Unemployment Is . . . About As Bad As You Think It Is

Here’s a headline in Politico:

Unemployment Is Much Worse Than You Think — Here’s Why.

Anyone who wants full-time work but can only find part-time work, and those working full-time but earning too little to climb above the poverty line, should be considered functionally unemployed. I’ve begun to calculate this, which I’ve dubbed the True Rate of Unemployment. And the TRU in December wasn’t 6.7 percent — it was an alarming 25.1 percent.

This is folly. There are dozens of ways of calculating underemployment, and all of them have their uses depending on what you want to know. They’re all “true” as long as you aren’t making up the underlying data.

But that’s not why I’m writing about this. The author doesn’t include a chart showing how TRU has changed, and it turns out that’s a good thing for his thesis. Naturally, though, I clicked the link:

According to this chart, the evil headline rate shows that unemployment is about a point higher than it was in 1995. That seems reasonable. However, the TRU rate is five points lower than in 1995. Far from showing that unemployment is “much worse” than we think, it shows that unemployment has steadily declined. And unlike the headline rate, which shows the COVID-19 spike peaking at half again higher than the peak of the Great Recession, the TRU rate shows it spiking at a point lower than the peak of the Great Recession. In other words, unemployment is better than we think!

Bottom line: Pay no attention to this kind of stuff. You can prove anything you want by creating your own custom index of employment metrics. There’s nothing wrong with it if it helps to illustrate something interesting, but by no means do any of these things show that unemployment is “better” or “worse” than we think it is.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate