3 ms·

If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable? Also, why include people with no jobs? That would includ

If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable? Also, why include people with no jobs? That would include stay-at-home parents and even FIRE folks that retired early

skellington 3y ago
Politically editorialized data. They just redefine what unemployed/underemployed means. But the official numbers are undercounting the unemployed because they also changed the way they interpret the numbers. The real unemployment rate using the old measurement methods is probably around 8% which isn't good, but it's not 23% which would be deep depression type numbers.
rahimnathwani 3y ago
The white paper linked on the site suggests they use the same denominator as the BLS, so only people with a job or seeking a job. Given that, I'd assume the numerator doesn't include the categories you mention. https://assets-global.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/63c1bb4dc740e1acb5d3b6dd_TRU%20White%20Paper.pdf https://assets-global.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c751359...
lmm 3y ago
> If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable? 1/3 of the population "unemployed by modern standards" in 1995 doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal.
- mech422 3y ago
  >>Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal. "a lot more" is doing a bunch of heavy lifting there... I was about 30 back then, and 2 working parents was considered 'normal'. One working parent was considered 'the dream'... edit: the fact "latch key kids" was basically coined for gen-x kids would seem indicate 2 working parents was common.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > edit: the fact "latch key kids" was basically coined for gen-x kids would seem indicate 2 working parents was common. The fact that it was a specific term indicates it was a known thing, but at the same time not pervasive in the way it is now.
    - mech422 3y ago
      sorry - I should have clarified that gen-x kids were a 70s/80s thing, so by the 90s it was even more common. Its late and I'm going to bed, but a quick search did turn up a bit more concrete data [0], it appears by 1988, 40+% of families were 'dual worker families'. It appears to be about 65% currently[1]. I'm guessing that would put it around 50% of families in the mid/late 1990s, so about a 15% change in ~30 years. I'd say 50+ percent counts as 'pervasive' in both cases. edit: I guess the point I was trying to make is that both parents having to work is a pretty old trend, with the majority of families needing dual incomes going back decades - and really doesn't seem to be getting any better. 0: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1990/03/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1990/03/art2full.pdf chart 1 page 16 1: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf page 2, "families with children"
phendrenad2 3y ago
I think it's very reasonable. I knew a lot of people, of all ages, who lived with or were supported by family members, while working part-time and going to school or just having fun being unemployed. I think that those with jobs had a lot more purchasing power with which they could support others.
- euroderf 3y ago
  There's also other segments of the population that would like part-time work but don't have it, for various reasons. Oldsters, moms, others.

skellington 3y ago

Politically editorialized data. They just redefine what unemployed/underemployed means. But the official numbers are undercounting the unemployed because they also changed the way they interpret the numbers. The real unemployment rate using the old measurement methods is probably around 8% which isn't good, but it's not 23% which would be deep depression type numbers.

rahimnathwani 3y ago

The white paper linked on the site suggests they use the same denominator as the BLS, so only people with a job or seeking a job. Given that, I'd assume the numerator doesn't include the categories you mention. https://assets-global.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/63c1bb4dc740e1acb5d3b6dd_TRU%20White%20Paper.pdf https://assets-global.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c751359...

lmm 3y ago

> If this data is correct, then ONE THIRD of the population was unemployed in 1995. Is this reasonable? 1/3 of the population "unemployed by modern standards" in 1995 doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal.

mech422 3y ago
>>Back then one stay-at-home-parent was a lot more normal. "a lot more" is doing a bunch of heavy lifting there... I was about 30 back then, and 2 working parents was considered 'normal'. One working parent was considered 'the dream'... edit: the fact "latch key kids" was basically coined for gen-x kids would seem indicate 2 working parents was common.
- lmm 3y ago
  > edit: the fact "latch key kids" was basically coined for gen-x kids would seem indicate 2 working parents was common. The fact that it was a specific term indicates it was a known thing, but at the same time not pervasive in the way it is now.
  - mech422 3y ago
    sorry - I should have clarified that gen-x kids were a 70s/80s thing, so by the 90s it was even more common. Its late and I'm going to bed, but a quick search did turn up a bit more concrete data [0], it appears by 1988, 40+% of families were 'dual worker families'. It appears to be about 65% currently[1]. I'm guessing that would put it around 50% of families in the mid/late 1990s, so about a 15% change in ~30 years. I'd say 50+ percent counts as 'pervasive' in both cases. edit: I guess the point I was trying to make is that both parents having to work is a pretty old trend, with the majority of families needing dual incomes going back decades - and really doesn't seem to be getting any better. 0: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1990/03/art2full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1990/03/art2full.pdf chart 1 page 16 1: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf page 2, "families with children"

phendrenad2 3y ago

I think it's very reasonable. I knew a lot of people, of all ages, who lived with or were supported by family members, while working part-time and going to school or just having fun being unemployed. I think that those with jobs had a lot more purchasing power with which they could support others.

euroderf 3y ago
There's also other segments of the population that would like part-time work but don't have it, for various reasons. Oldsters, moms, others.