If the same amount of wages are getting paid out and its merely getting reallocated as to whom, that's a very different scenario from people getting laid off to reduce labor costs.
Unemployment is meant to track how many people are working, not income equality.
> that's a very different scenario from people getting laid off to reduce labor costs.
Not necessarily. People could be laid off to reduce labor costs, in order to distribute more wealth to those at the top. And since the average is national, it doesn't even have to be at the same company. People could be laid off from company A, because A is unable to compete with company B that has a smaller head count, but pays their execs more.
> Unemployment is meant to track how many people are working, not income equality.
Sure, but the point is that metrics used to discuss economic health don't typically include metrics that represent wealth inequality, or the standard of living of the general population.
> People could be laid off from company A, because A is unable to compete with company B that has a smaller head count, but pays their execs more.
This is exactly the scenario I was describing - this is not a sign of a cooling economy with rising unemployment or underemployment, this is a sign of firm B outcompeting firm A. It might be interesting in its own right, but it's very much not what unemployment is meant to be tracking.
> Sure, but the point is that metrics used to discuss economic health don't typically include metrics that represent wealth inequality, or the standard of living of the general population.
Tons of such metrics are frequently discussed. Things like ratio of CEO to employee pay and income percentages are given all the time. No one feels the need to compare the unemployment rates when it's mentioned CEO to employee pay has increased from 20:1 to 290:1 since 1960. Everyone understands that the economy is a complex, multifaceted thing and the fact it may be doing well or poorly by one metric has no bearing on a discussion of a different aspect.
People care about employment rate because work is critical to our culture - we spend most of our lives working, we identify ourselves by our professions, we rely on income for both survival and social status, most of us would find it extremely unpleasant to be without a job for an extended period of time, and most of us would be delighted if our skills were in high demand at the moment such that we could confidently secure better pay. Regardless of wealth inequality, the overwhelming majority of us want unemployment to be low, and primarily frictional. An unexpected spike in unemployment is well correlated with various bad things which we would love to avoid or at least prepare for. It is a useful metric for economic health, like resting heartrate is a useful metric for bodily health. A good resting heart rate doesn't mean you have nothing else to be concerned about, but a bad resting heart rate is a concern regardless of whatever else is going on.
> This is exactly the scenario I was describing - this is not a sign of a cooling economy with rising unemployment or underemployment
It could be. What if B is outcompeting because they have offshored labor, or using new technology that reduces demands for labor. Not that those things are necessarily bad, but just because the total productivity is increasing doesn't necessarily mean everyone is better off.
My point is that the situation described can happen without a change to the average income, and average income isn't a good metric for watching changes in wealth inequality.
> but it's very much not what unemployment is meant to be tracking.
I never said it was.
> Tons of such metrics are frequently discussed. Things like ratio of CEO to employee pay and income percentages are given all the time
IME, such things are talked about much less than unemployment, especially in relation to politics and policy.
And I think part of the reason for that is because it is easy to understand, and it is easier to control with policy than other metrics, since the government can just create new jobs and provide incentives to create jobs, even if those jobs are lower paid than the jobs that were lost.
Perhaps we need better metrics actually tracking income inequality, because tracking employment rate without that seems pretty disingenuous as a metric of aggregate economic health.
Or rather, we should be reporting such metrics that we surely must track already together.
I don't follow at all. Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? The problem is that unemployment, particularly U-3, is a bad signal for aggregate economic health by itself. As is GDP. You need an signal for wealth distribution to get a sense of how a given person can interpret to understand how well the economy is serving them. At the very least.
EDIT: Of course, the ultimate issue is people wanting to cherry-pick metrics to push their polemic. If you have any solutions to that I'm all ears. We've been able to articulate an accurate understanding all along, but that doesn't make for easy headlines or simplistic campaign platforms.
> Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"?
There's no single metric for aggregate economic health in the same way that there's no single metric for aggregate server health. There's a problem in expectations when people complain about U-3; its not supposed to be a measure of economic health. And thats the point being made here.
And yet, that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it. Hence why this conversation is happening in the first place.
> that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it
No, it’s not. Enterprise demand planning, market research, hell even political analysis for donors and politicians——everyone who has a use for the data knows how to use them.
If you want to see the contrast in treatment, compare the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal publications versus free media, e.g. CNBC or TV news.
Yes, and the fault is on the people using U-3 that way, not the economists. Talking about the problems with U-3 implies that the economists messed up. The issue is that everyone is looking for a quick 5-second way of making conclusions about a complicated topic.
We don't need a new metric. There is no new metric that will satisfy that criteria. The only solution is to improve the way we talk about the economy.
Is it disingenuous to report obituaries without including birth announcements in the same article? Surely only reporting the one gives a skewed view of demographic health.
News is about reporting new information in a timely manner. When a metric gets updated, it's good to let people know, especially if the new value is unexpected. Many people may have various different uses for this update. It is impossible to give every piece of data anyone could consider useful in a single article. Luckily, that is unnecessary. All that information is publicly available and people can go look it up for themselves at any time.
If you don't care enough to look up the metrics that are reported, that's not a problem with the metrics or the reporting.
> Is it disingenuous to report obituaries without including birth announcements in the same article? Surely only reporting the one gives a skewed view of demographic health.
The point of obituaries is not to give any sense of demographic health.
> News is about reporting new information in a timely manner. When a metric gets updated, it's good to let people know, especially if the new value is unexpected. Many people may have various different uses for this update. It is impossible to give every piece of data anyone could consider useful in a single article. Luckily, that is unnecessary. All that information is publicly available and people can go look it up for themselves at any time.
Sure, but the issue is that the reporting treats the metric as meaningfully representative of accessibility of employment when it's actually representative of who is seeking the unemployment benefit.
> If you don't care enough to look up the metrics that are reported, that's not a problem with the metrics or the reporting.
> The point of obituaries is not to give any sense of demographic health.
And the point of unemployment statistics is not to give any sense of economic equality.
> Sure, but the issue is that the reporting treats the metric as meaningfully representative of accessibility of employment
Because it is a pretty good proxy for this. When unemployment is high, wages tend to stagnate and it takes longer on average for people to find new employment. When unemployment is low, wages go up and people tend to have a much easier time finding a job quickly. There is a remarkable correlation between people seeking unemployment benefits and accessibility of employment. Sure there are people who would rather take a low paying job than the benefits, but there have always been such people, and the proportion doesn't quickly change, so within reason you can compare the situation at time A with the situation at time B based on the metric which is measured the same way at both times and get a pretty good sense of what the difference is.
It is not the end all be all, but nothing ever could be. It is one of countless metrics, all of which have their appropriate uses.
Unemployment is meant to track how many people are working, not income equality.