Slashdot Mirror
Unemployment in the UK is Now So Low It's in Danger of Exposing the Lie Used To Create the Numbers (businessinsider.com)
Unemployment in Britain is now just 4.5 percent. There are only 1.49 million unemployed people in the UK, versus 32 million people with jobs. This is almost unheard of. Unemployment was most recently this low in December 1973, when the UK set an unrepeated record of just 3.4 percent. From a report: The problem with this record is that the statistical definition of "unemployment" relies on a fiction that economists tell themselves about the nature of work. As the rate gets lower and lower, it tests that lie. Because -- as anyone who has studied basic economics knows -- the official definition of unemployment disguises the true rate. In reality, about 21.5 percent of all working-age people (defined as ages 16 to 64) are without jobs, or 8.83 million people, according to the Office for National Statistics. That's more than four times the official number. For decades, economists have agreed on an artificial definition of what unemployment means. Their argument is that people who are taking time off, or have given up looking for work, or work at home to look after their family, don't count as part of the workforce.
To call it a "lie" implies some sort of bias. Assumptions are often built in to such statistical analysis. Why is it a lie this time?
Absolutely. In the US, there are many metrics that are reported and that help understanding the state of the labor force. Called U-1, U-2, ... U-6 which represent different aspect of the questions.
Saying that the unemployment should be the fraction of the 16-64 year old that do not work is ridiculous.
I did not start working until I was 25. I was a student before. Counting me as unemployed at that time would have been ridiculous.
If I chose to stop working at 60 because I have enough money to retire, why should I count as unemployed?
There are different category of people that do not work which surely needs to be reported. The definition of unemployement used in the US (U-3) is the one quoted, because it is the one that matches better the definition that other country used.
But you need to account differently people not working because they are studying, people that are working but would like a different job, people that are working but not full time, people that stopped looking because they do not believe they can find a job.
There are all important numbers that should all be reported. But in a short piece, you can not give that much context, so you quote a single number "unemployment" which will always be kind of misleading. But calling it a lie is ridiculous.
Life is complicated, a single number can not summarize everything accurately.
To have a valuable statistic for unemployment you need to come up with a criteria and stick with it over a useful length of time. Sure some folks are working less than they would like, some folks want unicorns and ponies as well. Should we start counting folks who are full time, but earning less than they think they should as semi-unemployed?
We've had multiple measures for unemployment to allow nuances, but you still can't just throw out every statistic they does not perfectly meet your own definition, that is telling a lie to yourself.
More important than the low unemployment rate is the very stagnant wages. Lots of folks have jobs, but the jobs market is lacking exuberance. We've not seen this show up is robust wage growth. Basically it seems that workers are still to fearful/truamatized to demand raises (or job hop to get them), but on the whole the low wage growth in the face of low unemployment does not add up.
No, his argument is spot on. Other people in this thread are saying things like, "The common definition of 'unemployed' is 'not employed'.... The 'weird ideology' here is called "the English language'." That pretty closely matches the spirit of the original article [summary], which said that unemployment statistics should include everyone who is not currently in a job, including "people who are taking time off ... or work at home to look after their family."
The grandparent provided an enlightened discussion of why the current approach to unemployment statistics makes more sense than the original article, and pointed out that there are many useful ways to count unemployment. In that context, your response made no sense at all. You seem to be saying, "the current system would count you correctly, so you shouldn't defend the current system."