>
> Unemployment rates also do not count people whose benefits have run out
> and those who have simply stopped looking for work.
>
As previously mentioned, this isn't necessarily true. There is a
fudge-factor built into the unemployment rates. The one statistic which is
absolutely true in regards to what you refer to is unemployment claims. It
is the specific tracking of those who are filing for or are currently
receiving unemployment compensation. But it is NOT the only number used to
calculate the unemployment rate. It is only one of the numbers that makes up
the unemployment rate. The government does also take into account the "I
give up" people and specifically addresses them in their own category.
An excellent read on this is the following webpage from the US Bureau of
Labor Statistics. In it, you will see that there are three distinct
categories: Employed, Unemployed and Not in the Labor Force. Somebody who
is not actively seeking employment isn't unemployed, they have removed
themselves from the labor force. To count these individuals as
"unemployed", may be true from the fact that they aren't "employed", that
doesn't mean that they are draining society. There are plenty of two-income
households that have gone down to one and are getting by nicely. Many
families have discovered that they can live on one salary while the other
does the in-home child-care (saving $250 per week) or is starting a
photography business. ;)
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
I alluded to something in the last paragraph which we also need to consider.
Through the 1990's the percentage of two-income families skyrocketed. In
the US, as of the last report, we have a 59.9% Employment-Population Ratio.
(16 years old and older) The highest this ever reached was 64.7 in 2000.
Prior to around 1980, it was never as high as it is now. So, effectively, of
the population that is 16 yo and older, you could say that we have a 40.1%
unemployment rate, but to put it in perspective, at the very very best we
had a 35.3% unemployment rate.
So, those who say that the "unemployement rate" doesn't include the "..." is
true, but before we start adding in our own fudge-factors for "..." reasons,
consider that it has already been done and you cannot just look at one
number and get an idea of what is going on in any area.
Just to put the above into perspective, in May 1953 we had a nationwide
unemployment rate of 2.5%. The lowest on record. Yet the
Employment-Population Ratio of 57.1%, which is almost 3% lower than it is
right now.
Furthermore, in last month's report, there were almost 141 million people
employed in the US. Prior to April 2005 there were NEVER this many people
employed in the US.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|