Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The official unemployment number is a measurement taken using one method of accounting. It doesn't reflect just people losing their jobs or the total number not working.
To jump between 9% and 20% isn't good for much beyond rhetoric, unless the argument is that the 9% method isn't accurately modeling the right trends.
There was a CATO article from last year that put the unemployment rate at less than 7% when focusing on people who had actually just become unemployed.
Perhaps more important is to use a consistent methodology. I'm more concerned with the trend...
-spence
|
Rhetoric? It just shows that another 9% of the population is unemployed, and I am sure that the total of the population unemployed by now is closer to 30%