5 ms·

Not that I think employment rate means much (look at japan's very low employment rate compare to their economic growth since 1989, its very low [2.4% now]), but

Not that I think employment rate means much (look at japan's very low employment rate compare to their economic growth since 1989, its very low [2.4% now]), but their unemployment rate for April came in at 4.9%, whereas in the US was at 3.6%.

pgeorgi 7y ago
https://data.oecd.org/chart/5A9X https://data.oecd.org/chart/5A9X is the harmonized unemployment rate for Germany and the USA, which they define as: "Harmonised unemployment rates define the unemployed as people of working age who are without work, are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work. The uniform application of this definition results in estimates of unemployment rates that are more internationally comparable than estimates based on national definitions of unemployment. This indicator is measured in numbers of unemployed people as a percentage of the labour force and it is seasonally adjusted. The labour force is defined as the total number of unemployed people plus those in civilian employment." (https://data.oecd.org/unemp/harmonised-unemployment-rate-hur.htm https://data.oecd.org/unemp/harmonised-unemployment-rate-hur...)
- cinquemb 7y ago
  I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports (https://m.investing.com/economic-calendar/german-unemployment-rate-142 https://m.investing.com/economic-calendar/german-unemploymen...). Besides, harmonized or not, doesn't explain the economic weakness in Germany over the past decade compared to the US.
  - pgeorgi 7y ago
    > I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports ... which is meaningless when you compare it to the official US statistics (as you did) because they count things differently. The harmonization helps make the numbers comparable in the first place.
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      Fair, still doesn't change the rather meaninglessness of the numbers in the first place.
  - blub 7y ago
    What's the point of the economic strength of the US, if the results of that strength disproportionately go to the so-called elites and building war machines? Healthcare, homelessness, massive inequality are perennial awkward topics for an allegedly rich country like the US. If anything, the US should scale back profits and rebuild its social supports structures, the same structures which were torn down in the name of profit.
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      I was speaking to relative economic strength, It's not that I think the US employment rate means much either: without government debt financing deficits, US gdp would be in contraction (like nearly other OECD economy). >If anything, the US should scale back profits and rebuild its social supports structures, the same structures which were torn down in the name of profit. All of this sounds like more debt, which if we learned (we haven't) anything from 2008, will not solve the problems, just exacerbate it more when it blows up (again).
      - cycomanic 7y ago
        Funny as I remember it 2008 was all about bailing out the banks, that is giving money to the rich, not rebuilding social structures. It seems increasing debt is always fine if it goes to the elites (via tax breaks or bailouts), while it's the bogeyman idf it actually going to help people that need it. You know that the US during the golden age of the 50s and 60s had a marginal tax rate of 90%?
        cinquemb 7y ago
        I also recall 2008 about programs like cash for clunkers, nationalization of fannie mae and freddie mac (and the eventual roll out of their 3% down mortgages with no income restrictions). You know that during the US during the 50s and 60's the labor force primarily benefited one subclass of people where the rest were marginalized?

pgeorgi 7y ago

https://data.oecd.org/chart/5A9X https://data.oecd.org/chart/5A9X is the harmonized unemployment rate for Germany and the USA, which they define as: "Harmonised unemployment rates define the unemployed as people of working age who are without work, are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work. The uniform application of this definition results in estimates of unemployment rates that are more internationally comparable than estimates based on national definitions of unemployment. This indicator is measured in numbers of unemployed people as a percentage of the labour force and it is seasonally adjusted. The labour force is defined as the total number of unemployed people plus those in civilian employment." (https://data.oecd.org/unemp/harmonised-unemployment-rate-hur.htm https://data.oecd.org/unemp/harmonised-unemployment-rate-hur...)

cinquemb 7y ago
I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports (https://m.investing.com/economic-calendar/german-unemployment-rate-142 https://m.investing.com/economic-calendar/german-unemploymen...). Besides, harmonized or not, doesn't explain the economic weakness in Germany over the past decade compared to the US.
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  > I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports ... which is meaningless when you compare it to the official US statistics (as you did) because they count things differently. The harmonization helps make the numbers comparable in the first place.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    Fair, still doesn't change the rather meaninglessness of the numbers in the first place.
- blub 7y ago
  What's the point of the economic strength of the US, if the results of that strength disproportionately go to the so-called elites and building war machines? Healthcare, homelessness, massive inequality are perennial awkward topics for an allegedly rich country like the US. If anything, the US should scale back profits and rebuild its social supports structures, the same structures which were torn down in the name of profit.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    I was speaking to relative economic strength, It's not that I think the US employment rate means much either: without government debt financing deficits, US gdp would be in contraction (like nearly other OECD economy). >If anything, the US should scale back profits and rebuild its social supports structures, the same structures which were torn down in the name of profit. All of this sounds like more debt, which if we learned (we haven't) anything from 2008, will not solve the problems, just exacerbate it more when it blows up (again).
    - cycomanic 7y ago
      Funny as I remember it 2008 was all about bailing out the banks, that is giving money to the rich, not rebuilding social structures. It seems increasing debt is always fine if it goes to the elites (via tax breaks or bailouts), while it's the bogeyman idf it actually going to help people that need it. You know that the US during the golden age of the 50s and 60s had a marginal tax rate of 90%?
      - cinquemb 7y ago
        I also recall 2008 about programs like cash for clunkers, nationalization of fannie mae and freddie mac (and the eventual roll out of their 3% down mortgages with no income restrictions). You know that during the US during the 50s and 60's the labor force primarily benefited one subclass of people where the rest were marginalized?