[expat_panama]

Some say that and others say we can use the BLS/BEA stats that we've gone thru and checked/verified. Two other options. One is we can decide to 'prove' anything we want about jobs'n'production by just rejecting all BEA/BLS data and just tossing in some schlock set we got that supports whatever beliefs we prefer today. The other is to just say we got the data and make snide remarks to anyone who disagrees with us.

Hey, is this a free country or what!

[Nep Nep]

Given that BLS has been caught red-handed multiple times putting out completely fraudulent data, I’d say that looking for alternative metrics is completely reasonable.

The only reason people have been talking about the labor force participation rate in the past couple of years is that the official unemployment number has become so massaged and opaque as to become meaningless. Five point something official unemployment rates while 30%+ of prime-working-age Americans are not working is pretty much a flat-out lie.

What explains a decade worth of stagnant wages better, the historically low unemployment number or the historically high labor force participation number?

[Nep Nep]

where’s the edit button? That should read “historically high labor force NON participation number”