean this is not useful, it just means we either singing to the choir, or we are being argued with by paid posters, far Leftists who lie like crazy, or incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial wet behind the ears college grads, who think they know everything because some Left wing prof liked them because they belong to ANTIFA!

Now then, I enjoy watching you embarrass these Leftists with facts; in fact most of us do. Problem is, not enough Leftists are being hosed! You need to expand your argument to where thousands of Leftists will take the bait at one time, then slap them down. Of course, after you do this 2 or 3 times, you might be removed as the Lefties complain, lolol. But that is ok. If you pick the hills you want to die on instead of every hill, you can lambast the lefts most prized myths, and laugh while doing it as you well know.

Seriously, if not on twitter, get an account, add Dan Bongino as your friend, and you can have a fight any time you want to with the far Left, and they end up being embarrassed because most of them use their real name-)

 

[pinqy]

Uh, "first of all," the U-6 most certainly *is* a measure of unemployment, and it has been regarded as such for decades--it is also regarded as such by the Department of Labor.

Since it includes the marginally attached, who are not unemployed (they are "Not in the Labor Force") and it includes people who are Employed, then obviously it does not measure Unemployment. Or are you claiming that those working part time for economic reasons are actually Unemployed???

And no, BLS certainly does not regard it as a measure of unemployment, but of underutilization. Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Measures of Labor Underutilization from the Current Population Survey
The increased supply of underutilized labor from 2006 to 2014 : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Nowhere on the BLS site will you find the U-4, U-5, or U-6 referred to as measures of unemployment: just "alternative measures," "alternative indicators," or "underutilization."

You guys just can't admit *anything,* can you?

Who are "you guys" and what do you think I'm not admitting? Everything I wrote was strictly factual, and not political in the least.

If the U-6 rate had been below 10% during most of Obama's recovery, as it was during most of Bush's recovery, and as it is under Trump, you guys would be citing this fact as another indication of sound economic policy.

Why would I do that? I've never claimed Obama had sound economic policy, and I certainly wouldn't use the U-6 or any single measure to indicate policy.

But since the U-6 rate stayed in the TEENS for much of Obama's recovery, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the importance of the U-6, even though Bernie Sanders has.

The U-6 is an important indicator during a recession and recovery. But as I said, it depends on what you want to measure. The U-3 is the best measure of unemployment. The U-6 is the best measure of overall underutilization of labor. Each tool does what it is designed to do. The U-3 is NOT meant to measure economic hardship, just unused labor. The U-6 gives a better indication of hardship.

And why the hell should I care what Bernie Sanders has to say about economics? The man's a socialist.

 

[pinqy]

The U-6 unemployment rate is widely regarded as the most accurate picture of the employment situation.

Not by economists.
First, it’s not an unemployment rate.

Second, the added components of marginally attached and part time for economic reasons have greater margins of error and are less accurate numbers, and so cannot make things more accurate.

Third, it is useful as a broader measure, and can, especially during an economic downturn, give a better look at the broader labor market, but it cannot replace the U-3.

Basically, the U-3 answers the question “How much currently available Labor is not being used?” While the U-6 answers the question “How much currently and potentially available is not being used to the maximum extent?”

 

[BlackFlag]

The link has a graph that shows a steady decline since 2010. Thanks for showing us that trump really is riding the obama wave!

And he admitted Clinton’s U6 was better than Trump’s.

 

[Moonglow]

With 10,000 baby boomers retiring daily those numbers will only get better...