3 ms·

No, the graph makes it looks like from a baseline of about 5% a year and a half ago, unemployment for women has gone up about 60% while unemployment for men has

by bwhite 17y ago

No, the graph makes it looks like from a baseline of about 5% a year and a half ago, unemployment for women has gone up about 60% while unemployment for men has gone up about 100% -- or not quite double the increase. It's a fair representation. And even in absolute numbers, there are far, far more than 20% more men than women who are unemployed. It's the unemployment _rate_ for which the figure for men is about 20-ish% more than the rate for women.

swombat 17y ago
"No, the graph makes it looks like from a baseline of about 5.5%" You're assuming that most people who look upon the graph understand concepts such as "baseline". I very much doubt that.
- bwhite 17y ago
  I think the intention of the graph is to illustrate that the unemployment rate for men has increased at about twice the rate as the unemployment rate for women. And it's successful.
TheSOB88 17y ago
Perhaps some definition of terms may be in order, given that some may not know that unemployment means those who don't work but do want to work. Stay-at-home moms, for example, would not be unemployed.
- bwhite 17y ago
  Yes: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#concepts http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#concepts Misfortunate Mary who worked full time last month and made $10k in salary and benefits gets fired but reports that she now works two hours/month at a local hot dog stand making a total of $20 is considered employed. Lazy Larry who sat on his couch and drank beer last month (and every month before that, yea back unto age 15) reports that he is looking for work (but really, who is he kidding?) is considered unemployed. Homemaker Helen neither has nor is seeking a job so she is not considered employed or unemployed; she is not part of the workforce. Startup Sam quit his job to work feverishly on the Next Big Thing. He reports not being employed but also not looking so he too is not part of the workforce (per the BLS). Definitions like these are one major reason why the household unemployment figures diverge from the official BLS figures.

by bwhite 17y ago

swombat 17y ago

"No, the graph makes it looks like from a baseline of about 5.5%" You're assuming that most people who look upon the graph understand concepts such as "baseline". I very much doubt that.

bwhite 17y ago
I think the intention of the graph is to illustrate that the unemployment rate for men has increased at about twice the rate as the unemployment rate for women. And it's successful.

TheSOB88 17y ago

Perhaps some definition of terms may be in order, given that some may not know that unemployment means those who don't work but do want to work. Stay-at-home moms, for example, would not be unemployed.

bwhite 17y ago
Yes: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#concepts http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#concepts Misfortunate Mary who worked full time last month and made $10k in salary and benefits gets fired but reports that she now works two hours/month at a local hot dog stand making a total of $20 is considered employed. Lazy Larry who sat on his couch and drank beer last month (and every month before that, yea back unto age 15) reports that he is looking for work (but really, who is he kidding?) is considered unemployed. Homemaker Helen neither has nor is seeking a job so she is not considered employed or unemployed; she is not part of the workforce. Startup Sam quit his job to work feverishly on the Next Big Thing. He reports not being employed but also not looking so he too is not part of the workforce (per the BLS). Definitions like these are one major reason why the household unemployment figures diverge from the official BLS figures.