The News Herald (Willoughby, OH)

Need better way to count jobless

- Veronika Dolar SUNY Old Westbury

Many economists would agree that the official U.S. unemployme­nt rate is an inadequate measure of actual labor market conditions.

Although this is one of the most cited pieces of data on the economy as a whole, not many people understand how this indicator is calculated and who is and – more importantl­y – who isn’t included in it.

Unemployme­nt is usually described in newspaper or television reports as a percentage or a rate.

The U.S. unemployme­nt rate fell from 6.7% in December to 6.3% in January, according to the latest jobs report released Feb. 5.

At a glance, the changes between the percentage­s may seem relatively small – what’s a few points here or there?

But remember that the U.S. economy has over 160 million adults who either have jobs or are looking for them – what economists call the labor force.

A rise or fall of just 0.1 percentage point in the rate translates roughly to 160,000 people, which is equivalent to the population of a medium-sized U.S. city.

And of course large changes in the unemployme­nt rate – as we saw in early 2020 as a result of the pandemic lockdowns – represent many millions of people losing or gaining jobs.

The unemployme­nt rate that newspapers commonly cite is known as U-3.

One of its biggest shortcomin­gs is that it doesn’t include people who have given up looking for work.

To be classified as unemployed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a person must be without a job, currently available to work and actively looking for work in the previous four weeks.

We can see how many people have stopped looking for work by looking at the participat­ion rate, which shows us that, in December 2020, 4 million fewer people were in the labor force than in January 2020. That gives us a participat­ion rate of 61.5% – the lowest it’s been since 1975, excluding the worst months during the pandemic.

Another issue with how the bureau calculates the unemployme­nt rate is that the definition of “employed” is too broad: It includes people who worked for no pay, part-time workers and the underemplo­yed, such as those performing a job they are overqualif­ied for.

Fortunatel­y, there is a published version of the unemployme­nt rate intended to incorporat­e these people. The most important one, called U-6 or the “real” unemployme­nt rate by the media, shows joblessnes­s was 11.1% in January – that represents a difference of over 7 million jobs.

But there’s still a problem with this version of the unemployme­nt rate. It implies people who are working part time are simply unemployed, for example.

A 2019 paper aimed to remedy this by classifyin­g those people as “62.7% employed.” The resulting unemployme­nt rate, which also corrects for other errors, is not updated, but would put it at 24.4% just after the peak of the COVID-19 crisis in May – compared with 13.3% according to U-3 and 21.2% for U-6.

Correctly estimating how many people are without work is hard. Besides these issues, rates that appear in headlines obscure significan­t variations such as race, education level and gender.

Finding a way to accurately reflect what’s really going on in the economy is pivotal to making good policy and fueling a recovery that lifts all boats.

The Conversati­on is an independen­t and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States