There's nothing misleading about the 5.6% figure. That's the number, and the details on how it's calculated are freely available. If you don't like it, choose another value, make your own adjustments, whatever. Besides, the absolute values matter very little; the trend is what counts.
I found this funny:
"None of them will tell you this:"
Really? I don't think there's a discussion about unemployment on the internet that doesn't mention the fact that certain people are excluded from the calculation of headline unemployment.
Those using U3 to promote a positive narrative all know that the general public mistakenly believes "5% unemployment" = "95% of people who want to work full time are working full time."
Under U3, 5% unemployment is considered more or less normal. Sometimes economic booms dip below that (at which point you usually get contractionary policies to prevent inflation). But 5% will be reported as good news.
If U6 was the headline number, "normal" would be 8-9%, and that would be reported as good news. I see no reason to believe that the absolute difference between those numbers would have any effect on politics or policy.
There's nothing misleading about the 5.6% figure. That's the number, and the details on how it's calculated are freely available. If you don't like it, choose another value, make your own adjustments, whatever. Besides, the absolute values matter very little; the trend is what counts.
I found this funny: "None of them will tell you this:"
Really? I don't think there's a discussion about unemployment on the internet that doesn't mention the fact that certain people are excluded from the calculation of headline unemployment.