> One strong reason to prefer U3 is that the series is available much further back in time.
Isn't it a bit like saying one should prefer the bible to carbon dating because we've only had carbon dating for the last handful of decades?
It's not that U3 is useless, but one shouldn't assume it properly describes unemployment.
Re:The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
by maxlybbert on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @01:48AM
(#8995642)
Well, I think it's more like saying we should prefer temperature data based on tree rings or ice cores (or, even, old mercury thermometers).
"Prefer" is probably the wrong word, so you certainly have a point. "Accept, with a note that the data isn't ideal" is much better. I'm OK with using less-than-ideal data when ideal data isn't available; but I'm disappointed with the number of reports that fail to mention any limitations of their. It's entirely acceptable to say "we don't have enough data to establish whether this claim is true."
No, it's not relevant how long we've had the method--what's relevant is how far back the data goes.
Unemployment: http://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=UNRATE
U6: http://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=U6RATE
One strong reason to prefer U3 is that the series is available much further back in time.