Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6he58 wrote

Reply to comment by Walla_Walla_26 in Stagflation 2023: The Looming Economic Nightmare You Can't Afford to Ignore by Wega58

Unemployment numbers are fudge.

If you go to the poorest housing project the unemployment rate will be under 3% because nobody is eligible to collect unemployment.

Employment rate is around 60%

6

zoiddirkoid t1_je6sf3n wrote

🤦

Please stop using the internet

14

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6wm28 wrote

What would happen to the unemployment rate if they changed the amount of time people could collect benefits to 99 weeks like in 2009?

Would we still have a super strong job market with 3% unemployment?

People who get their news from Good Morning America think 3% unemployment = 97% employment.

1

zoiddirkoid t1_je6xnz0 wrote

Those who fall off unemployment benefits are not seeking jobs. They are not unemployed.

Senior citizens don't have jobs so should they be counted as unemployed?

No.

5

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6y9d2 wrote

Unemployment rate uses the same math as Chairman Maos grain harvests.

8

Archimedes_Redux t1_je7p41m wrote

Always a drought.

1

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je7q8bm wrote

Always excellent grain harvests. Economy is strong.

3

Archimedes_Redux t1_je7u2bo wrote

5 year plan going well?

3

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je7uimp wrote

No because of the (insert minority party) meddling.

1

Archimedes_Redux t1_je7x9n7 wrote

Same as it ever was.

2

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je7y4gi wrote

Only since Nixon. Before that the US built all sorts of massive infrastructure projects like China does now.

We're only affluent now because everyone believes our tulips are actually worth something.

1

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6y09j wrote

So if they eliminated unemployment, nobody would be looking for a job and the rate would be 0%?

2

zoiddirkoid t1_je6z0wo wrote

That's an utterly moronic thing to say.

Unemployment rates reflect those who are seeking jobs and can't find one.

There are complexities with skill set misalignment and other factors that are hard to gauge.

Your claim that true unemployment is at 40% is absolutely absurd. There are millions of job openings currently. A stay at home mom who is not seeking a job is not unemployed. There are people who will not work, ever.

9

NBA_Fan_76 t1_je73sei wrote

Learn what the labor force participation rate is ffs

2

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je76m42 wrote

What do you prefer as your source of propoganda? USA today or Good Morning America?

−1

Moist_Lunch_5075 t1_je6x2os wrote

> Employment rate is around 60%

*Hands 5 year olds and 90 year olds shovels to work in the mines because u/Fun-Transition1230 thinks they should be included in employment metrics*

7

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je6xb42 wrote

It was around 60% in the 1950s when women stayed at home. Now workforce is about 46% women and it is still 60%?

0

Moist_Lunch_5075 t1_je6y4sx wrote

Most adult women actually worked in the 1950s, you're thinking about the 1920s.

And it's ALWAYS in the 60% range because about 1/3rd of the population is always either not of working age or infirm in some sense. This is why we don't judge unemployment against the whole census population.

The fluctuation over 100 years of the workforce participation rate is about 5%, topping off as the baby boomers hit the nadir (that means top) of their working age curve.

Basically, you're complaining about a roughly 4% difference between now and the top in 1998 and hoping no one else is smart enough to realize what you're doing LOL.

Against trend from 2000-2019, the participation rate is actually about 1% OVER projections and that's against 2020 census numbers, so it's an undercount.

7

Fun-Transition1230 t1_je7395k wrote

LOL yes the same amount of women were in the workforce in the 1950s as today. Truck drivers, police officers, engineers, surgeons, etc... women didn't stay at home in the 1950s..

All of the baby boomers were raised by single moms too?

−2

Moist_Lunch_5075 t1_je8lxqs wrote

It doesn't surprise me that you're a binary thinker, because that's how people like you are.

So it's either "women worked in everything" or "women didn't work."

What they did in the 1950s, like my baby boomer grandmother, was to work part time jobs because demand was so high and pay was so good. Typically it was in the service industry, manufacturing, or administrative work... many worked as nannies, nurses, and teachers.

You're thinking of the 1920s and 1930s and prior when women were career-locked to specific positions like nurses. That ended with WWII when women entered the workforce and filled jobs as men were drafted.

Remember Rosie the Riveter and the drive to employ women in manufacturing during WWII?

Of course you don't, you don't actually know anything about this... in fact, you don't have any opinion that hasn't been given to you.

But go on, binary thinker, take that shovel and keep digging that binary thinker hole. Eventually you'll get it deeper than 2 inches LOL. Just try harder.

6

Bryguy3k t1_je6u6d0 wrote

Real unemployment is approaching 20%

Yes the unemployment numbers are BS. Also the recently let go tech workers are not finding new jobs in 2 weeks.

U6 is at 7.7% currently which is the closest we can get as it’s still based on people who have answered surveys about employment status.

4