Fwiw when people talk about the “unemployment rate”, both colloquially and in political discussions, they’re usually referring to U-3, which is unemployed people who sought work some time in the last 4 weeks. It is currently at 4.2%.
This makes a lot of sense as a short-term/political category, but makes less sense if we’re envisioning long-term changes.
I dunno if prime-age LFPR instead of LFPR would make Plan A easier to digest (and would tentatively bet against). An obvious problem with that is that the numbers will be closer to U-3 so misunderstanding the number would be more common.
Regardless I think the exact metric doesn’t matter as much as long as it’s well-defined, the distribution of changes matter more.
Sorry who’s claiming 48% unemployment in 2029?
LFPR in the US is currently 61.5% so to “drop” to 62% in 2029 you need approximately a −0.5% change.
Vivek already pointed this out.
Your comment still does not make sense to me.
Well, yes. It was, as Vivek already pointed out, based on a misunderstanding of what was meant by a number.
I was assuming it was based around prime-age LFPR; it wasn’t. I still think the end conclusion in my comment is more or less true, however.
Fwiw when people talk about the “unemployment rate”, both colloquially and in political discussions, they’re usually referring to U-3, which is unemployed people who sought work some time in the last 4 weeks. It is currently at 4.2%.
This makes a lot of sense as a short-term/political category, but makes less sense if we’re envisioning long-term changes.
I dunno if prime-age LFPR instead of LFPR would make Plan A easier to digest (and would tentatively bet against). An obvious problem with that is that the numbers will be closer to U-3 so misunderstanding the number would be more common.
Regardless I think the exact metric doesn’t matter as much as long as it’s well-defined, the distribution of changes matter more.
This was already edited hours before you made your react & reply.