4 ms·

Also then the US still hasn't recovered from the financial crisis and it will take a few years more.

theandrewbailey 11y ago
Which sounds right when you consider all the people who would love to work, but haven't for years and aren't counted in the unemployment number everyone points to.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jfoutz 11y ago
  The us unemployment number is dumb. However, if they'd love to work, why aren't they looking for work?
  - laotzu 11y ago
    They gave up because of general lack of opportunity.
  - mikekchar 11y ago
    Possibly a different example can shine some light on the matter. Imagine getting a group of people who are over 30 and do not have a significant other. Then say, "Those people who have not gone on a date in the last 4 weeks are not single because they don't want to have someone in their lives". Imagine a telling a group of obese people "Those people who have not gone on a diet in the last 4 weeks are not overweight because they don't want to be slim". "Anyone who has not had an address in 4 weeks is not homeless because they do not desire a home". You can probably imagine hundreds more scenarios. When faced with repeated failure, many people fail to act in their own interests. In fact, I don't think the unemployment number is necessarily dumb -- it measures the number of unemployed people who have not given up hope of working. But we really need a measure of all the people who have given up hope, but still want to work. What's unfortunate is the attitude that your question implies (and I'm not actually suggesting that you have this attitude, though it is very common): it is easy to think that people who have given up want the failure that they now experience. Normally this is not the case. I once saw a homeless person trying to explain to someone their predicament. I don't remember their exact words, but it was something like this: "It's -5 degrees C today. I live in a cardboard box on the side walk. Do you really think that I wouldn't rather sleep in a warm bed? But I've got a lot of problems and this is the best that I can do right now." Followed by considerable profanity (probably their case would have been easier to follow for the listener had that been omitted).
- sospep 11y ago
  @jfoutz - once your off employment insurance benefits, .gov doesnt 'count' you as 'unemployed'. You can look for work 24x7x365 and you are not officially 'unemployed', according to the gov.
  - jfoutz 11y ago
    hmm. I thought it worked like this "Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work." [1] and "Discouraged workers are a subset of persons marginally attached to the labor force. The marginally attached are those persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months, but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey." I don't think it's connected to insurance benefits. I think the statistic is dumb, because it should count people who are available to work but aren't. On the other hand, if you aren't looking, maybe you really aren't available. [1] http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#unemp http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#unemp
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      Or you've just given up because no one will hire you if you've been unemployed for long periods of time.
    - sospep 11y ago
      How would .gov be able to tell if person "actively looked" and "are available" for work if was not tied to the EI benefits? If your collecting benefits your filing a report stating that you are/looking & available, if your not collecting EI benefits, your not filing report, your likely not counted as "officially unemployed". You may fall into the broader U6 unemployment numbers that u/roofus mentions below.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    I thought that was only the M3 numbers (which are broadcasted as official) while the M6 numbers show the entire unemployment picture? Of course, I doubt both show underemployment.

Which sounds right when you consider all the people who would love to work, but haven't for years and aren't counted in the unemployment number everyone points to.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jfoutz 11y ago
The us unemployment number is dumb. However, if they'd love to work, why aren't they looking for work?
- laotzu 11y ago
  They gave up because of general lack of opportunity.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  Possibly a different example can shine some light on the matter. Imagine getting a group of people who are over 30 and do not have a significant other. Then say, "Those people who have not gone on a date in the last 4 weeks are not single because they don't want to have someone in their lives". Imagine a telling a group of obese people "Those people who have not gone on a diet in the last 4 weeks are not overweight because they don't want to be slim". "Anyone who has not had an address in 4 weeks is not homeless because they do not desire a home". You can probably imagine hundreds more scenarios. When faced with repeated failure, many people fail to act in their own interests. In fact, I don't think the unemployment number is necessarily dumb -- it measures the number of unemployed people who have not given up hope of working. But we really need a measure of all the people who have given up hope, but still want to work. What's unfortunate is the attitude that your question implies (and I'm not actually suggesting that you have this attitude, though it is very common): it is easy to think that people who have given up want the failure that they now experience. Normally this is not the case. I once saw a homeless person trying to explain to someone their predicament. I don't remember their exact words, but it was something like this: "It's -5 degrees C today. I live in a cardboard box on the side walk. Do you really think that I wouldn't rather sleep in a warm bed? But I've got a lot of problems and this is the best that I can do right now." Followed by considerable profanity (probably their case would have been easier to follow for the listener had that been omitted).
sospep 11y ago
@jfoutz - once your off employment insurance benefits, .gov doesnt 'count' you as 'unemployed'. You can look for work 24x7x365 and you are not officially 'unemployed', according to the gov.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  hmm. I thought it worked like this "Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work." [1] and "Discouraged workers are a subset of persons marginally attached to the labor force. The marginally attached are those persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months, but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey." I don't think it's connected to insurance benefits. I think the statistic is dumb, because it should count people who are available to work but aren't. On the other hand, if you aren't looking, maybe you really aren't available. [1] http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#unemp http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#unemp
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    Or you've just given up because no one will hire you if you've been unemployed for long periods of time.
  - sospep 11y ago
    How would .gov be able to tell if person "actively looked" and "are available" for work if was not tied to the EI benefits? If your collecting benefits your filing a report stating that you are/looking & available, if your not collecting EI benefits, your not filing report, your likely not counted as "officially unemployed". You may fall into the broader U6 unemployment numbers that u/roofus mentions below.
- r00fus 11y ago
  I thought that was only the M3 numbers (which are broadcasted as official) while the M6 numbers show the entire unemployment picture? Of course, I doubt both show underemployment.