This subreddit should enable sharing and discussing economic research and news from the perspective of economists. Academic work and summaries are welcome. Image and video submissions are not allowed.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
The other key is full time employment. We're down 2.3MM full time jobs in the last 18 months, 2MM of which are private sector jobs too. The unemployment numbers in total are a mirage since part time jobs replaced these lost full time jobs.
Spot on. Working 2 or 3 part-time gig jobs just to afford groceries gets counted as "fully employed" in the headline numbers. It completely distorts reality
That’s me! Highly technical IT engineer who got laid off, went back to school to be able to deploy AI models and i can’t find work anywhere. Almost 3 years out. Now I’m licensed in insurance contracting with two different company’s for 100% commission (it’s still shit pay) and trying to get a startup off the ground so my tech skills don’t degrade into the ground. What a great fucking economy!
I still don’t know how much you make lol, it can’t literally be min wage because you said it’s commission. Are you saying the amount you make is equivalent to min wage? Which could be half in some states what it would be in others.. I was really just curious like what your paycheck and how often, and how many hours you’re working for it. Interested in doing this myself if other stuff doesn’t work out.
It averages out to minimum wage. I cannot not recommend insurance sales enough. It is a brutal, cut throat industry full of MLM scam style companies. The licensing takes a lot of time as well. I’d recommend doing anything else as a back up. There’s a good reason 93% of agents leave the field after the first year. The amount if scamming i see within my own org is ridiculous.
They don't publish full and part time by age. Net immigration is still positive 1.4-1.5MM, and there's no indication this is just boomers retiring. The population is still growing by 0.6-0.8% per year.
While I agree that it's not "just" boomers retiring, I think the retired population needs to be taken into account. We have not only a vastly larger number of retired persons than any time before, but more importantly also a higher percentage. This is due to the size of the baby boomer population, but also that they're living longer than prior generations too.
Yeah, there's now a lower rate of full time jobs since full time jobs are down 2.3M. Replaced in part by part time jobs. Specifically the proportion of total jobs that are full time jobs declined by roughly -1.5%. Meanwhile, the proportion of total jobs that are part time grew.
Speak for yourself being out of your depth, lol.
You can revisit the full time jobs in this country plummeting by 2.3M the last 18 months, but there's no spinning your way out of that inconvenient truth about your failed Republican party.
I can't tell what's more hilarious, you trying to defend the economy being down 2.3M full time jobs, or you thinking you're going to lecture and dunk on others lol.
The reality is we're down 2.3M full time jobs, and no amount of spin can deflect from that reality.
Not that I personally want this, but have health insurance work like other insurance: private companies that anyone can buy with heavy state regulation of pricing, benefits, terms, etc.
Yeah, I don’t get why I can’t buy policies offered in other states. My options are between two companies and in the last state I lived in I had only one option on the exchange.
You can have a system that offers generous ACA subsidies for people who really need it, like people without full time employment or people between jobs. We already have the marketplaces, we just need to expand the subsidies.
There's no need for a substitute. 4% is incredibly low for the standard unemployment rate, it's about as low as it would ever be. This "true rate of unemployment" would only be interesting if you could demonstrate that it doesn't generally move up and down with the official rate. But like, let's call this rate T, if T is 25% today, and U3 is 4%, and some months ago when T was 26% U3 was 5%, there's absolutely zero interesting information in T. T is literally just redefining "best possible" to be 25% instead of 4%. And it has the problematic side effect that it makes the difference between 25% and 30% seem much less terrible than the difference between 4% and 9%, when in fact the latter is a bigger deal.
Using a different way to measure unemployment is going to lead to different numbers, yes. Whether it's good or bad is debatable, but just splashing a big number up there without contextualizing whether this is historically high or low on its own terms is really meaningless.
Exactly. Incredibly annoying to see someone trot out some big horrible economic metric that is never normally used and act like it means the sky is falling but if you check it historically it's always been that way.
Something has been historically the same but now all of a sudden people are trotting it out like it is different - that is the problem. Without historical perspective it's a meaningless statistic.
> Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $26,000 (in 2025 dollars) annually before taxes.
I understand what they are trying to get at, but it doesn't feel like they are going about it the right way.
If a student (aged 16+) that is currently enrolled in school that has no desire for FT work and makes under $26,000 would be considered unemployed by their methodology.
This data might make sense if you wanted to look at the "health" for the economy, eg what jobs are being created /destroyed. For example if data showed an increase in TRU uneployment while the BLS data stayed flat or declined maybe something interesting or new could be teased out of the data.
But looking at the two data sets on one chart, the TRU rate is just 20 points +/- the BLS rate
Yes. Lots of people work part time by choice. Students, stay at home parents, retirees. All of them count as functionally unemployed by this metric and in fact based on other metrics likely make up most of the difference between official rates and this one.
It’s always difficult to square employment stats with sentiment, like the gloomy job related subs. Feels like a particularly perilous period for workers due to the combination of disruptive technology such as AI and a clown-led government.
If you look at the graph of this new measure, the past four years have been the best, lowest unemployment in US history, confirming some of the best job market periods ever.
Lisep is widely considered disingenuous and is disregarded by most mainstream economists entirely. Its definition is incredibly broad and it isnt useful at displaying anything that other data meausures dont already display.
Its mostly an inflamatory way of contrarians pointing out "Hurr durr, unemployment high", and LISEP is policy advocacy group, not a neutral non-partisan statistical bureau or peer-reviewed academic journal.
I hate headlines like this. It imposes some sort of meaning in relation to what we all understand to be the unemployment rate (the U-3). What is important to do with stuff like this is to look at the entire dataset over time in the context of everything.
Just like the U-6. Just like the U-3. This 24.9%, how they measure, is still historically pretty low.
There are ABSOLUTELY things to criticize in the jobs report and there are some bleak things, but jfc, lets not throw rage bait statistics out there that are meant to three card monty motherfuckers into believing a mirage.
LISEP counts anyone earning under $26,000 a year as "unfunctionally unemployed," even if they have a part-time job and are not looking for more work. I could have part time work, millions in net worth, and be functionally unemployed by their measure.
The real numbers are rather simple. Everyone I know, in my circle knows someone that’s been on long term unemployment. Educated people. People with experience. When you go buy groceries, you’re not buying certain products because you refuse to pay that price or you can’t afford that price.
Our Government over my 50 years has failed us. There’s no other way to asses it than failure. Every administration for the last 50 years has sold out to corporations. Every single one. Incremental has now turned into the lobbyists write the laws that get passed through contributions.
Uneducated leftist really love this statistic because it lets them ignore reality and assert their priors without actually learning anything on the topic, just like Trump supporters
No serious economist accept this made up definition
Even by this orgs own shoddy methodology, we are doing better than ever before
Economics-ModTeam | 5 days ago
This subreddit should enable sharing and discussing economic research and news from the perspective of economists. Academic work and summaries are welcome. Image and video submissions are not allowed.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
jarena009 | 5 days ago
The other key is full time employment. We're down 2.3MM full time jobs in the last 18 months, 2MM of which are private sector jobs too. The unemployment numbers in total are a mirage since part time jobs replaced these lost full time jobs.
Ruminant | 5 days ago
It's true that the number of workers who say they usually work full-time has fallen by 2.3 million since January 2025.
However, the source for that 2.3 million figure also shows that the number of workers who are part-time because they cannot find full-time work only increased by ~326,000 people.
So your "mirage" theory doesn't really match the data.
Individual_Limit_701 | 5 days ago
Spot on. Working 2 or 3 part-time gig jobs just to afford groceries gets counted as "fully employed" in the headline numbers. It completely distorts reality
Slumunistmanifisto | 5 days ago
You can't live like that forever. You'll get so many negative statistics that will spin off from so many people surviving like this.
ItGradAws | 5 days ago
That’s me! Highly technical IT engineer who got laid off, went back to school to be able to deploy AI models and i can’t find work anywhere. Almost 3 years out. Now I’m licensed in insurance contracting with two different company’s for 100% commission (it’s still shit pay) and trying to get a startup off the ground so my tech skills don’t degrade into the ground. What a great fucking economy!
Membership-Great | 5 days ago
How much are those commission insurance jobs paying friend?
ItGradAws | 5 days ago
Fucking nothing, there’s a reason 93% of agents leave after the first year
Membership-Great | 5 days ago
What’s nothing?
ItGradAws | 5 days ago
Minimum wage, I’m making less now than i was with my first internship back in college 10 years ago. Cheers to this great economy.
Membership-Great | 5 days ago
I still don’t know how much you make lol, it can’t literally be min wage because you said it’s commission. Are you saying the amount you make is equivalent to min wage? Which could be half in some states what it would be in others.. I was really just curious like what your paycheck and how often, and how many hours you’re working for it. Interested in doing this myself if other stuff doesn’t work out.
ItGradAws | 5 days ago
It averages out to minimum wage. I cannot not recommend insurance sales enough. It is a brutal, cut throat industry full of MLM scam style companies. The licensing takes a lot of time as well. I’d recommend doing anything else as a back up. There’s a good reason 93% of agents leave the field after the first year. The amount if scamming i see within my own org is ridiculous.
Jawyp | 5 days ago
Only around 5% of workers have multiple jobs, and that figure hasn’t meaningfully changed since the 90s (when it was significantly higher).
mortgagepants | 5 days ago
are you counting w2 jobs, or gigs, or a combination?
guachi01 | 5 days ago
The % of workers working multiple jobs is small and in line with historical norms.
Joltizer | 5 days ago
No it doesn't. The number of part time workers has not shifted at all. It's just you making things up to fit your priors
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.htm
Mimshot | 5 days ago
That’s down from an all time high. U6 is sitting at 7.9% though.
Rude_Judgment7928 | 5 days ago
Jobs should always be put in context of workforce. With retirement and emigration, what is the true size of work force (18-64) over this time period.
jarena009 | 5 days ago
They don't publish full and part time by age. Net immigration is still positive 1.4-1.5MM, and there's no indication this is just boomers retiring. The population is still growing by 0.6-0.8% per year.
Rude_Judgment7928 | 5 days ago
Source? Any data I can find (especially if you include undocumented) shows the opposite trend or prediction: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/macroeconomic-implications-of-immigration-flows-in-2025-and-2026-january-2026-update/
SardScroll | 5 days ago
While I agree that it's not "just" boomers retiring, I think the retired population needs to be taken into account. We have not only a vastly larger number of retired persons than any time before, but more importantly also a higher percentage. This is due to the size of the baby boomer population, but also that they're living longer than prior generations too.
out_of_context96 | 5 days ago
Whats the mm unit?
FearlessPark4588 | 5 days ago
it could be, in very reasonable numbers, retiring boomers
Joltizer | 5 days ago
There is a reason you are using raw numbers instead of rate statistics. It's because you want to lie about the economy
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
Prime age employment is near all time highs
> The unemployment numbers in total are a mirage since part time jobs replaced these lost full time jobs.
Why do you keep making things up?
Part time employment hasn't shifted at all
jarena009 | 5 days ago
Full time jobs down since January 2025:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12500000
Joltizer | 5 days ago
That is basically no movement and part time jobs have not replaced them. Pay attention to what I'm teaching you
jarena009 | 5 days ago
It's down 2.3M full time jobs since January 2025, lol. Maybe you should pay attention.
Joltizer | 5 days ago
You're once again using raw numbers instead of a rate statistic because you're disingenuous
And unemployment is at full employment. As the prime age stats shows, this is just workers getting older and retiring
You are out of your depth
jarena009 | 5 days ago
Yeah, there's now a lower rate of full time jobs since full time jobs are down 2.3M. Replaced in part by part time jobs. Specifically the proportion of total jobs that are full time jobs declined by roughly -1.5%. Meanwhile, the proportion of total jobs that are part time grew.
Speak for yourself being out of your depth, lol.
You can revisit the full time jobs in this country plummeting by 2.3M the last 18 months, but there's no spinning your way out of that inconvenient truth about your failed Republican party.
Joltizer | 5 days ago
You're too uneducated for this
> there's now a lower rate of full time jobs since full time jobs are down 2.3M
Wrong
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
> Replaced in part by part time jobs.
Wrong
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.htm
I am a life long democrat. Do not confuse your lack of education with reality in the future. You are dismissed
jarena009 | 5 days ago
I can't tell what's more hilarious, you trying to defend the economy being down 2.3M full time jobs, or you thinking you're going to lecture and dunk on others lol.
The reality is we're down 2.3M full time jobs, and no amount of spin can deflect from that reality.
Full time jobs down since January 2025:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12500000
Joltizer | 5 days ago
THe reality is jobs didn't move much at all. People just retired and left the workforce
Like a trump supporter, you lack integrity, so you are dismissed. Learn from your betters next time
TheTav3n | 5 days ago
Ya I work 2 part time jobs. I am not sure what I am included in with these statistics coming out
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 5 days ago
The trouble with this (well, one of them) is that even this measure is low relative to history.
People just want to compare it to U3 because they like that it makes things look worse.
nter12345 | 5 days ago
I mean if you look at the historical chart it mirrors the standard unemployment rate so while the headline is sensational it’s really a non-issue.
That being said I’m a proponent of not linking health insurance to a job so as to avoid employers artificially keeping workers “part time.
Gold_Tank6120 | 5 days ago
What would the substitute be then, for access to health insurance? Assuming universal healthcare is off the table, as much as I want it.
MercuryEnigma | 5 days ago
Not that I personally want this, but have health insurance work like other insurance: private companies that anyone can buy with heavy state regulation of pricing, benefits, terms, etc.
WayneKrane | 5 days ago
Yeah, I don’t get why I can’t buy policies offered in other states. My options are between two companies and in the last state I lived in I had only one option on the exchange.
spaghettiking216 | 5 days ago
You can have a system that offers generous ACA subsidies for people who really need it, like people without full time employment or people between jobs. We already have the marketplaces, we just need to expand the subsidies.
FlyingBishop | 5 days ago
There's no need for a substitute. 4% is incredibly low for the standard unemployment rate, it's about as low as it would ever be. This "true rate of unemployment" would only be interesting if you could demonstrate that it doesn't generally move up and down with the official rate. But like, let's call this rate T, if T is 25% today, and U3 is 4%, and some months ago when T was 26% U3 was 5%, there's absolutely zero interesting information in T. T is literally just redefining "best possible" to be 25% instead of 4%. And it has the problematic side effect that it makes the difference between 25% and 30% seem much less terrible than the difference between 4% and 9%, when in fact the latter is a bigger deal.
mortgagepants | 5 days ago
> I mean if you look at the historical chart it mirrors the standard unemployment rate so while the headline is sensational it’s really a non-issue.
i guess we'll see in november if voters think it is a non-issue or not.
Cum_on_doorknob | 5 days ago
This is r/economics, not r/politicalfeelz
Voters will punish republicans for failing to address affordability in any meaningful way.
vinny_twoshoes | 5 days ago
Using a different way to measure unemployment is going to lead to different numbers, yes. Whether it's good or bad is debatable, but just splashing a big number up there without contextualizing whether this is historically high or low on its own terms is really meaningless.
MightyBone | 5 days ago
Exactly. Incredibly annoying to see someone trot out some big horrible economic metric that is never normally used and act like it means the sky is falling but if you check it historically it's always been that way.
mortgagepants | 5 days ago
imagine thinking something has been historically wrong and thinking it is wrong now just means people are measuring it wrong.
MightyBone | 5 days ago
Something has been historically the same but now all of a sudden people are trotting it out like it is different - that is the problem. Without historical perspective it's a meaningless statistic.
ahundreddollarbills | 5 days ago
> Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $26,000 (in 2025 dollars) annually before taxes.
I understand what they are trying to get at, but it doesn't feel like they are going about it the right way.
If a student (aged 16+) that is currently enrolled in school that has no desire for FT work and makes under $26,000 would be considered unemployed by their methodology.
This data might make sense if you wanted to look at the "health" for the economy, eg what jobs are being created /destroyed. For example if data showed an increase in TRU uneployment while the BLS data stayed flat or declined maybe something interesting or new could be teased out of the data.
But looking at the two data sets on one chart, the TRU rate is just 20 points +/- the BLS rate
Synensys | 5 days ago
Yes. Lots of people work part time by choice. Students, stay at home parents, retirees. All of them count as functionally unemployed by this metric and in fact based on other metrics likely make up most of the difference between official rates and this one.
Moral-Relativity | 5 days ago
It’s always difficult to square employment stats with sentiment, like the gloomy job related subs. Feels like a particularly perilous period for workers due to the combination of disruptive technology such as AI and a clown-led government.
GruePwnr | 5 days ago
I'm of the take that social media has increased people's consciousness if the issues, rather than the issues getting substantially worse.
Dry_Perception_1682 | 5 days ago
If you look at the graph of this new measure, the past four years have been the best, lowest unemployment in US history, confirming some of the best job market periods ever.
PoopyisSmelly | 5 days ago
Lisep is widely considered disingenuous and is disregarded by most mainstream economists entirely. Its definition is incredibly broad and it isnt useful at displaying anything that other data meausures dont already display.
Its mostly an inflamatory way of contrarians pointing out "Hurr durr, unemployment high", and LISEP is policy advocacy group, not a neutral non-partisan statistical bureau or peer-reviewed academic journal.
cheddarben | 5 days ago
I hate headlines like this. It imposes some sort of meaning in relation to what we all understand to be the unemployment rate (the U-3). What is important to do with stuff like this is to look at the entire dataset over time in the context of everything.
Just like the U-6. Just like the U-3. This 24.9%, how they measure, is still historically pretty low.
There are ABSOLUTELY things to criticize in the jobs report and there are some bleak things, but jfc, lets not throw rage bait statistics out there that are meant to three card monty motherfuckers into believing a mirage.
Jumpy_Childhood7548 | 5 days ago
LISEP counts anyone earning under $26,000 a year as "unfunctionally unemployed," even if they have a part-time job and are not looking for more work. I could have part time work, millions in net worth, and be functionally unemployed by their measure.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | 5 days ago
I was that for the last two years
I'm worth $2M+ and quit my full-time job to do contract work after my son was born
I was still working and made about $100k in investments per year, but by their definition I was unemployed
Jumpy_Childhood7548 | 5 days ago
Similar to us. Lisep is nonsense.
fuzzballz5 | 5 days ago
The real numbers are rather simple. Everyone I know, in my circle knows someone that’s been on long term unemployment. Educated people. People with experience. When you go buy groceries, you’re not buying certain products because you refuse to pay that price or you can’t afford that price.
Our Government over my 50 years has failed us. There’s no other way to asses it than failure. Every administration for the last 50 years has sold out to corporations. Every single one. Incremental has now turned into the lobbyists write the laws that get passed through contributions.
Joltizer | 5 days ago
Uneducated leftist really love this statistic because it lets them ignore reality and assert their priors without actually learning anything on the topic, just like Trump supporters