There's No Lying in Government Statistics: The Labor Market Is Still Down [View article]
Mr. Frankel,
Your article got me thinking :
1. You said that "The fraction of the (civilian non-institutional) population with jobs peaked at the end of the Clinton Administration, exceeding 64% in January 2001. It has now declined below 55%. 55%/64% = 86%. Does this not mean that the employment rate has actually declined by 14% since Clinton's time?
2. You also said that: "The workweek reached a historically short level in June: 33.0 hours." Please help me here. If a "normal" workweek is 40 hours, doesn't a 33 hour workweek indicate that the total hours worked has fallen 17.75%? Why isn't this considered the unemployment/underempl... figure?
3. (I know I said two, but ....) Why do these two stats not relate more closely to the actual unemployment numbers put out by the BLS?
There's No Lying in Government Statistics: The Labor Market Is Still Down [View article]
Your article got me thinking :
1. You said that "The fraction of the (civilian non-institutional) population with jobs peaked at the end of the Clinton Administration, exceeding 64% in January 2001. It has now declined below 55%. 55%/64% = 86%. Does this not mean that the employment rate has actually declined by 14% since Clinton's time?
2. You also said that: "The workweek reached a historically short level in June: 33.0 hours." Please help me here. If a "normal" workweek is 40 hours, doesn't a 33 hour workweek indicate that the total hours worked has fallen 17.75%? Why isn't this considered the unemployment/underempl... figure?
3. (I know I said two, but ....) Why do these two stats not relate more closely to the actual unemployment numbers put out by the BLS?
Thanks for the thought provoking article.