12 ms·

Why do people focus on aggregate unemployment metrics so much? A $10/hr job with no benefits is tremendously different than a $60K/yr job with health care. The

Why do people focus on aggregate unemployment metrics so much? A $10/hr job with no benefits is tremendously different than a $60K/yr job with health care. The former is not a living wage. Yet both are just "jobs" -- what does that word even imply in 2020? Even worse are "job creation numbers", proudly brought to you by Aunt Mary who works three minimum wage jobs. Is "employing" XX% of your population in virtual indentured servitude supposed to be something politicians are proud of?

38eueheh 6y ago
Living wage is an argument advocated by inherently privileged individuals, you can tell because a livable COL rarely comes up in the same breath. If the person is alive and doing the job it's a living wage, just because Californians don't like having to confront that their elitist policies are wildly exacerbating the cost of living doesn't mean the job should be disregarded because without it that individual would require even more support or have to leave the state (which most Californians seem fine with because there's nothing prejudice about driving out the poor apparently).
- sjg007 6y ago
  There are cheap parts of California to live in, people just don't want to live in them. The real problem is that everyone wants to live in California. I do think that California should build more density but I think covid will temper that for another 10 years.
  - 38eueheh 6y ago
    People wanting to live in specific parts of California is only a problem if those places are experiencing a shortage of housing. SF is experiencing a shortage because of zoning regulations like height limitations and similar is the case in SD, there is not a physical lack of land that is precipitating the problem. CoL is also more than rent, food could be cheaper if neighborhoods would quit advantaging local co-ops and eating out could be cheaper if the large cities like SD didn't outright ban cheap food options like meal carts. And that's all before addressing more ethereal aspects like the gas tax that disproportionately hits the state's middle and lower classes the hardest. California is expensive because Californians care more about principals than people.
yellowapple 6y ago
> A $10/hr job with no benefits is tremendously different than a $60K/yr job with health care. It's also tremendously different than not having a job at all. We need to be at "okay" before we can be at "good". And $10/hr is a living wage in most of the US. It ain't comfortable by any means, and doesn't leave room for savings, but it's doable in areas that have a reasonable cost of living (namely: not SF or NYC). That's not to say we can't or shouldn't do better, but it's a start.
- hckr_news 6y ago
  > And $10/hr is a living wage in most of the US Terribly disconnected comment. Most single bedroom apartments even in BFE would eat your paycheck.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    That’s why you get a roommate. Case closed.
    - dunce2020 6y ago
      It's not a loving wage if you need roommates
      - missedthecue 6y ago
        I think that's an opinion, not a fact. There is no objective standard for what a "living wage" is.
      - xwdv 6y ago
        It absolutely is. Most people live with someone else. Living by yourself is a luxury.
        dunce2020 6y ago
        If you need a second persons wages for shelter, its not a living wage.
subsubzero 6y ago
I would like non-farm payroll jobs broken down into further categories. Basically call out how many McJobs are included in this category, as parent comment mentioned they are not paying a living wage and do not reflect a healthy economy. Also I would like to have gig-jobs included as well, as they offer no benefits and pay low wages(slightly higher though) then a McJob. I suspect at the end of 2019/early 2020 when we were supposedly at peak-jobs/peak employment, how many jobs were in these two categories. I suspect the rise of the gig economy pulled alot of workers from Mcjobs as gig jobs pay slightly better, and led to higher wages across that sector(fast food/retail) as they could not find workers.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Why do people focus on aggregate unemployment metrics so much? Because most people rely on labor income for their support. > A $10/hr job with no benefits is tremendously different than a $60K/yr job with health care. But not as different as both are from no job with no benefits. I don't disagree that it presents an incomplete picture, but it's not an unimportant one, either.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Its plain misleading. A job that doesn't pay the rent should logically be classed with 'no job' and not 'adequate job'. There's the suspicion that folks are getting play for 'creating jobs' when that's just sophistry.
Upvoter33 6y ago
I am in strong alignment with this comment. Our metrics for success need a serious makeover. Average wages per quartile or something of the population or something like that.
JamalW 6y ago
My parents fed a family of four on $7/hr. Healthcare is overrated. Indentured servitude is relative. I’d rather have all the population eat than half the population starve and the other half make $60k/yr w/ benefits.
metalliqaz 6y ago
Young people generally aren't in charge of the government and also don't vote nearly as much as old people. The old people in charge and voting to keep them there are from a time when a job was a thing to be proud of, when a hard day's work would get you a living wage. It's a little strange how out-of-touch so many people are with the new reality, but it is not so surprising given how little Americans tend to interact with the world outside their personal space.
rayiner 6y ago
Someone with a full-time job making $10 an hour (1) makes about the same minimum wage as France; (2) is either eligible for Medicaid or pays $67/month for healthcare through an ACA exchange; (3) pays almost nothing in taxes. It’s definitely a livable salary for a young person in a low cost of living area. (Half of people who make under $10 an hour are 18-30.) Where I live, an hour outside DC and maybe 30 minutes to Baltimore, you can get a 2BR apartment in a nice new building for $1,000 per month. Share that with someone, and a person making $1,500 is spending the recommended 1/3 on rent. $67/month for healthcare on an ACA silver plan, and that leaves $900/month, which is totally doable for a single person, or better yet each half of a young married couple. And frankly, around here you’d get $15/hour just working checkout. In places that have a significant number of $10/hour jobs, rent is something you spend a few hundred a month on. You can eat at a sit down place for under $10.
- taurath 6y ago
  An ACA silver plan means you have a $4500 deductible. You will NEVER go to a doctor. You will also not have sick leave, and if you don't show up for your randomly timed work shift you will be fired. Thats if you get hours in the first place. So you pay your $500 for rent. Add 150 for utilities. Add 200 for gas and 50 for car insurance since you're gonna be living in a rural place. Thats 900 for a roof and ability to pay for it. Now you have $600 a month for food and literally any other expense. Say you never eat out and use staples like rice and beans as the basis for every dish, thats $250 a month (maybe you can squeeze out another $50, but one must have a slight bit of slack for say, a single gallon of ice cream per month). $350 for everything else. Entertainment. A gym membership. Your medical deductible. Your sanity.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    So to put the below in context: my first job (at the tail end of the last recession) paid around $12-13 an hour, and was enough to survive with more than double that rent figure. Granted, I had a couple factors on my side (namely: my grandparents in the next town over, who would insist on stocking my fridge and cupboards with the essentials), but even if I hadn't it was workable, even if not comfortable. I also didn't pay for health insurance at the time (I wasn't eligible for work-provided insurance until shortly before I switched jobs), since I think this was right before the ACA's individual mandate made it "mandatory". That all being to say: $10/hr full time does not in the slightest bit seem unreasonable to me, even if I do strongly believe that workers deserve better than that. ---- > Add 200 for gas and 50 for car insurance since you're gonna be living in a rural place. Or a bike, which is a thing, that people ride to and from work, even in "rural" areas. No gas and no insurance, even for an electric one (and those have come down quite a bit in price, to the point where the only cheaper cars are absolute beaters). Even "rural" cities/towns often have buses, too. They don't always have the most exhaustive coverage, but bikes can make up for that for the "last mile" of each way's commute (especially if the bus has a bike rack on it, which is becoming increasingly common for exactly this reason and because it's relatively cheap compared to the cost of the bus itself). > $350 for everything else. Entertainment. A gym membership. Your medical deductible. Your sanity. You don't need a gym membership to work out (as I'm sure most of us trying to get even basic fitness in can attest over the last couple months, what with all those gyms being shut down). Jogging, hiking, bicycling, pushups, planks, jumping jacks, shovelgloving¹... all dirt cheap to do (if you don't go overboard and splurge on fancy bikes or backpacks or whatever; the basics will work fine). If you happen to live in a snowy area, snow shoveling is a good workout, too, and helps out your neighbors (you might even get paid for it). All of those things can double for entertainment and "sanity", too, so that just leaves the medical deductible. That $350 would give you enough savings to cover that deductible in a bit over a year (even faster if you throw in the aforementioned $250 you'd be saving without a car). Anything past that is pure savings, enough to eventually buy a used car for the occasional out-of-town trip, or to eat out every once in awhile, or what have you. ---- ¹: http://shovelglove.com/ http://shovelglove.com/
slg 6y ago
There are several different unemployment numbers reported in the US that all have slightly different meanings[1]. While none of those official reported numbers match your definition, the U6 rate would be the closest. The number that you generally see reported in the news is the U3 rate. The U6 rate also includes people who have stopped actively looking for work or are underemployed (dictated by hours and not pay). The numbers reported in this article don't fit any of these definitions and are mostly meaningless due to weird choices like including children. [1] - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
- pphysch 6y ago
  Thanks. Do you know if the BLS provides a simple histogram of job numbers by wage?
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    Not exactly what you're looking for, but close: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000
fullshark 6y ago
When your party is in power you focus on the metrics that make you look good. When your party is out of power you focus on the metrics that make them look bad.
- Upvoter33 6y ago
  This is why, at some point, a party in power needs to actually just change the metrics to be meaningful and "good", and thus lead to actual societal change.
adolph 6y ago
Maybe total employment percentage is an antiquated measurement and doesn't take into account the full measure of valuable things people do all day. On the other hand, it is a measure of societal engagement with activities significant to sustaining it. A society that promotes human flourishing is one that engages every person in the act of serving others to each person's highest ability, aspiration and need. Is the best generalizable statistic to measure societal engagement "jobs?" No, there are many vocations that don't get counted as "jobs" for government statistics. And given the dematerialization of culture maybe jobs as a concept are on their way out. In the short run the percentage of people employed is a statistic that can inform those interested that many people who were formerly engaged with society in the mode called a job are no longer. Many people who had an identity in some occupation are effectively being told that society does not want or need their effort. I think that is not helpful in developing humanity.
marcosdumay 6y ago
When unemployment is low companies have to compete with other to attract people just to work there (instead of when hunting for talent). When it's high, there is no competition for unqualified workers and they are completely not valued.
godzillabrennus 6y ago
We need to separate health care from employment.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
"Is "employing" XX% of your population in virtual indentured servitude supposed to be something politicians are proud of?" In 2020, in the U.S. for example, yes. This is why these "jobs" disappeared so quickly when there is a slightest sign of economic trouble. Someone has to do "real work" and so there will always be a need for indentured servants. Those sort of jobs will always exist. However the need for many other "jobs" has been put into question. When things get tight, companies today are more aware that they can eliminate those positions and carry on, sometimes with increased profits as a result. The pandemic is a perfect wake-up call as it purports to separate "essential" from "non-essential" jobs. With some exceptions, the more you are being paid, the more you think you are worth, the higher the chance that your job is, in fact, "non-essential". Eliminating these higher paid, non-essential positions, even temporarily, saves companies a lot of money. It is not easy to eliminate these positions under normal conditions, however in an "economic crisis", the process becomes easier. As an employer, I can get those workers back anytime. They will be crawling over each other, lying about their qualifications, doing whatever it takes to get hired, because, on the "strength" of their non-essential job, they have built-up a standard of living that they must maintain.
alexashka 6y ago
> Why do people focus on aggregate unemployment metrics so much? To avoid focus falling on inconvenient truths. Haven't you seen a magician waving his right hand? It means he's doing something sneaky with his left :)
wonderwonder 6y ago
I completely agree with you, but often that $10 per hour job is the difference between a roof and homelessness in a household, so they count. At the same time, if I lose a 60k a year job and have to take one for $10 per hour, I am very likely going to lose the house I am already in. The US though has accepted a subsistence wage as good enough though.
specialist 6y ago
Ya. My grievance is not knowing the bounds. I'd like metrics based on hours, or even work weeks (40/hrs). And then count everyone. Count of employers, jobs (FTE and otherwise), hours worked, payroll. Total population, working age population, number of workers. Slice and dice into demographics, regions, quintiles, etc. Then argue about overtime, wage theft, unpaid work (eldercare, childcare), total compensation (salary, benefits, equity), and so forth.
tuatoru 6y ago
> Why do people focus on aggregate unemployment metrics so much? ... Is "employing" XX% of your population in virtual indentured servitude supposed to be something politicians are proud of? The answer is multipart and long, but a couple of highlights are; - - the social point that work is a "quadruple remedy" against deprivation, boredom and isolation, social disrepute, and mental illness. Phrased positively: work gives a person material comforts, social contact, respectability, and self-respect. Edit: this applies no matter the content of the job or the working conditions. Simply "having a job", any job, provides these things in some measure. - another aggregate measure, the Gini index, bears on the answer. If a country has both a low Gini index (inequality) and low employment, then unemployed people are able to properly participate in society in that country. The answer in that case might be "no". Trouble is, such countries are as common as rainbow-colored hens' teeth.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Sure, work is good, but it’s hardly a decent measure of economic health. The idea of someone not “participating” in society is ridiculous. Paid labor is only one of many ways to participate in society.
oliwarner 6y ago
While I agree with the tone of this when talking about record employment levels, when talking about stratospheric unemployment, this is even more important. An extra 10% of the population can't even get a crappy job.
lazylizard 6y ago
"Employed" is maybe shorthand for "probably has a place to stay , can afford to eat and can travel to work"..? Longer term, underemployment has its own set of issues. But unemployment is a more urgent problem.

38eueheh 6y ago

Living wage is an argument advocated by inherently privileged individuals, you can tell because a livable COL rarely comes up in the same breath. If the person is alive and doing the job it's a living wage, just because Californians don't like having to confront that their elitist policies are wildly exacerbating the cost of living doesn't mean the job should be disregarded because without it that individual would require even more support or have to leave the state (which most Californians seem fine with because there's nothing prejudice about driving out the poor apparently).

sjg007 6y ago
There are cheap parts of California to live in, people just don't want to live in them. The real problem is that everyone wants to live in California. I do think that California should build more density but I think covid will temper that for another 10 years.
- 38eueheh 6y ago
  People wanting to live in specific parts of California is only a problem if those places are experiencing a shortage of housing. SF is experiencing a shortage because of zoning regulations like height limitations and similar is the case in SD, there is not a physical lack of land that is precipitating the problem. CoL is also more than rent, food could be cheaper if neighborhoods would quit advantaging local co-ops and eating out could be cheaper if the large cities like SD didn't outright ban cheap food options like meal carts. And that's all before addressing more ethereal aspects like the gas tax that disproportionately hits the state's middle and lower classes the hardest. California is expensive because Californians care more about principals than people.

yellowapple 6y ago

> A $10/hr job with no benefits is tremendously different than a $60K/yr job with health care. It's also tremendously different than not having a job at all. We need to be at "okay" before we can be at "good". And $10/hr is a living wage in most of the US. It ain't comfortable by any means, and doesn't leave room for savings, but it's doable in areas that have a reasonable cost of living (namely: not SF or NYC). That's not to say we can't or shouldn't do better, but it's a start.

hckr_news 6y ago
> And $10/hr is a living wage in most of the US Terribly disconnected comment. Most single bedroom apartments even in BFE would eat your paycheck.
- xwdv 6y ago
  That’s why you get a roommate. Case closed.
  - dunce2020 6y ago
    It's not a loving wage if you need roommates
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      I think that's an opinion, not a fact. There is no objective standard for what a "living wage" is.
    - xwdv 6y ago
      It absolutely is. Most people live with someone else. Living by yourself is a luxury.
      - dunce2020 6y ago
        If you need a second persons wages for shelter, its not a living wage.

subsubzero 6y ago

I would like non-farm payroll jobs broken down into further categories. Basically call out how many McJobs are included in this category, as parent comment mentioned they are not paying a living wage and do not reflect a healthy economy. Also I would like to have gig-jobs included as well, as they offer no benefits and pay low wages(slightly higher though) then a McJob. I suspect at the end of 2019/early 2020 when we were supposedly at peak-jobs/peak employment, how many jobs were in these two categories. I suspect the rise of the gig economy pulled alot of workers from Mcjobs as gig jobs pay slightly better, and led to higher wages across that sector(fast food/retail) as they could not find workers.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Why do people focus on aggregate unemployment metrics so much? Because most people rely on labor income for their support. > A $10/hr job with no benefits is tremendously different than a $60K/yr job with health care. But not as different as both are from no job with no benefits. I don't disagree that it presents an incomplete picture, but it's not an unimportant one, either.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Its plain misleading. A job that doesn't pay the rent should logically be classed with 'no job' and not 'adequate job'. There's the suspicion that folks are getting play for 'creating jobs' when that's just sophistry.

Upvoter33 6y ago

I am in strong alignment with this comment. Our metrics for success need a serious makeover. Average wages per quartile or something of the population or something like that.

JamalW 6y ago

My parents fed a family of four on $7/hr. Healthcare is overrated. Indentured servitude is relative. I’d rather have all the population eat than half the population starve and the other half make $60k/yr w/ benefits.

metalliqaz 6y ago

Young people generally aren't in charge of the government and also don't vote nearly as much as old people. The old people in charge and voting to keep them there are from a time when a job was a thing to be proud of, when a hard day's work would get you a living wage. It's a little strange how out-of-touch so many people are with the new reality, but it is not so surprising given how little Americans tend to interact with the world outside their personal space.

rayiner 6y ago

Someone with a full-time job making $10 an hour (1) makes about the same minimum wage as France; (2) is either eligible for Medicaid or pays $67/month for healthcare through an ACA exchange; (3) pays almost nothing in taxes. It’s definitely a livable salary for a young person in a low cost of living area. (Half of people who make under $10 an hour are 18-30.) Where I live, an hour outside DC and maybe 30 minutes to Baltimore, you can get a 2BR apartment in a nice new building for $1,000 per month. Share that with someone, and a person making $1,500 is spending the recommended 1/3 on rent. $67/month for healthcare on an ACA silver plan, and that leaves $900/month, which is totally doable for a single person, or better yet each half of a young married couple. And frankly, around here you’d get $15/hour just working checkout. In places that have a significant number of $10/hour jobs, rent is something you spend a few hundred a month on. You can eat at a sit down place for under $10.

taurath 6y ago
An ACA silver plan means you have a $4500 deductible. You will NEVER go to a doctor. You will also not have sick leave, and if you don't show up for your randomly timed work shift you will be fired. Thats if you get hours in the first place. So you pay your $500 for rent. Add 150 for utilities. Add 200 for gas and 50 for car insurance since you're gonna be living in a rural place. Thats 900 for a roof and ability to pay for it. Now you have $600 a month for food and literally any other expense. Say you never eat out and use staples like rice and beans as the basis for every dish, thats $250 a month (maybe you can squeeze out another $50, but one must have a slight bit of slack for say, a single gallon of ice cream per month). $350 for everything else. Entertainment. A gym membership. Your medical deductible. Your sanity.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  So to put the below in context: my first job (at the tail end of the last recession) paid around $12-13 an hour, and was enough to survive with more than double that rent figure. Granted, I had a couple factors on my side (namely: my grandparents in the next town over, who would insist on stocking my fridge and cupboards with the essentials), but even if I hadn't it was workable, even if not comfortable. I also didn't pay for health insurance at the time (I wasn't eligible for work-provided insurance until shortly before I switched jobs), since I think this was right before the ACA's individual mandate made it "mandatory". That all being to say: $10/hr full time does not in the slightest bit seem unreasonable to me, even if I do strongly believe that workers deserve better than that. ---- > Add 200 for gas and 50 for car insurance since you're gonna be living in a rural place. Or a bike, which is a thing, that people ride to and from work, even in "rural" areas. No gas and no insurance, even for an electric one (and those have come down quite a bit in price, to the point where the only cheaper cars are absolute beaters). Even "rural" cities/towns often have buses, too. They don't always have the most exhaustive coverage, but bikes can make up for that for the "last mile" of each way's commute (especially if the bus has a bike rack on it, which is becoming increasingly common for exactly this reason and because it's relatively cheap compared to the cost of the bus itself). > $350 for everything else. Entertainment. A gym membership. Your medical deductible. Your sanity. You don't need a gym membership to work out (as I'm sure most of us trying to get even basic fitness in can attest over the last couple months, what with all those gyms being shut down). Jogging, hiking, bicycling, pushups, planks, jumping jacks, shovelgloving¹... all dirt cheap to do (if you don't go overboard and splurge on fancy bikes or backpacks or whatever; the basics will work fine). If you happen to live in a snowy area, snow shoveling is a good workout, too, and helps out your neighbors (you might even get paid for it). All of those things can double for entertainment and "sanity", too, so that just leaves the medical deductible. That $350 would give you enough savings to cover that deductible in a bit over a year (even faster if you throw in the aforementioned $250 you'd be saving without a car). Anything past that is pure savings, enough to eventually buy a used car for the occasional out-of-town trip, or to eat out every once in awhile, or what have you. ---- ¹: http://shovelglove.com/ http://shovelglove.com/

slg 6y ago

There are several different unemployment numbers reported in the US that all have slightly different meanings[1]. While none of those official reported numbers match your definition, the U6 rate would be the closest. The number that you generally see reported in the news is the U3 rate. The U6 rate also includes people who have stopped actively looking for work or are underemployed (dictated by hours and not pay). The numbers reported in this article don't fit any of these definitions and are mostly meaningless due to weird choices like including children. [1] - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

pphysch 6y ago
Thanks. Do you know if the BLS provides a simple histogram of job numbers by wage?
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  Not exactly what you're looking for, but close: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

fullshark 6y ago

When your party is in power you focus on the metrics that make you look good. When your party is out of power you focus on the metrics that make them look bad.

Upvoter33 6y ago
This is why, at some point, a party in power needs to actually just change the metrics to be meaningful and "good", and thus lead to actual societal change.

adolph 6y ago

Maybe total employment percentage is an antiquated measurement and doesn't take into account the full measure of valuable things people do all day. On the other hand, it is a measure of societal engagement with activities significant to sustaining it. A society that promotes human flourishing is one that engages every person in the act of serving others to each person's highest ability, aspiration and need. Is the best generalizable statistic to measure societal engagement "jobs?" No, there are many vocations that don't get counted as "jobs" for government statistics. And given the dematerialization of culture maybe jobs as a concept are on their way out. In the short run the percentage of people employed is a statistic that can inform those interested that many people who were formerly engaged with society in the mode called a job are no longer. Many people who had an identity in some occupation are effectively being told that society does not want or need their effort. I think that is not helpful in developing humanity.

marcosdumay 6y ago

When unemployment is low companies have to compete with other to attract people just to work there (instead of when hunting for talent). When it's high, there is no competition for unqualified workers and they are completely not valued.

godzillabrennus 6y ago

We need to separate health care from employment.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

"Is "employing" XX% of your population in virtual indentured servitude supposed to be something politicians are proud of?" In 2020, in the U.S. for example, yes. This is why these "jobs" disappeared so quickly when there is a slightest sign of economic trouble. Someone has to do "real work" and so there will always be a need for indentured servants. Those sort of jobs will always exist. However the need for many other "jobs" has been put into question. When things get tight, companies today are more aware that they can eliminate those positions and carry on, sometimes with increased profits as a result. The pandemic is a perfect wake-up call as it purports to separate "essential" from "non-essential" jobs. With some exceptions, the more you are being paid, the more you think you are worth, the higher the chance that your job is, in fact, "non-essential". Eliminating these higher paid, non-essential positions, even temporarily, saves companies a lot of money. It is not easy to eliminate these positions under normal conditions, however in an "economic crisis", the process becomes easier. As an employer, I can get those workers back anytime. They will be crawling over each other, lying about their qualifications, doing whatever it takes to get hired, because, on the "strength" of their non-essential job, they have built-up a standard of living that they must maintain.

alexashka 6y ago

> Why do people focus on aggregate unemployment metrics so much? To avoid focus falling on inconvenient truths. Haven't you seen a magician waving his right hand? It means he's doing something sneaky with his left :)

wonderwonder 6y ago

I completely agree with you, but often that $10 per hour job is the difference between a roof and homelessness in a household, so they count. At the same time, if I lose a 60k a year job and have to take one for $10 per hour, I am very likely going to lose the house I am already in. The US though has accepted a subsistence wage as good enough though.

specialist 6y ago

Ya. My grievance is not knowing the bounds. I'd like metrics based on hours, or even work weeks (40/hrs). And then count everyone. Count of employers, jobs (FTE and otherwise), hours worked, payroll. Total population, working age population, number of workers. Slice and dice into demographics, regions, quintiles, etc. Then argue about overtime, wage theft, unpaid work (eldercare, childcare), total compensation (salary, benefits, equity), and so forth.

tuatoru 6y ago

> Why do people focus on aggregate unemployment metrics so much? ... Is "employing" XX% of your population in virtual indentured servitude supposed to be something politicians are proud of? The answer is multipart and long, but a couple of highlights are; - - the social point that work is a "quadruple remedy" against deprivation, boredom and isolation, social disrepute, and mental illness. Phrased positively: work gives a person material comforts, social contact, respectability, and self-respect. Edit: this applies no matter the content of the job or the working conditions. Simply "having a job", any job, provides these things in some measure. - another aggregate measure, the Gini index, bears on the answer. If a country has both a low Gini index (inequality) and low employment, then unemployed people are able to properly participate in society in that country. The answer in that case might be "no". Trouble is, such countries are as common as rainbow-colored hens' teeth.

monadic2 6y ago
Sure, work is good, but it’s hardly a decent measure of economic health. The idea of someone not “participating” in society is ridiculous. Paid labor is only one of many ways to participate in society.

oliwarner 6y ago

While I agree with the tone of this when talking about record employment levels, when talking about stratospheric unemployment, this is even more important. An extra 10% of the population can't even get a crappy job.

lazylizard 6y ago

"Employed" is maybe shorthand for "probably has a place to stay , can afford to eat and can travel to work"..? Longer term, underemployment has its own set of issues. But unemployment is a more urgent problem.