Mason's # 1: The Statistics We Use to Assess Whether the Labor Market Is Healthy Are Intentionally Chosen to Make Things Look Better Than They Are

I agree that the unemployment rate is not representative of the true economic situation. I don't know a macroeconomist who would disagree with this, or with Mason's points. So I'm not sure why it is such a big deal to say this. In critical thinking, they call this a straw man argument. 

I actually posted on this blog about 6 weeks ago that the unemployment rate is less representative this time around than it usually is. 

What I see as missing from Mason's point is that even if the unemployment rate is wrong, it's ups and down still tell us something important. It went up by more than it ever has before last spring, which corresponds with how we all felt about the lockdowns. And it's coming down faster than ever before, which again corresponds with how we felt about the relaxation of the lockdowns. 

I think maybe Mason is really driving at the idea that there's a "natural rate of unemployment" where we should stop trying to push it downward further. I'm fine with him not liking that, and I think the experience of 2018-9 after the tax reform tends to support that. The phrase this is being used a lot this spring is that it's time to "run the economy hot". I think the difference between progressives and neo-classicals on this is how hot.

Mason also writes:

... We should also look at the employment-population ratio, and also at more direct measures of workers’ bargaining power like quit rates and wage increases.

You can find the employment-population ratio on FRED. Mason sees weakness there since the Great Recession. I see a big hump from 1985 to 2005 when the baby boomers were in prime working age. To me, the big dropoff in the 2007-9 recession is baby boomers deciding this is the time to choose early retirement (the oldest of them were 61 when the recession hit).

Quit rates are tracked by a BLS data project called JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey), which only goes back o 2001. The best source for this is the cool graphs published on Calculated Risk every month or so. Here's the one from December:

 

No one really knows what quits looked like before this, but to me this says they are not trending worse over the last 20 years, but do fluctuate up and down with the economy. 

As to wage increases, this is part of why I teach you about price indices so deeply. What really matters is the real wage. And forming that depends on the price index you use. Use the CPI and real wages look terrible. Use something else and ... not so much.