5 ms·

Thailand's Unemployment Rate Is 0.6%

26 points by Nowyouknow 12y ago

coralreef 12y ago
Kind of misleading data. The number of cab/tuk tuk drivers and street vendors is astounding, way more than there should be. Technically employed, but driving the wage down.
- msandford 12y ago
  In that case US unemployment is something like 10-15%, not the 5.6% number that's being heralded as a success.
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    This is what I was saying in the other thread. The number of people employed "full-time" on paper doesn't say much about the health of the economy.
    - zokier 12y ago
      > The number of people employed "full-time" on paper doesn't say much about the health of the economy. No single number is going to say much about the health of the economy, that much is obvious.
      - IndianAstronaut 12y ago
        Median wage is a pretty good number to look at. It measures growth in income levels for the guy in the middle. It isn't as skewed by overall GDP growth which nowadays means money to the top.
- zokier 12y ago
  > The number of cab/tuk tuk drivers and street vendors is astounding, way more than there should be. How many there should be? > Technically employed, but driving the wage down. If they are sustaining themselves with the work they are doing, I don't see what is so "technical" about it.
  - coralreef 12y ago
    We don't know if they're sustaining themselves. And given the oversupply of labour, I suspect they barely are.
ilaksh 12y ago
I think the number is BS. The Thai government lies at least as much as the US government. Forget the government numbers. The reality is that in Thailand, as in most countries, the public assistance/social safety net available is so inadequate it might as well not exist. Its not that the government doesn't try. Its just that the reality of contemporary economics means that providing an adequate social safety net, even in the wealthiest countries, is difficult to impossible. Well, let me qualify that a bit. The last I heard, they did have public healthcare, although the standards lag far behind private providers. There may be a way to make the rules more fair for poorer people or poorer countries or to make people more secure in terms of basic needs. Right now though the structures don't align well with those goals. And most countries have to work within the same economic structure but with vastly fewer resources than the US.
- ckozlowski 12y ago
  The article seems to admit as much, in that 0.6 isn't a cut-and-dry figure. What strikes me though is that a number like this should be reason for panic. Economies try to shoot for unemployment numbers (realistically calculated ones) around 5%. (varies, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment ) As unemployment drops below 5%, it becomes harder to find workers in many fields, and the problem gets worse the lower you go. Down around 2-3% and you're facing an acute labor shortage, which leads to inflation and reduces investment in your country because there's no workers to fill new openings. But in short, I agree with you, the numbers rest on simply faulty logic, because if they were calculated by other means, Thailand's economy should be in crisis. But it isn't.
pan69 12y ago
If there is no social security system, then how does the government (or anyone else) gets to this number? Let's assume for a moment that the number in the article is correct, it's important to understand that Thailand's culture has a form of social security build in. In Thailand it's very normal for children to take not only care of their parents (financially) but also the rest of their family. So, maybe from a cultural point of view, Thailand doesn't need a social security system and might also be the reason why the number in the article is so low.
- gojomo 12y ago
  The unemployment rate of the US is not based on those collecting benefits, but a broad household survey by a separate agency (BLS). Thus its calculation doesn't depend on the unemployment-insurance/welfare/social-security systems at all.
erikb 12y ago
While I agree with the general conclusion of the other comments nobody seems to get the reasons right. Yes, the number is incorrect. But they don't need to make up the number. If you don't offer any social security system, then there is no reason for people to go to the office. They don't go because of "cultural" reasons. They don't go because there's no benefit. In a country like Germany you actually get money and basic products like fridge, apartment, maybe even a TV. If you have to choose between trying something crazy/risky or going to the agency most people in Germany will go to the job agency. No cultural reason, just rewards. So in the end nobody is lying but the basic structure of the system is different which makes different true numbers. to make a more reasonable comparison the unofficial workers should be counted instead of the unemployed. But the thing is that they are hard to count.

26 points by Nowyouknow 12y ago

Kind of misleading data. The number of cab/tuk tuk drivers and street vendors is astounding, way more than there should be. Technically employed, but driving the wage down.

msandford 12y ago
In that case US unemployment is something like 10-15%, not the 5.6% number that's being heralded as a success.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  This is what I was saying in the other thread. The number of people employed "full-time" on paper doesn't say much about the health of the economy.
  - zokier 12y ago
    > The number of people employed "full-time" on paper doesn't say much about the health of the economy. No single number is going to say much about the health of the economy, that much is obvious.
    - IndianAstronaut 12y ago
      Median wage is a pretty good number to look at. It measures growth in income levels for the guy in the middle. It isn't as skewed by overall GDP growth which nowadays means money to the top.
zokier 12y ago
> The number of cab/tuk tuk drivers and street vendors is astounding, way more than there should be. How many there should be? > Technically employed, but driving the wage down. If they are sustaining themselves with the work they are doing, I don't see what is so "technical" about it.
- coralreef 12y ago
  We don't know if they're sustaining themselves. And given the oversupply of labour, I suspect they barely are.

ilaksh 12y ago

I think the number is BS. The Thai government lies at least as much as the US government. Forget the government numbers. The reality is that in Thailand, as in most countries, the public assistance/social safety net available is so inadequate it might as well not exist. Its not that the government doesn't try. Its just that the reality of contemporary economics means that providing an adequate social safety net, even in the wealthiest countries, is difficult to impossible. Well, let me qualify that a bit. The last I heard, they did have public healthcare, although the standards lag far behind private providers. There may be a way to make the rules more fair for poorer people or poorer countries or to make people more secure in terms of basic needs. Right now though the structures don't align well with those goals. And most countries have to work within the same economic structure but with vastly fewer resources than the US.

ckozlowski 12y ago
The article seems to admit as much, in that 0.6 isn't a cut-and-dry figure. What strikes me though is that a number like this should be reason for panic. Economies try to shoot for unemployment numbers (realistically calculated ones) around 5%. (varies, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment ) As unemployment drops below 5%, it becomes harder to find workers in many fields, and the problem gets worse the lower you go. Down around 2-3% and you're facing an acute labor shortage, which leads to inflation and reduces investment in your country because there's no workers to fill new openings. But in short, I agree with you, the numbers rest on simply faulty logic, because if they were calculated by other means, Thailand's economy should be in crisis. But it isn't.

pan69 12y ago

If there is no social security system, then how does the government (or anyone else) gets to this number? Let's assume for a moment that the number in the article is correct, it's important to understand that Thailand's culture has a form of social security build in. In Thailand it's very normal for children to take not only care of their parents (financially) but also the rest of their family. So, maybe from a cultural point of view, Thailand doesn't need a social security system and might also be the reason why the number in the article is so low.

gojomo 12y ago
The unemployment rate of the US is not based on those collecting benefits, but a broad household survey by a separate agency (BLS). Thus its calculation doesn't depend on the unemployment-insurance/welfare/social-security systems at all.

erikb 12y ago

While I agree with the general conclusion of the other comments nobody seems to get the reasons right. Yes, the number is incorrect. But they don't need to make up the number. If you don't offer any social security system, then there is no reason for people to go to the office. They don't go because of "cultural" reasons. They don't go because there's no benefit. In a country like Germany you actually get money and basic products like fridge, apartment, maybe even a TV. If you have to choose between trying something crazy/risky or going to the agency most people in Germany will go to the job agency. No cultural reason, just rewards. So in the end nobody is lying but the basic structure of the system is different which makes different true numbers. to make a more reasonable comparison the unofficial workers should be counted instead of the unemployed. But the thing is that they are hard to count.