This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Without wishing to be flippant, statistics measure what they measure, and it's absurd to get annoyed because a statistic designed to measure something (i.e. unemployment among people in the workforce) measures that thing, and not something else you think is actually more important. It's not 'fugazi', no-one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes - in fact you prove this very point - if you want you can look at other statistics - LFPR, U-6 Unemployment, whatever you like. Is your objection to the whole concept of U3 unemployment as a statistic. Should we not collect such data because you prefer U6? Seems a bizarre way of interacting with the world.
Do some people not understand the distinctions when a big headline reads 'unemployment at X%'? No doubt, but that is a problem with media literacy not with the statistics.
yes_chad.jpg
Nobody should be reporting on U3. They should be reporting on U6 and LFPR.
It's perfectly reasonable to be annoyed at deliberately misleading statistics.
I mean given that these all measure different things they surely all have there place and importance. LFPR is important, but it is obviously a very distinct social question to 'how many people who want work can't find it', which I would argue is a lot closer to what most people are driving at when they use the term 'unemployment' in common parlance.
'Deliberately'? Again, statistics measure what they measure. If someone misinterprets or misuses a particular statistic, it is not the statistic itself which is flawed but the interpretation. Remember, it is not U-3 is the new innovation but U-6, which only goes back to the nineties. Incidentally, U-6 tracks U-3 pretty reliably over it's total span, so any conclusions one was drawing from U-3 (since change over time is generally the focus) would be pretty much replicated by looking at U-6.
More options
Context Copy link
U-6 includes workers employed part time for economic reasons plus persons 'marginally attached' to the workforce -- those who have looked for a job in the last 12 months but are not currently looking for work.
This is the spread -- U-6 minus U-3, that is, the marginally attached plus the part-time for economic reasons. It tends to follow the unemployment rate, so this is the percentage spread (U-6 minus U-3, over U-6). Neither is particularly high right now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, it isn't absurd. Words have common definitions, which the agency can't just redefine.
If they had called it the "job-seeker-limited jobs index" or something else which can't easily be treated as though it just means the common definition of "unemployed" we wouldn't have this problem. The statistic is, by its name, "designed" to mislead.
When has unemployment not referred primarily those out of work who are seeking jobs?
More options
Context Copy link
"Unemployment" has been limited to that since the 1930s. And the term seems to be mostly limited to the concept that the agency measures.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link