4 ms·

Prior to the downturn, official unemployment figures only acknowledged 81 unemployed people – yes, 81 – in a country of 6.4 million. Incredible number.

by k5hp 7y ago

steve19 7y ago
Often unemployment numbers are at least partly political. There are many ways the number can be manipulated. Unemployment of 1% is considered extremely good. The International Labor Organization defines being employed as anyone who works just one hour a week, which is 10 days per year (at a 40 hour work week). This leads to countries such as Cambodia (0.3 - 0.5%) and Thailand (0.7%) claiming crazy low unemployment because grandmother sweeps the farmhouse flood once a week [0]. In reality the stats hide poverty. Another way to have high unemployment is to have most of the work done by migrants and deport them as soon as they don't have a job (UAE, 1.6%), or ensure the rent is high enough they are forced to leave if they lose a job (Gibraltar 1%). In a functional developed economy you need people to move between jobs as supply and demand change, so a certain level of unemployment is expected. [0] https://www.cambodiadaily.com/editors-choice/cambodias-low-jobless-rate-hides-harsh-reality-106803/ https://www.cambodiadaily.com/editors-choice/cambodias-low-j...
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  Absolutely. The presence of frictional unemployment in a super tight labor market would alone result in a higher number of unemployed people than that for a population of ~6 million, so I would assume any economist reading the stat quoted in the article would immediately proclaim it to be, in technical terms, "poppycock".
  - Rexxar 7y ago
    That really depends on the law that manage transition between two jobs. It's seems perfectly plausible to me. For example, if the law mandate to warn fired people 3 months in advance, they have the time to find another job before losing their current one, specially if the economy is doing well.
- _the_inflator 7y ago
  > In a functional developed economy you need people to move between jobs as supply and demand change, so a certain level of unemployment is expected. Absolutely. Technically someone who leaves an employer at the end of July and starts a new job in September is unemployed for one month. This is part of any statistic. Put another way: it is almost impossible to have an unemployment rate below 1%, as you said.

Prior to the downturn, official unemployment figures only acknowledged 81 unemployed people – yes, 81 – in a country of 6.4 million. Incredible number.

by k5hp 7y ago

Prior to the downturn, official unemployment figures only acknowledged 81 unemployed people – yes, 81 – in a country of 6.4 million. Incredible number.

steve19 7y ago

Often unemployment numbers are at least partly political. There are many ways the number can be manipulated. Unemployment of 1% is considered extremely good. The International Labor Organization defines being employed as anyone who works just one hour a week, which is 10 days per year (at a 40 hour work week). This leads to countries such as Cambodia (0.3 - 0.5%) and Thailand (0.7%) claiming crazy low unemployment because grandmother sweeps the farmhouse flood once a week [0]. In reality the stats hide poverty. Another way to have high unemployment is to have most of the work done by migrants and deport them as soon as they don't have a job (UAE, 1.6%), or ensure the rent is high enough they are forced to leave if they lose a job (Gibraltar 1%). In a functional developed economy you need people to move between jobs as supply and demand change, so a certain level of unemployment is expected. [0] https://www.cambodiadaily.com/editors-choice/cambodias-low-jobless-rate-hides-harsh-reality-106803/ https://www.cambodiadaily.com/editors-choice/cambodias-low-j...

ACow_Adonis 7y ago
Absolutely. The presence of frictional unemployment in a super tight labor market would alone result in a higher number of unemployed people than that for a population of ~6 million, so I would assume any economist reading the stat quoted in the article would immediately proclaim it to be, in technical terms, "poppycock".
- Rexxar 7y ago
  That really depends on the law that manage transition between two jobs. It's seems perfectly plausible to me. For example, if the law mandate to warn fired people 3 months in advance, they have the time to find another job before losing their current one, specially if the economy is doing well.
_the_inflator 7y ago
> In a functional developed economy you need people to move between jobs as supply and demand change, so a certain level of unemployment is expected. Absolutely. Technically someone who leaves an employer at the end of July and starts a new job in September is unemployed for one month. This is part of any statistic. Put another way: it is almost impossible to have an unemployment rate below 1%, as you said.