but it doesn't have any easy answer. This is a problem in all of the social sciences: We have concepts, but we disagree on how to measure them. This is why it is so important to report your measures so people know what "unemployment" means (which might or might not coincide with what they think it means). Many times the disagreements are fine in nature and don't produce dramatic empirical differences when contrasted with each other.

But many do. That's when the responsible data collector should report results using other reasonable measurements and note points of contrast. Unfortunately, I am increasingly under the impression that government statistics exist primarily to convince people that things are going great. Unemployment is a major issue, and relying on a single measure operationalized in a debatable manner is very risky.

"we might very well have unemployment as high as that in Europe"

3.8 here in Denmark
7.9 EU-25

I'd bet the US rate is closer to 10%. That would suggest some states are much higher than the median. Official US stats have always been notoriously skewed, but anything coming out of this administration should be held in utter contempt. Hell, the Decider says the economy is doing just fine.

7.9 % unemployment in Europe is probably pretty healthy overall considering the economy is relatively stable and the social safety net is pretty much in tact.

Things don't look so good back home

Before the rules were that you checked the number employed vs the population. Until FDR that was all there was in any case. Under Reagan it was a measure of the people receiving unemployment benefits because in their Neocon reasoning if you quit getting them it was because you found another source of income.

Clinton did not change it as it would have caused a big artificial jump in unemployment that he would be hammered by. Another factor is that a person who was making $50k a year and is now working three jobs at $10k each is not unemployed and no longer (as they were) eligible for unemployment even if they lose one or two of those jobs.

Thirdly the Bush privatization of the unemployment service makes it profitable to game people off the system and help them less. Florida is a most awful example of this.

So the real unemployment and extreme underemployment are both numbers the Gang Of Pirates really do not care about, and like Iraqi deaths would rather make it difficult to count rather than provide any help at all.

Of course the people living on the street (almost none before Reagan) go uncounted in any case, and the long term unemployed (and many employed) will be found there. I only hope the next Administration will measure the actual reality.

First, they are not counting all the illegal aliens who lost jobs in the residential construction collapse - many of which are skilled laborers. More will be uncounted as the commercial construction and real estate shoe drops. More yet will be uncounted as the consumer retrenches and retail outlets layoff. My theory is the government is doing all it can to prop-up the economy for the next ten months to pad what's left of Bush's legacy, as it were.

FreeDem: note economist John Williams' Shadow Stats: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Look at the 3d chart from the top - inflation as measured using the "new" verses the old (sensible) rules. (Is there anyone who does not have to cope with inflated food and energy costs?) Sean-Paul, what on earth made you think you were entitled to truth from your government? Certainly you weren't out looking for evidence of weapons for hostages deals, or lies about illicit sex, or weapons of mass destruction . . .

As noted in the BLS FAQ:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.faq.htm

there are various measures of unemployment. The official unemployment rate is U-3 in

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

this table. The Canadian official measure is closer to what the BLS denotes as U-5, IIRC, which is at 6% in the U.S. The U-6 measure includes people who are part-time but who would move to full time if they had a chance, and that's at 9%.

It's one of those things where the change tends to be more interesting than the actual level.

GordonMcMillan,

It's still as you recall, and not just in Germany. I think that's how all the E-15 countries do it, not sure about the new members though.

Would it not be politically expedient (and morally right) for the next administration (assuming it's Democratic) to come out early with some push back numbers to paint a clearer picture for the American people to demonstrate the true nature of the Bush economy. Not only could this provide political capital for pushing more aggressive federal social and employment benefits but could also serve to further discredit and isolate Republicans well into the future.

Then again, neither of the two Dems seem particularly concerned about effecting any lasting meaningful change for us commoners.

Is a poll asking people what they think the unemployment rate is. I can't imagine 10 or, max, 20% of people know the official rate