4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThis 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 agoTrue, 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.