5 ms·

"not engaged in a gainful occupation"[1] "not having a job that provides money"[2] Maybe not official as in dictionary definition, but official as in political

"not engaged in a gainful occupation"[1] "not having a job that provides money"[2] Maybe not official as in dictionary definition, but official as in political / statistical lingo? [1] Kagi's response provided by WordsAPI, I'm not sure if linking a technically paywalled would be the reasonable thing https://kagi.com/search?q=unemployed+meaning https://kagi.com/search?q=unemployed+meaning [2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unemployed https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unemploy...

scarface_74 2y ago
You are not considered “unemployed” by the government if you are not actively seeking work. The official definition as far as the BLS. http://www.mississippi.edu/urc/downloads/econ101-01_151118.pdf http://www.mississippi.edu/urc/downloads/econ101-01_151118.p... > Finally, other individuals who are not working or seeking work for pay or profit are not included in the labor force. > BLS considers the unemployed as those individuals without a job who have looked for one in the past four weeks and are available to work. Looking for work involves an individual taking some action to obtain a job, such as completing an application, sending out a resume,contacting an employment center, etc. Individuals who have been temporarily laid off are considered unemployed regardless if they have looked for work in the last four week
- ok_dad 2y ago
  The government’s definition is designed to make things look nice, not gauge the actual level of unemployment. If you’re not looking for work because you gave up trying, you’re not counted even though you’re unemployed. Retired or disabled is a different thing, and being a home maker and taking care of kids should be counted in the numbers as employment, otherwise everyone should be under unemployed.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    This has been the standard definition of unemployed and being part of the labor force forever. This is the same definition the UK uses https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/outofworkbenefits/methodologies/claimantcount/unemploymentandtheclaimantcounttcm77327614tcm77387938.pdf https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/p... Australia https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/concepts-sources-methods/labour-statistics-concepts-sources-and-methods/2021/concepts-and-sources/unemployment#:~:text=Unemployed%20people%20are%20defined%20as,employment%20given%20a%20job%20opportunity https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-infor.... And the international OECD https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/unemployment-rate.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/unemployment-rate.ht... I couldn’t find a single English speaking country that didn’t use the same definition. The percentage of people who are working/total adult population or a subset is the labor participation rate.
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      Yea and? The government isn’t the people, they want things to look as rosy as possible, every one of them. The people’s definition for unemployment is you’d want to work but you can’t find a job. Your definition is just appealing to authority.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        So I’m “appealing to authority” by using the global definition of “unemployment” in the entire English speaking world? Why would the OECD want things to look “rosy”? And how would someone “find a job” if they aren’t actively looking? What exactly is “the government” if it’s not “the people”? Every country I cited is one where the government is democratically elected. We should instead use a definition that a random person on HN think is more appropriate?
        ok_dad 2y ago
        Nearly anyone who you ask will say you should count someone who has no income and can’t find a job as unemployed for the numbers, otherwise type ignoring problems. What if you have 10% of your population that can’t find a job and gives up to live on the streets due to loss of hope? Do you just not count them as unemployed? That’s stupid. Your rapid fire set of questions carefully worded to sound reasonable is just a way for you to avoid the crux of my argument that government numbers for unemployed are low due to the twisted definition they use. Tell me why they shouldn’t count the hopeless as unemployed?
        scarface_74 2y ago
        > Tell me why they shouldn’t count the hopeless as unemployed? Because “Words Mean Things”. Every single country’s government that I could find - including non English speaking countries (I just looked up the definition in Japan) define unemployment the same way. The unemployment, the homeless and the labor participation rate are all statistics that are reported by the government and one isn’t ignoring the other. And you don’t think it is “unreasonable” to make up definitions instead of using ones that are accepted globally?

scarface_74 2y ago

You are not considered “unemployed” by the government if you are not actively seeking work. The official definition as far as the BLS. http://www.mississippi.edu/urc/downloads/econ101-01_151118.pdf http://www.mississippi.edu/urc/downloads/econ101-01_151118.p... > Finally, other individuals who are not working or seeking work for pay or profit are not included in the labor force. > BLS considers the unemployed as those individuals without a job who have looked for one in the past four weeks and are available to work. Looking for work involves an individual taking some action to obtain a job, such as completing an application, sending out a resume,contacting an employment center, etc. Individuals who have been temporarily laid off are considered unemployed regardless if they have looked for work in the last four week

ok_dad 2y ago
The government’s definition is designed to make things look nice, not gauge the actual level of unemployment. If you’re not looking for work because you gave up trying, you’re not counted even though you’re unemployed. Retired or disabled is a different thing, and being a home maker and taking care of kids should be counted in the numbers as employment, otherwise everyone should be under unemployed.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  This has been the standard definition of unemployed and being part of the labor force forever. This is the same definition the UK uses https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/outofworkbenefits/methodologies/claimantcount/unemploymentandtheclaimantcounttcm77327614tcm77387938.pdf https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/p... Australia https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/concepts-sources-methods/labour-statistics-concepts-sources-and-methods/2021/concepts-and-sources/unemployment#:~:text=Unemployed%20people%20are%20defined%20as,employment%20given%20a%20job%20opportunity https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-infor.... And the international OECD https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/unemployment-rate.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/unemployment-rate.ht... I couldn’t find a single English speaking country that didn’t use the same definition. The percentage of people who are working/total adult population or a subset is the labor participation rate.
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    Yea and? The government isn’t the people, they want things to look as rosy as possible, every one of them. The people’s definition for unemployment is you’d want to work but you can’t find a job. Your definition is just appealing to authority.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      So I’m “appealing to authority” by using the global definition of “unemployment” in the entire English speaking world? Why would the OECD want things to look “rosy”? And how would someone “find a job” if they aren’t actively looking? What exactly is “the government” if it’s not “the people”? Every country I cited is one where the government is democratically elected. We should instead use a definition that a random person on HN think is more appropriate?
      - ok_dad 2y ago
        Nearly anyone who you ask will say you should count someone who has no income and can’t find a job as unemployed for the numbers, otherwise type ignoring problems. What if you have 10% of your population that can’t find a job and gives up to live on the streets due to loss of hope? Do you just not count them as unemployed? That’s stupid. Your rapid fire set of questions carefully worded to sound reasonable is just a way for you to avoid the crux of my argument that government numbers for unemployed are low due to the twisted definition they use. Tell me why they shouldn’t count the hopeless as unemployed?
        scarface_74 2y ago
        > Tell me why they shouldn’t count the hopeless as unemployed? Because “Words Mean Things”. Every single country’s government that I could find - including non English speaking countries (I just looked up the definition in Japan) define unemployment the same way. The unemployment, the homeless and the labor participation rate are all statistics that are reported by the government and one isn’t ignoring the other. And you don’t think it is “unreasonable” to make up definitions instead of using ones that are accepted globally?