CDZ Who is Unemployed?

[pinqy]

The International Labour Organization lists Unemployment as:
"Persons in unemployment are defined as all those of working age who were not in employment, carried out activities to seek employment during a specified recent period and were currently available to take up employment given a job opportunity,"
Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization (2013)

The U.S. defines unemployed as:
"All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed." How are the labor force components (i.e., civilian noninstitutional population, civilian labor force, employed, unemployed, and unemployment rate) defined?

And yet many people disagree with these definitions and hold that some/many/most/all of those not working, regardless of effort to find work, should be classified as unemplyed.

WHY?

What information about the labor market...about how much available labor isn't being used, would that tell you?

 

[320 Years of History]

The International Labour Organization lists Unemployment as:
"Persons in unemployment are defined as all those of working age who were not in employment, carried out activities to seek employment during a specified recent period and were currently available to take up employment given a job opportunity,"
Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization (2013)

The U.S. defines unemployed as:
"All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed." How are the labor force components (i.e., civilian noninstitutional population, civilian labor force, employed, unemployed, and unemployment rate) defined?

And yet many people disagree with these definitions and hold that some/many/most/all of those not working, regardless of effort to find work, should be classified as unemplyed.

WHY?

What information about the labor market...about how much available labor isn't being used, would that tell you?

You know, I really don't care if many or few people agree or disagree with those definitions. Those are the definitions and they establish a common basis of measurement from one year to the next within a given jurisdiction. Use them as befits one's need to categorize and measure unemployment and move on.

 

[oldsoul]

The International Labour Organization lists Unemployment as:
"Persons in unemployment are defined as all those of working age who were not in employment, carried out activities to seek employment during a specified recent period and were currently available to take up employment given a job opportunity,"
Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization (2013)

The U.S. defines unemployed as:
"All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed." How are the labor force components (i.e., civilian noninstitutional population, civilian labor force, employed, unemployed, and unemployment rate) defined?

And yet many people disagree with these definitions and hold that some/many/most/all of those not working, regardless of effort to find work, should be classified as unemplyed.

WHY?

What information about the labor market...about how much available labor isn't being used, would that tell you?

While I agree with Tony, there is one stat that is frequently over-looked that is quite benificial to gaining a full picture of the economy. That stat is...drum roll please...Labor Participation Rate. If one only looks at unemployment rates, one would over-look the people who have stopped looking. Now, they may stop looking for a variety of reasons (early retirement, caring for a dependant child/parent, ect.), but the reason that would interest me most is those who stop looking because they are unable to find work. What of those folks?
What would it tell you if say 1 million people would fit this description? What if there where 10 million? 20 million?
As of last month the rate is 62.7%, down from 66.2% when Obama took office. What does that tell you?
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[pinqy]

The International Labour Organization lists Unemployment as:
"Persons in unemployment are defined as all those of working age who were not in employment, carried out activities to seek employment during a specified recent period and were currently available to take up employment given a job opportunity,"
Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization (2013)

The U.S. defines unemployed as:
"All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed." How are the labor force components (i.e., civilian noninstitutional population, civilian labor force, employed, unemployed, and unemployment rate) defined?

And yet many people disagree with these definitions and hold that some/many/most/all of those not working, regardless of effort to find work, should be classified as unemplyed.

WHY?

What information about the labor market...about how much available labor isn't being used, would that tell you?

While I agree with Tony, there is one stat that is frequently over-looked that is quite benificial to gaining a full picture of the economy. That stat is...drum roll please...Labor Participation Rate. If one only looks at unemployment rates, one would over-look the people who have stopped looking. Now, they may stop looking for a variety of reasons (early retirement, caring for a dependant child/parent, ect.), but the reason that would interest me most is those who stop looking because they are unable to find work. What of those folks?
What would it tell you if say 1 million people would fit this description? What if there where 10 million? 20 million?
As of last month the rate is 62.7%, down from 66.2% when Obama took office. What does that tell you?
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Those Not in the Labor Force are not just those who have stopped looking for work, but those who have never worked as well, and the majority do not want a job at this time.

As for the number of people who "stop looking because they are unable to find work," those are called Discouraged Workers and the official definition is Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify. Currently there are 623,000 Discouraged.

The problem with the Labor Force Participation Rate is that it is subject to demographic changes. The current participation rate is way higher than the 1950's or 1960's but that doesn't mean the labor market is necessarily better.

Oh, as for what the decreased participation rate tells me...it tells me we have more retired, more disabled, more students and probably more stay at home spouses.

 

[oldsoul]

Oh, as for what the decreased participation rate tells me...it tells me we have more retired, more disabled, more students and probably more stay at home spouses.

As I understand it, the participation rate does not include those over the current retirement age, so your "more retirees" is flawed.

More disabled? The guidelines to be considered "disabled" have become so loose that all a person has to do is find a "doctor" (or Therapist) who will sign off on it (you can get as many opinions as you need). Case in point: I know a person who was not at the school at the time of the school shooting, voluntarily walked the school to "help identify the victims" (this person had no reason to do this, the acting principle was on hand and with on the walk through), then claimed "disablity" for post tramatic stress disorder. They where involved in a lawsuit on the matter, and though EVERY other plaintiff was awarded a sum of money, they where not (one could surmise that the court did not beleive them). This person chooses to this day to collect diability instead of finding another line of work, they are qualified for several other jobs. Your more disabled is flawed.

More stay at home spouses? Why do you suppose that is? You may be right, but what leads you to this conclusion?

More students? Really? More people racking up huge debt loads?

That's what it tells you? Are you really that naive?

 

[oldsoul]

The problem with the Labor Force Participation Rate is that it is subject to demographic changes.

Such as....

 

[oldsoul]

Those Not in the Labor Force are not just those who have stopped looking for work, but those who have never worked as well, and the majority do not want a job at this time.

True. Why do you think the majority do not want a job?

 

[pinqy]

Oh, as for what the decreased participation rate tells me...it tells me we have more retired, more disabled, more students and probably more stay at home spouses.

As I understand it, the participation rate does not include those over the current retirement age, so your "more retirees" is flawed.

Your understanding is wrong...there is not an upper age limit.

More disabled? The guidelines to be considered "disabled" have become so loose that all a person has to do is find a "doctor" (or Therapist) who will sign off on it (you can get as many opinions as you need). ...This person chooses to this day to collect diability instead of finding another line of work, they are qualified for several other jobs. Your more disabled is flawed.

A doctor is not needed. Disabilty for the labor force survey is any condition that prevents you from working any job. That some people could work, but choose not to because of disability (real or feigned) is irrelevant...they are not participating in the labor market, and the reasons are not because they can't find a job.

More stay at home spouses? Why do you suppose that is? You may be right, but what leads you to this conclusion?

There was a point in my marriage, right after our second child was born, that the amount of money my wife made working was roughly equal to the amount we had to spend on daycare and work-related expenses such as lunches and more prepared foods due to less time to cook. We considered that it might not be worth it and she should stay home with the kids. Another couple I know...the wife lost her job, and they decided they were better off if she just didn't go back to work.

While only two anecdotes, my understanding is that these cases are not uncommon.

More students? Really? More people racking up huge debt loads?

Double checking, it looks like the percent of 16-24 year olds in school has actually gone down slightly since 2009. But the participation rate of students has gone way down....either do to fewer opportunities, or that fewer students need to work. Either way, 16-24 year olds in school have caused a negative push on the participation rate.

That's what it tells you? Are you really that naive?

What's naive about it? All of the above have helped cause the participation rate to go down.

 

[pinqy]

The problem with the Labor Force Participation Rate is that it is subject to demographic changes.

Such as....

Age is a big one. Older and yourger populations don't tend to work as much. Disabled people don't tend to work as much. Women usually have a lower participation as well.

 

[oldsoul]

What's naive about it? All of the above have helped cause the participation rate to go down.

You make no mention of macro-economics being a contributing factor, do you beleive that they play no role? Or is it just so small as to not be worthy of mention?

 

[oldsoul]

The problem with the Labor Force Participation Rate is that it is subject to demographic changes.

Such as....

Age is a big one. Older and yourger populations don't tend to work as much. Disabled people don't tend to work as much. Women usually have a lower participation as well.

What CHANGES do you propose are responsible for the increase?

 

[oldsoul]

Upon playing with the timeframe, I discovered something...interesting. The participation rate, generally, was going up until the early '90's where it basicly leveled off, staying within about a point and a half of 66.5. Then, in 2008, it started dropping at a similar rate as it rose. I am not saying that current policy is the main cause, however, I find it very interesting the timing of it...

 

[pinqy]

What's naive about it? All of the above have helped cause the participation rate to go down.

You make no mention of macro-economics being a contributing factor, do you beleive that they play no role? Or is it just so small as to not be worthy of mention?

It's irrelevant to classification. That is the point of this thread: to discuss classification, not causes for changes in the data.

 

[oldsoul]

What information about the labor market...about how much available labor isn't being used, would that tell you?

Then why this question, if you did not want to discuss it?