4 ms·

Workforce participation dropped from 61% in the US to 51%. That means that 10% of the US are no longer working. That comes out to 33 million people. 10/61 is

Workforce participation dropped from 61% in the US to 51%. That means that 10% of the US are no longer working. That comes out to 33 million people. 10/61 is 16.3% jobless, but there is "only" a 14.7% unemployment rate. Some of the balance is retiring, some are hospitalized.

IkmoIkmo 6y ago
Is it also not the case that if you're not looking for work, but do not have a job, that you're not counted as unemployed? You're simply not part of the labour force, despite perhaps being willing and able to work in more favourable economic conditions. This is at least the international labour organisation (ILO) definition.[0] This is always a bit tricky as it means that when people are discouraged from finding work (e.g. because it is hopeless and they cannot find a job) and stop searching, that they fall outside the unemployment figures. This undervalues true unemployment a bit. This may help explain some of the discrepancies in the statistics. [0] https://www.ilo.org/ilostat-files/Documents/description_UR_EN.pdf https://www.ilo.org/ilostat-files/Documents/description_UR_E...
- dragontamer 6y ago
  This discussion comes up almost every time U-3 (official unemployment) is reported. There's a reason why the USA keeps track of U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, and U6. Because everyone has their own opinion about who, or what, should count as unemployed. It sounds like the number YOU are looking for is U4, which is U3 + Discouraged Workers. -------- U3 is reported because U3 has been reported for the past 100 years. If we want to compare today's unemployment with the unemployment in 1930s, we use U3. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
- andrewprock 6y ago
  True, but at the same time, we cannot say that there is a 49% unemployment rate despite the fact that 49% of the populace are not employed.

IkmoIkmo 6y ago

Is it also not the case that if you're not looking for work, but do not have a job, that you're not counted as unemployed? You're simply not part of the labour force, despite perhaps being willing and able to work in more favourable economic conditions. This is at least the international labour organisation (ILO) definition.[0] This is always a bit tricky as it means that when people are discouraged from finding work (e.g. because it is hopeless and they cannot find a job) and stop searching, that they fall outside the unemployment figures. This undervalues true unemployment a bit. This may help explain some of the discrepancies in the statistics. [0] https://www.ilo.org/ilostat-files/Documents/description_UR_EN.pdf https://www.ilo.org/ilostat-files/Documents/description_UR_E...

dragontamer 6y ago
This discussion comes up almost every time U-3 (official unemployment) is reported. There's a reason why the USA keeps track of U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, and U6. Because everyone has their own opinion about who, or what, should count as unemployed. It sounds like the number YOU are looking for is U4, which is U3 + Discouraged Workers. -------- U3 is reported because U3 has been reported for the past 100 years. If we want to compare today's unemployment with the unemployment in 1930s, we use U3. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
andrewprock 6y ago
True, but at the same time, we cannot say that there is a 49% unemployment rate despite the fact that 49% of the populace are not employed.