3 ms·
I don't think it's that clear cut. Another interpretation is that someone could afford to be "looking for work" for longer while supported by their partner's in
by philipov 3y ago
I don't think it's that clear cut. Another interpretation is that someone could afford to be "looking for work" for longer while supported by their partner's income. People would be able to afford to shop around for a better job, which would leave more people in the "looking for work" pool for when a good opportunity comes around. They would be less desperate to accept the first offer they get.
We shouldn't rush to judgement of what this policy represents or misrepresents based on just-so stories informed by a different society.
- buffington 3y agoI think the point the GP was trying to make was that when you see official unemployment numbers from the US government, those numbers are derived from the number of people actively seeking unemployment benefits (which includes job training, job placement, and payments). Those numbers don't include anyone who doesn't officially apply for benefits, which would naturally exclude all sorts of people who are not employed.