william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
- 280
An FTE participation rate/potential labor force rate, I like it.they should be counted if you are trying to look at the losers in a shit job market. it is my criticism of reagan's unemployment rebound after the forever recessions in the early 80s. folks just picked up and moved to prison cells and welfare rolls, and off the unemployment map altogether. i dont think the BLS figures should be designed to paint the worst picture of unemployment possible. i was saying earlier that this figure is only valuable as a relative term: it was like this, now it is like this. it should line up with other state's practices on unemployment, which are nearly all more opaque and exclusive than the US, that i am aware.trying to get data for my own mad science, i've been annoyed by the BLS tracking only civilian non-institutionals. could the fate of the 20% balance be outside this characterization?
i like that the idea of tracking that ratio if it were easy to lump non-civilians in too.
Not that I fully understand what you are saying but when you have a 1% prison population they really are an important part of the employment picture. On the other hand I believe about half of those incarcerated in the US actually are employed. They should be counted either way.
if some shadow stats guy pulls a figure from his hat and declares that it is 27%, that is no more real than the BLS figure. the reality is in the same methodology compared to the same at two different intervals. i wonder what people mean when they say 'real' unemployment if they are not looking at a raw picture of total population to hours worked/40.