Unemployment in the UK is Now So Low It's in Danger of Exposing the Lie Used To Create Numbers

[DamianTV]

Unemployment in the UK is Now So Low It's in Danger of Exposing the Lie Used To Create the Numbers
https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/...f-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers
http://www.businessinsider.com/unem...he-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7?IR=T

Unemployment in Britain is now just 4.5 percent. There are only 1.49 million unemployed people in the UK, versus 32 million people with jobs. This is almost unheard of. Unemployment was most recently this low in December 1973, when the UK set an unrepeated record of just 3.4 percent. From a report:

The problem with this record is that the statistical definition of "unemployment" relies on a fiction that economists tell themselves about the nature of work. As the rate gets lower and lower, it tests that lie. Because -- as anyone who has studied basic economics knows -- the official definition of unemployment disguises the true rate. In reality, about 21.5 percent of all working-age people (defined as ages 16 to 64) are without jobs, or 8.83 million people, according to the Office for National Statistics. That's more than four times the official number. For decades, economists have agreed on an artificial definition of what unemployment means. Their argument is that people who are taking time off, or have given up looking for work, or work at home to look after their family, don't count as part of the workforce.

 

[pmbug]

I would never have guessed that the population of the UK was only around 40 million people. For a nation that once spanned the entire globe (the sun never set on it), they have a small population compared to the USA, much less India (which they once subjugated).

 

[Madison320]

Unemployment is one of the worst statistics for judging the economy. Dirt poor communist countries have no unemployment. Cavemen had no unemployment. I'm not crazy about GDP but it's a lot better than unemployment.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Unemployment in the UK is Now So Low It's in Danger of Exposing the Lie Used To Create the Numbers
https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/...f-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers
http://www.businessinsider.com/unem...he-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7?IR=T

What is "unemployed"? If I don't want a job should I count as unemployed? If I am unwilling or unable to work, am I "unemployed"? If I am retired, should I count as unemployed? If I am a stay at home parent or other person not working for money but taking care of somebody else, should I be counted as unemployed? If I am in school and don't need to work to pay for that school and can focus on my studies, should I be counted as unemployed? If I am disabled and can't work should I be considered unemployed? What is "full employment"? When all those people who don't want one are forced to have one? Or is full employment impossible?

If these people are unemployed, then the US has never had unemployment below 30%. Does that mean the US economy has always sucked?

BLS counts people who are not currently working but at least trying to find a job.

 

[angelatc]

Unemployment in the UK is Now So Low It's in Danger of Exposing the Lie Used To Create the Numbers
https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/...f-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers
http://www.businessinsider.com/unem...he-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7?IR=T

They've pretty much redefined the word to suit their purposes. Labor force participation rate seems a better indicator, but they'll likely change that as soon as it becomes mainstream.

 

[angelatc]

If I don't want a job should I count as unemployed?
If I am unwilling or unable to work, am I "unemployed"?
If I am retired, should I count as unemployed?
If I am a stay at home parent or other person not working for money but taking care of somebody else, should I be counted as unemployed?
If I am in school and don't need to work to pay for that school and can focus on my studies, should I be counted as unemployed?
If I am disabled and can't work should I be considered unemployed?
.

Yes.

 

[Zippyjuan]

They've pretty much redefined the word to suit their purposes. Labor force participation rate seems a better indicator, but they'll likely change that as soon as it becomes mainstream.

When would you consider the US had the best in terms of jobs? What was the labor force participation rate then? The Post WWII boom had a lower participation rate than we have today. By using Labor Force Participation Rate they had 40% unemployment then.

 

[afwjam]

When would you consider the US had the best in terms of jobs? What was the labor force participation rate then? The Post WWII boom had a lower participation rate than we have today. By using Labor Force Participation Rate they had 40% unemployment then.

What at a great graph and you have some points. Our participation rate is higher then it was after WWII, but our economy is very different as a result of Fed policy. Back then one person could support an entire family and frequently did. Now as to your graph don't you find it odd that every line is trending down except for 55+? Something the graph does not show you is how many of those 55+ are now working at Walmart or Home Depot, and how few of the young people have permanent jobs.

 

[phill4paul]

100% of those unemployed are unemployed.
100% of those employed are employed.
100% of those on unemployment are on unemployment and need to get a damn job.

 

[DamianTV]

What is "unemployed"? If I don't want a job should I count as unemployed? If I am unwilling or unable to work, am I "unemployed"? If I am retired, should I count as unemployed? If I am a stay at home parent or other person not working for money but taking care of somebody else, should I be counted as unemployed? If I am in school and don't need to work to pay for that school and can focus on my studies, should I be counted as unemployed? If I am disabled and can't work should I be considered unemployed? What is "full employment"? When all those people who don't want one are forced to have one? Or is full employment impossible?

If these people are unemployed, then the US has never had unemployment below 30%. Does that mean the US economy has always sucked?

BLS counts people who are not currently working but at least trying to find a job.

This is exactly why you get a LOT of -Reps from me. You can NOT tell me for a fact that every person in this country that does not have a job actually does NOT want a job. That is a ton of horse shit and you know it. There are reasonable exceptions, but they count no where near what you think it does. Yes, Im looking for a job, no I havent had any interviews. No, I dont count as Unemployed either. And it is backed up exactly by the Thread Title, the LIE used to create the fictitious numbers. The LIE you continue to support, and Govt continues to promote to make itself look good.

-REP Zippy

 

[stuntman stoll]

Yes.

Lol, unemployment literally means, not employed- ie. EVERYONE without a job

 

[Zippyjuan]

Some BLS numbers (in thousands) from 2016: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat35.htm

Not in the Labor Force: 94,351

Don't Currently Want A Job: 88,502

Want a Job: 5,849

Of those who want a job:

Did not Search for a Job in the Previous Year: 3,415

Searched in Past Year but Not in Previous Four Weeks: 2,434

Not Available for Work Now: 630

Marginally Attached and Available For Work Now: 1,804
( Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks)

Discouraged By Job Prospects: 553

Reasons Other Than Discouraged: 1,250

Family Responsibilities: 199
In School or Training: 224
Ill Health or Disability: 144
Other: 682

Chart at link also breaks down by age groups.

Keep in mind that 10,000 baby boomers are also retiring every day on average.

 

[angelatc]

Some BLS numbers (in thousands) from 2016: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat35.htm

Not in the Labor Force: 94,351

Don't Currently Want A Job: 88,502

Want a Job: 5,849

Of those who want a job:

Did not Search for a Job in the Previous Year: 3,415

Searched in Past Year but Not in Previous Four Weeks: 2,434

Not Available for Work Now: 630

Marginally Attached and Available For Work Now: 1,804
( Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks)

Discouraged By Job Prospects: 553

Reasons Other Than Discouraged: 1,250

Family Responsibilities: 199
In School or Training: 224
Ill Health or Disability: 144
Other: 682

Chart at link also breaks down by age groups.

Keep in mind that 10,000 baby boomers are also retiring every day on average.

What part of you thinks that we don't already know this?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Some of those excluded from the labor force are properly excluded (e.g. genuine students or homemakers).

With others (e.g. those identifying as discouraged who are discouraged only because they get a check for doing nothing), it's a gimmick.

Real unemployment is definitely higher than it the statistics indicate; how much exactly I couldn't say.

I would never have guessed that the population of the UK was only around 40 million people. For a nation that once spanned the entire globe (the sun never set on it), they have a small population compared to the USA, much less India (which they once subjugated).

The number of British soldiers and officials in India never exceeded about 100,000 IIRC: amazing indeed.

Unemployment is one of the worst statistics for judging the economy. Dirt poor communist countries have no unemployment. Cavemen had no unemployment. I'm not crazy about GDP but it's a lot better than unemployment.

Yup

GDP/capita is a much better metric of general prosperity.

Unemployment can be good for identifying state interference in the labor market.

 

[Zippyjuan]

This is exactly why you get a LOT of -Reps from me. You can NOT tell me for a fact that every person in this country that does not have a job actually does NOT want a job. That is a ton of horse $#@! and you know it. There are reasonable exceptions, but they count no where near what you think it does. Yes, Im looking for a job, no I havent had any interviews. No, I dont count as Unemployed either. And it is backed up exactly by the Thread Title, the LIE used to create the fictitious numbers. The LIE you continue to support, and Govt continues to promote to make itself look good.

-REP Zippy

I don't pretend that there is not a single person who wants a job has one or that everybody without a job doesn't want one. That would be a zero percent unemployment rate by BLS methods of calculation. That has never happened (the USSR used to claim zero unemployment).

Yes, Im looking for a job, no I havent had any interviews. No, I dont count as Unemployed either.

If you are LOOKING, even if you don't have any interviews set up, you are in the labor force and are counted as unemployed (assuming you are not currently working for pay anywhere).

 

[DamianTV]

I don't pretend that there is not a single person who wants a job has one or that everybody without a job doesn't want one. That would be a zero percent unemployment rate by BLS methods of calculation. That has never happened (the USSR used to claim zero unemployment).



If you are LOOKING, even if you don't have any interviews set up, you are in the labor force and are counted as unemployed (assuming you are not currently working for pay anywhere).

BULLSHIT.

When 2008 hit, I used up 99 weeks and did not have a job at the end. I know I did not count, I checked. Yes, I was fucking applying everywhere, but no one was hiring at the time. Thus, no collecting unemployment, no counting as unemployed. So your theory goes right out the window along with the rest of your economic horse anal evacuations. Just like if you have a realtors license, you do NOT count as unemployed. Or many other factors designed just to exclude people from the workforce.

And for the record, you know how so many people complain that many politicians are disconnected from reality? Yeah, that is you. Totally disconnected to what is actually going on. You must hold office somewhere...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

When 2008 hit, I used up 99 weeks and did not have a job at the end. I know I did not count, I checked. Yes, I was fucking applying everywhere, but no one was hiring at the time. Thus, no collecting unemployment, no counting as unemployed.

The unemployment numbers aren't based on the number of people collecting unemployment; they're based on a monthly survey.

Or so says the BLS, anyway.

What makes you think someone in your position at that time wouldn't have been counted?

 

[DamianTV]

The unemployment numbers aren't based on the number of people collecting unemployment; they're based on a monthly survey.

Or so says the BLS, anyway.

What makes you think someone in your position at that time wouldn't have been counted?

Well, for six years, I never got contacted by the BLS. No one I EVER met in my entire life did either. Okay, for the record, has ANYONE HERE ever been surveyed by the BLS?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Well, for six years, I never got contacted by the BLS. No one I EVER met in my entire life did either. Okay, for the record, has ANYONE HERE ever been surveyed by the BLS?

Obviously it is impossible to contact 330 million people every month so they randomly select 60,000 who they track for three months- each month 20,000 get replaced by another 20,000. If somebody says they were looking for work, they are counted as in the labor force. At 20,000 a month, it could in theory take 16,500 months to get to you on their list.

As r3volution 3.0 points out, collecting unemployment insurance does not necessarily mean you are counted as unemployed- though usually a condition of receiving unemployment insurance is that you are looking for a job (or at least saying you are) and that is also required to be considered unemployed by the BLS. If that insurance runs out for you and you are still looking, you are still in the labor force and counted as unemployed. Unless you found a job. If you give up looking after your insurance ran out, you are no longer in the labor force and WILL count as unemployed.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, for six years, I never got contacted by the BLS. No one I EVER met in my entire life did either. Okay, for the record, has ANYONE HERE ever been surveyed by the BLS?

As Zippy explains, the odds of being surveyed are extremely low: 60,000 surveys / 125 million households = 0.048% chance per month.

I've never been surveyed and don't know anyone who has, but that's not surprising.

You'd have to know and ask over 1000 people for there to be a 50% chance that one of them was surveyed in a given month.