Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
U6 was lower from 2004 - 2008 and from 1996 to 2002.
So it was lower in ancient times -- i.e., before either of Bush's recessions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close
MORE IMPORTANTLY, the U3 to U6 ratio was completely botched by obamacare's employer mandate.
Obamacare passed in March 2010, two years beyond any point where U-6 was lower than it is today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close
U6 is historically 75-85% higher than U3.
Historically? U-6 has only existed since 1994.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close
After the Obamacare mandate took affect from late 2013 to mid 2014 our U6 rate ballooned out to 100% higher than U3. This is because hundreds of thousands of employees, primarily in the hospitality sector, slashed workers from 40 hours, to 30 hours or less.
A variety of firms (such as Darden Group restaurants) tried this approach and ultimately dropped it like a hot potato due to recruitment, retention, and employee theft problems.
Meanwhile, the U-6 to U-3 ratio had already been at 1.8 and above for much of 2007-09. The ratio fell thereafter because U-3 expanded so quickly during the Great Recession. Conversely, the ratio has risen again since simply because U-3 has fallen so far. You don't understand the data you are looking at. To the extent that you are the one doing the looking in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close
When that part of the law is repealed I anticipate our U3/U6 ratio to correct promptly.
Were you aware that your source is published by Donald Trump's son-in law? LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close
Not sure why you posted all the irrelevant information in your second paragraph.
It is simply a statement of the facts about the "employer mandate", facts that way too many people have never actually seen before.
So it was lower in ancient times -- i.e., before either of Bush's recessions.
Obamacare passed in March 2010, two years beyond any point where U-6 was lower than it is today.
Historically? U-6 has only existed since 1994.
A variety of firms (such as Darden Group restaurants) tried this approach and ultimately dropped it like a hot potato due to recruitment, retention, and employee theft problems.
Meanwhile, the U-6 to U-3 ratio had already been at 1.8 and above for much of 2007-09. The ratio fell thereafter because U-3 expanded so quickly during the Great Recession. Conversely, the ratio has risen again since simply because U-3 has fallen so far. You don't understand the data you are looking at. To the extent that you are the one doing the looking in the first place.
Were you aware that your source is published by Donald Trump's son-in law? LOL!
It is simply a statement of the facts about the "employer mandate", facts that way too many people have never actually seen before.
I can't speak for Darden, but I know every single major Pizza chain in the country slashed ours from 40 to less than 30. That is tens of thousands of employees.
The U3-U6 ratio is completely out of whack because of what Obamacare did to our employment structure in late 2013 - early 2014. When that aspect of the law is repealed our U3/U6 ratio will heal back to normal. U6 should never be 2x the U3 rate. It should be in the 1.8x area.
The facts you sputtered about the mandate don't really have any bearing on this topic. Just saying. And where are is my source coming from Trumps son-in-law? The charts I referenced give their own reference from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I can't speak for Darden, but I know every single major Pizza chain in the country slashed ours from 40 to less than 30. That is tens of thousands of employees.
Big-time pizza mogul, are you? By the way, the difference between U-5 and U-6 is people working part-time for economic reasons. That gap would have shown stark increases if your claims were correct. That has not happened...
U-6 minus U-5
Jan 2009 - 5.1
Jan 2010 - 5.4
Jan 2011 - 5.4
Jan 2012 - 5.3
Jan 2013 - 5.1
Jan 2014 - 4.6
Jan 2015 - 4.3
Jan 2016 - 3.7 (Now - 3.6)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close
The facts you sputtered about the mandate don't really have any bearing on this topic. Just saying.
If the topic includes the employer mandate as you have insisted, then the facts about the employer mandate are absolutely germane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close
And where are is my source coming from Trumps son-in-law?
observer.com -- spawn of the recently folded New York Observer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close
The charts I referenced give their own reference from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The biggest reason the U6 ratio is so much larger than the U3 unemployment rate is just an indication that a lot of people are taking in jobs of any kind part time, so their family has food on the table. Anything to bring in money, till a decent job in their field opens up again.
The real result is, when they go part time they are not included in the U3 rate any longer and it looks like unemployment rate is falling. It allows the Obama administration to brag they are bringing down unemployment. The truth is, they are just shifting figures around and covering up what is really happening.
That is why they now call the U6 the real unemployment rate. Google The Real Unemployment Rate, and you get every news source there is, giving you the U6 unemployment rate as the real unemployment rate. Here is about the best one to read if you are not familiar with the U6 rate and why it is called the Real Unemployment Rate.
The biggest reason the U6 ratio is so much larger than the U3 unemployment rate is just an indication that a lot of people are taking in jobs of any kind part time, so their family has food on the table. Anything to bring in money, till a decent job in their field opens up again.
The real result is, when they go part time they are not included in the U3 rate any longer and it looks like unemployment rate is falling. It allows the Obama administration to brag they are bringing down unemployment. The truth is, they are just shifting figures around and covering up what is really happening.
That is why they now call the U6 the real unemployment rate. Google The Real Unemployment Rate, and you get every news source there is, giving you the U6 unemployment rate as the real unemployment rate. Here is about the best one to read if you are not familiar with the U6 rate and why it is called the Real Unemployment Rate.
The abnormally high U6 rate has been a major thorn in the side of our current recovery. Even Janet Yellen references it a lot in her speeches. I anticipate the rate will return to normal ratios after the employer mandate is repealed. Incomes will also increase when this occurs.
The abnormally high U6 rate has been a major thorn in the side of our current recovery.
What abnormally high U-6 rate? The measure has been in existence since 1994, the average of every month since exception is 10.64%. In what mathematical reality does the current 9.6% U-6 qualify as abnormally high when it is significantly lower than the historical average?
The biggest reason the U6 ratio is so much larger than the U3 unemployment rate is just an indication that a lot of people are taking in jobs of any kind part time, so their family has food on the table. Anything to bring in money, till a decent job in their field opens up again.
See BLS data on part-time for economic reasons, it torpedoes your theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader
That is why they now call the U6 the real unemployment rate.
Who is "they" exactly? An opinion piece somewhere?
There are different measures of labor slack, they all measure different things, and none of them is any more "real" than the others.
What abnormally high U-6 rate? The measure has been in existence since 1994, the average of every month since exception is 10.64%. In what mathematical reality does the current 9.6% U-6 qualify as abnormally high when it is significantly lower than the historical average?
Because as I have pointed out several times, the U3/U6 ratio is very out of normal. U6 should only be about 1.8x the U3 rate. Ever since the employer mandate beginning 2014 took effect the U3/U6 ration became botched because employees who previously had full time work were cut down to less than 30 hours a week.
With a U3 rate of 4.9% like we have now we should have a U6 rate below 9% as we did during past expansions. We don't though. U6 still hovers near 10%. This is indeed abnormally high given what our past U3/U6 ratios were.
Ever since the employer mandate beginning 2014 took effect the U3/U6 ration became botched because employees who previously had full time work were cut down to less than 30 hours a week.
If this was true the number of workers who are part time for economic reasons would have gone up in 2014, but it has continued to decrease as it has since the peak of the recession. The difference is even more stark when taken as a percentage of the growing total labor force, in Jan 2013 5.2% were part time for economic reasons but as of Oct 2016 it is down to 3.7%.
The biggest reason the U6 ratio is so much larger than the U3 unemployment rate is just an indication that a lot of people are taking in jobs of any kind part time, so their family has food on the table. Anything to bring in money, till a decent job in their field opens up again.
This would have been true in 2009, 2010, and most of 2011. As the numbers above for the difference between U-6 and U-5 point out, the claim has about worn itself out. From a high of more than nine million, the number of people working part-time for economic reasons has been back under six million this year as against pre-recession levels of between four and four and a half million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader
The real result is, when they go part time they are not included in the U3 rate any longer and it looks like unemployment rate is falling. It allows the Obama administration to brag they are bringing down unemployment. The truth is, they are just shifting figures around and covering up what is really happening.
The Obama administration has nothing to do with the numbers. The numbers are prepared by career civil servants who were on the job long before Obama arrived and will still be here long after Obama is gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader
That is why they now call the U6 the real unemployment rate.
No serious person thinks of U-6 as the "real" unemployment rate. They see it for what it is -- an interesting take on other forms of labor under-utilization.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
