Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Economy

progree

(12,240 posts)

5. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in that where they go over the 1994 changes or that supports

Reply to IbogaProject (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 19, 2025, 12:33 AM

Tuesday

"everyone who wanted to work was counted in the labor supply."

-or-

"As offshoring began they started to remove people after 18 or so months unemployed which basically hides the nature of underemployment."

I read this at your link

Since 1945, the official definition has been that to be considered unemployed, you must not only not have a job but be available for work (i.e., not too sick to work) and have actively looked for a job in the past four weeks. If you’re neither employed nor, according to the official definition, unemployed, you’re not considered part of the labor force.

I once had this debate about the Clinton-era changes back in 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141009906#post67

Thanks for the link

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

IbogaProject

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This number is bad news for the economy - Mark Zandi, WaPo [View all] question everything Monday OP

It's a toxic mess bucolic_frolic Monday #1

Those data manipulations started in the 80s with G HW Bush IbogaProject Monday #2

Link please. And not to Shadowstats. progree Monday #3

It was revised in 1994 IbogaProject Monday #4

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in that where they go over the 1994 changes or that supports progree Tuesday #5