• HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 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
      ·
      11 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

    • Blackmist@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not one that would be completely accurate.

      The best I’ve seen was a measure of underemployment, in which somebody wants more money/better work, is actively looking, but can’t get it. It would have to be through random surveys and extrapolate up, rather than something they can get from the benefits office.