Hacker News Reader

Comment by IncRnd | Hacker News Reader

That's U-3. U-6 is at 7.2%. In general the claim that many people are not returning to work after COVID lockdowns is true. The reasons are up for debate, but that's not the point. The U-3 rate is an artificial rate to claim as the truth. That's moving the goal posts in order to get the win.

Plus there are a record number of unfilled job openings.

View on HN

U-6's 7.2% is compared to 7.0% in February 2020 and 8.1% in February 2007. So even that is similar to pre-Covid levels and better the the peak before the last recession.

How does that apply to full employment?

The 5% = full employment threshold has always been calculated based on U3. That's what they measured to come up with that estimate. If you want to talk about how U6 is better, then you need to compare it to previous U6 measurements, not previous U3 measurements.

If, as you were implying, U3 was hiding extra unemployment right now but U6 was more accurate, then it wouldn't be so closely tracking U3.

Your argument is a non sequitur to me:

> Plus there are a record number of unfilled job openings.

Yes, which would basically imply that it's incredibly easy for anyone who wants a job to get one.

> Your argument is a non sequitur to me:

For something to be a non sequitur, it must be a non sequitur to everyone, not just to one. This is not a non sequitur for two reasons.

  1) The sentence you quoted was not intended to be a
     consequence of the earlier statement.  Unemployment rate
     and number of job openings are connected, but not as you
     believe.  Correlation is not causation.  You are drawing
     inferences without cause.
  2) Full employment depends upon the number of job openings as
     well as the unemployment rate, which you ignored from
     my comment.

> Yes, which would basically imply that it's incredibly easy for anyone who wants a job to get one.

No. That is your inference but is clearly not implied.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com