Yes, free online news that relies on clicks isn’t the most reliable. That’s why you don’t see that nonsense in most respectable journalism.
As for the 6months not counted, you’re misunderstanding. Typically, folks have to have looked for a job in the last 6 months. (Once they pass that, they are considered a discouraged worker.) Which seems a pretty fair measure, you don’t want tp include people not looking for work, what you want out of the unemployment numbers is “of those working or looking for work, how many are currently unemployed.”
Here it is by worker, broken down however you’d like. It took a minute and a half of googling and meandering through the website:
While household income is less of a good measure (do you only count married folks as people, how about households where one partner doesn’t have to work as the house is already owned etc) you can similarly find that with a quick google.
Here’s where your link leads. Now go look at CDC Wisqars and tell me with a straight face BLS is good. And while general median household income is a very broad measure, it’s the most accurate because it accounts for single people, couples with a single income, and multiple income households. Also individual median income is reliably about half of the household median.
Edit- I forgot to add, the six month limit is an arbitrary number. Just because they don’t get a job, does not mean they aren’t looking. We have effective surveying tools, we can absolutely ask people what they’re trying to do instead of relying on arbitrary time lengths and records.
What do you dislike about that link? Are you literally complaining because the labour statistics aren’t in pretty infographics? The BLS is designed for those who most commonly use it and we need access to data sliced well, which it is.
And for the six month, I recommend you look at the actual definition, which can be found here:
Yes, free online news that relies on clicks isn’t the most reliable. That’s why you don’t see that nonsense in most respectable journalism.
As for the 6months not counted, you’re misunderstanding. Typically, folks have to have looked for a job in the last 6 months. (Once they pass that, they are considered a discouraged worker.) Which seems a pretty fair measure, you don’t want tp include people not looking for work, what you want out of the unemployment numbers is “of those working or looking for work, how many are currently unemployed.”
Here it is by worker, broken down however you’d like. It took a minute and a half of googling and meandering through the website:
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?le
While household income is less of a good measure (do you only count married folks as people, how about households where one partner doesn’t have to work as the house is already owned etc) you can similarly find that with a quick google.
Here’s where your link leads. Now go look at CDC Wisqars and tell me with a straight face BLS is good. And while general median household income is a very broad measure, it’s the most accurate because it accounts for single people, couples with a single income, and multiple income households. Also individual median income is reliably about half of the household median.
Edit- I forgot to add, the six month limit is an arbitrary number. Just because they don’t get a job, does not mean they aren’t looking. We have effective surveying tools, we can absolutely ask people what they’re trying to do instead of relying on arbitrary time lengths and records.
What do you dislike about that link? Are you literally complaining because the labour statistics aren’t in pretty infographics? The BLS is designed for those who most commonly use it and we need access to data sliced well, which it is.
And for the six month, I recommend you look at the actual definition, which can be found here:
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
It seems like you’re angry about your own misunderstanding of the definitions being used.