5 ms·

note that this counts minors, retirees, etc. pre-covid, it was 61%, so we're down 10 points in 6 months. Yikes.

by hprotagonist 6y ago

MaximumYComb 6y ago
61 to 51 is huge
- glofish 6y ago
  even so the title is greatly misleading as it makes it sound as if half of the population that would work cannot
  - zigzaggy 6y ago
    Exactly. I can't understand why people don't just say the thing it is, especially a thing that's already bad. Wording it like this feels very dishonest / clickbaity.
    - FabHK 6y ago
      > just say the thing it is Well, 47.2% of the U.S. population does not have a job, and the headline was "Almost half of the U.S. population does not have a job" - what are you objecting to? (Note: that is the headline of the Axios article - I don't know what the old headline of the HN submission was.) This does not mean that the unemployment rate is 52.8% - and that is not what the headline claims. FWIW, all the main indicators show a massive spike: * Employment-Population Ratio (discussed here) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO * Labor Force Participation Rate https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART * Unemployment Rate https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
    - II2II 6y ago
      Two reasons: 1. It gives an idea of how many people are being supported by means outside of regular employment. In most cases this will have some form of impact on the economy. 2. Other job figures are misleading in different ways. Job creation numbers are irrelevant unless you know how many people are seeking work. Unemployment numbers only consider the number of people actively looking for work, ignoring those who are able and willing to work but are unable to seek employment.
  - dang 6y ago
    Ok, we'll make the title go from 61 to 51 above.
dvaun 6y ago
Based on their numbers and some quick math, maybe there are ~21 million who are now unemployed versus the recent peak in January.
frulaa 6y ago
When I first read your comment I thought you meant “all minors”. It looks as if this is for “working age population”, which means ages 15 to 64. “The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines the employment rate as the employment-to-population ratio. This is a statistical ratio that measures the proportion of the country's working age population (statistics are often given for ages 15 to 64) that is employed.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_rat...

note that this counts minors, retirees, etc. pre-covid, it was 61%, so we're down 10 points in 6 months. Yikes.

MaximumYComb 6y ago

61 to 51 is huge

glofish 6y ago
even so the title is greatly misleading as it makes it sound as if half of the population that would work cannot
- zigzaggy 6y ago
  Exactly. I can't understand why people don't just say the thing it is, especially a thing that's already bad. Wording it like this feels very dishonest / clickbaity.
  - FabHK 6y ago
    > just say the thing it is Well, 47.2% of the U.S. population does not have a job, and the headline was "Almost half of the U.S. population does not have a job" - what are you objecting to? (Note: that is the headline of the Axios article - I don't know what the old headline of the HN submission was.) This does not mean that the unemployment rate is 52.8% - and that is not what the headline claims. FWIW, all the main indicators show a massive spike: * Employment-Population Ratio (discussed here) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO * Labor Force Participation Rate https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART * Unemployment Rate https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
  - II2II 6y ago
    Two reasons: 1. It gives an idea of how many people are being supported by means outside of regular employment. In most cases this will have some form of impact on the economy. 2. Other job figures are misleading in different ways. Job creation numbers are irrelevant unless you know how many people are seeking work. Unemployment numbers only consider the number of people actively looking for work, ignoring those who are able and willing to work but are unable to seek employment.
- dang 6y ago
  Ok, we'll make the title go from 61 to 51 above.

dvaun 6y ago

Based on their numbers and some quick math, maybe there are ~21 million who are now unemployed versus the recent peak in January.

frulaa 6y ago

When I first read your comment I thought you meant “all minors”. It looks as if this is for “working age population”, which means ages 15 to 64. “The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines the employment rate as the employment-to-population ratio. This is a statistical ratio that measures the proportion of the country's working age population (statistics are often given for ages 15 to 64) that is employed.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_rat...