Episode 05 · 11:05 · watch
The 14.9 million figure is a counterfactual, not a count. It is today's population multiplied by the participation rate of January 2000, minus today's labour force. A large share of the fall is that the country is older than it was in 2000, and people over 65 participate at a far lower rate. Retirement is not unemployment, and this data cannot separate the causes.
| Current Population Survey, October 2026 unless stated | Value |
|---|---|
| U-3 unemployment rate, October 2026 | 4.1 % |
| U-6 unemployment rate, October 2026 | 7.9 % |
| Gap today | 3.8 points |
| U-6 as a multiple of U-3 | 1.93× |
| Median gap, 393 months | 4.0 points |
| Narrowest gap in the series | 2.9 points |
| Widest gap in the series | 8.1 points |
| Labour force participation rate, today | 61.9 % |
| …peak | 67.3 % in January 2000 |
| Difference | 5.4 points |
| Employment-population ratio, today | 59.3 % |
| …peak | 64.7 % in April 2000 |
| Civilian adult population | 275.7 m |
| Labour force | 170.7 m |
| Employed | 163.6 m |
| Unemployed | 7.1 m |
| Labour force at the participation rate of 2000 | 185.5 m |
| Difference | 14.9 m |
A check worth repeating. The population series is published unadjusted while the rate series are seasonally adjusted. Labour force divided by population gives 61.91 % against a published 61.9 % — which is how BLS forms the rate, so the two sets are compatible. The build script stops if that check fails.
As used in the episode — the charts are generated from exactly this.
bls-u3-u6-1994-2026.json 393 months, five series bls-levels-2026.json population, labour force, employed, unemployedNone yet. Errors reported in the comments are corrected here and noted with the date.
← All episodes