• Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Is unemployment actually down, or is this just like number fudging from folks who work 3 part time jobs?

    There’s a LOT more homeless people than I remember ever seeing before.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unemployment is measured as people who are eligible and looking for work but not employed. People who have left the workforce for reasons other than getting laid off/fired (like quitting to take care of a sick family member) or people who have given up looking for work are not counted, even if they want a job. It’s measured by a CPS survey of 60,000 households, and I doubt it includes homeless people (or anyone without a permanent address).

      I’ve heaed the opposition party claim the unemployment is under-counted during the Obama, Trump, and Biden years by excluding job seekers who have given up on finding employment. That’s probably true, but if it is it has probably been pretty consistently under-counted for decades by both parties.

      • JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        People that give up are no longer “unemployed”, which is why they aren’t counted. They wouldn’t even count in the labor force either, which is the sum of unemployed and employed people.

    • theblueredditrefugee@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unemployment is a meaningless statistic due to the weird definition. The more useful statistic is #of jobs divided by total population, which peaked in 1970 and has been declining fairly consistently ever since

      • Blackmist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s like claiming you have more bread by cutting the slices thinner.

        Unemployment stats are typically useless for other reasons. For example, this is the definition of unemployed.

        https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#unemployed

        In the Current Population Survey, people are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:

        • They were not employed during the survey reference week.
        • They were available for work during the survey reference week, except for temporary illness.
        • They made at least one specific, active effort to find a job during the 4-week period ending with the survey reference week (see active job search methods) OR they were temporarily laid off and expecting to be recalled to their job.

        Done an hour of DoorDash or whatever? Homeless? Not unemployed. It’s very much a meaningless stat and governments around the world game it all the time.

        • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          Not that I disagree with you, but if you counted all people who didn’t have a job then you’d skew the statistic even more by counting voluntary stay at home parents and other people who don’t work because they don’t need to.

          Can you come up with a criteria that accounts for those who don’t have a job because the system prevents their access to the market without counting voluntary unemployment?

          • theblueredditrefugee@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            but if you counted all people who didn’t have a job then you’d skew the statistic even more by counting voluntary stay at home parents and other people who don’t work because they don’t need to.

            Why is this important? Number of people with jobs / number of people is a statistic that obviously shouldn’t be 100%, but if it goes up or down that’s something we should pay attention to. If we suddenly have a large spike in people who stay at home and don’t work, we should at least understand why

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’m not sure what’s the case now, but I keenly remember how Obama “decreased” unemployment by having lots of people being counted as “out of the job market” instead, hence they were not counted for the official unemployment figure.

      You can actually see the growth in the latter number correlated with the fall in the former if you look at the graphs with the data from back then.

    • nbafantest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      There was no guarantee that the American economy fully recovered after Covid. It seems to be assumed by a lot of people, but it is certainly not true.

    • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      You’re not wrong, and they don’t usually qualify for unemployment. Also “border secured” is a joke, the reason they’re catching more is because the traffic level is unprecedented. The number I keep hearing is 15 million during his presidency.