3 ms·

That's the standard definition for unemployment. An unemployed person is generally considered to be someone who would want to be employed, but is not. It is mea

That's the standard definition for unemployment. An unemployed person is generally considered to be someone who would want to be employed, but is not. It is meant to be a measurement of the number of people who want jobs, but are unable to get them. There are other measurements for labour force participation, which are usually fairly easy to find, and are a proportion of people who are legally able to work, against the number of actual workers.

roenxi 9y ago
It is as good a time as any to wish a pox on all jargon and reflect that a person with no employment is unlikely to be unemployed. If anyone else is interested, a very light search into the history of when they picked that measure as the standard suggests it has been with us since ~1930. Apparently the nature of complaints hasn't changed much over the years. [1] davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/origins-of-unemployment.pdf
- zimzam 9y ago
  The jargon exists because the category is useful in answering the question "how is the economy doing". If we included people who are retired then we would see unemployment go up and down in correlation with generation sizes: when the baby boomers retire the number of "unemployed" people would go up dramatically. But that confuses the picture of whether businesses are hiring.
  - esbranson 9y ago
    Hence why the question should be and is limited to ages 25-54 year olds. A "retired" 25 year old should be included in the definition of unemployment. However, the 25-54 unemployment rate (the opposite of the "employment rate") is not calculated by state or locality in the US.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I don't think you do the problem justice. Here are some people who fit the "no employment" metric but who we shouldn't count as "unemployed" if our goal is "anyone who wants a job, or needs a job to live without assistance, has one": * A by-choice stay-at-home parent. There are like 10 million stay-at-home parents in the US (c.f., our entire labor force is ~125 million!) * A contract worker/consultant, as well as employees in seasonal fields such as construction, many of whom make very decent 12-month wages but might be "unemployed" if you ask at the wrong moment. * Anyone with a severe disability (mental or physical) which makes work difficult or impossible. * Someone younger than retirement age (40s-50s) who has retired early by choice (e.g., no kids, dual high incomes for 20+ years, non-extravagant lifestyle; particularly relevant for this forum...) If you counted all of these, I have no doubt our unemployment rate would at least double, if not triple. But that would be a ridiculously stupid number to even think about -- none of the above people want a job (or want a 12 month job); why should we try to organize society around forcing them to work when they don't need to and don't want to?! I'm not claiming the current definition of "unemployed" is perfect, BTW. But IMO it's WAY better than yours...
fiatjaf 9y ago
> someone who would want to be employed, but is not Would want to be employed on what kind of job? At what pay?

roenxi 9y ago

It is as good a time as any to wish a pox on all jargon and reflect that a person with no employment is unlikely to be unemployed. If anyone else is interested, a very light search into the history of when they picked that measure as the standard suggests it has been with us since ~1930. Apparently the nature of complaints hasn't changed much over the years. [1] davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/origins-of-unemployment.pdf

zimzam 9y ago
The jargon exists because the category is useful in answering the question "how is the economy doing". If we included people who are retired then we would see unemployment go up and down in correlation with generation sizes: when the baby boomers retire the number of "unemployed" people would go up dramatically. But that confuses the picture of whether businesses are hiring.
- esbranson 9y ago
  Hence why the question should be and is limited to ages 25-54 year olds. A "retired" 25 year old should be included in the definition of unemployment. However, the 25-54 unemployment rate (the opposite of the "employment rate") is not calculated by state or locality in the US.
throwawayjava 9y ago
I don't think you do the problem justice. Here are some people who fit the "no employment" metric but who we shouldn't count as "unemployed" if our goal is "anyone who wants a job, or needs a job to live without assistance, has one": * A by-choice stay-at-home parent. There are like 10 million stay-at-home parents in the US (c.f., our entire labor force is ~125 million!) * A contract worker/consultant, as well as employees in seasonal fields such as construction, many of whom make very decent 12-month wages but might be "unemployed" if you ask at the wrong moment. * Anyone with a severe disability (mental or physical) which makes work difficult or impossible. * Someone younger than retirement age (40s-50s) who has retired early by choice (e.g., no kids, dual high incomes for 20+ years, non-extravagant lifestyle; particularly relevant for this forum...) If you counted all of these, I have no doubt our unemployment rate would at least double, if not triple. But that would be a ridiculously stupid number to even think about -- none of the above people want a job (or want a 12 month job); why should we try to organize society around forcing them to work when they don't need to and don't want to?! I'm not claiming the current definition of "unemployed" is perfect, BTW. But IMO it's WAY better than yours...

fiatjaf 9y ago

> someone who would want to be employed, but is not Would want to be employed on what kind of job? At what pay?