Replies

There were two rates used during the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties, with the Nonfarm rate being the official rate. New measurement methods were implemented in 1940, the U-1 to U-7. In 1994 they were revamped again into U-1 to U-6. Despite the similar labels there were many methodological changes.

What makes today's rate measures seem so different from the rate measures in the recent past (like the low unemployment rates during the middle part of the Bush 43 administration), is that the number of people who have dropped out of the workforce completely is so much higher today. So at a 5.5% rate during the Bush years there was a much higher proportion of the population employed than at a 5.5% rate today with a much lower proportion of the population employed.

The Nonfarm Unemployment Rate used for the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties is somewhat similar to the U-6 rate today, with less caveats. The current U-3 official rate is 5.5%, while the current U-6 rate is 10.6%.

It is also an interesting comparison between how Canada measures unemployment and the U.S. If America used Canada's method, the result today would be close to 9%. Canada's current rate using their methodology is at 6.8%. So when comparing numbers, the official rates (apples and oranges) for each country shows that unemployment is lower in the U.S. than in Canada, but when similar methodologies are used (apples to apples) U.S. unemployment is much higher than in Canada. This is hardly surprising, since Canada was one of the only western nations that went through the 2008 financial crisis relatively unscathed, because there was no real estate bubble bust (they had virtually no subprime mortgages or corresponding derivatives market). There is no Obama malaise in Canada.