You can say that "unemployment is at 4.5%" but that's not much consolation for all the people who can't put food on the table because they don't have a job (or worse from a statistical perspective are those who have a part time minimum wage job but want, and need, much more). They don't want some gamed number telling them how rosy the world is. They want a job.
And you can claim that it's fine because that's the number that's always been used, but it isn't fine because politicians go and pat themselves on the back about how great the number is, and nobody tries to find solutions to the people who can't afford the basic necessities of life because with such a low "unemployment" number, it must be their fault if they can't find a job.
What? The person who desperately wants to work but hasn't been able to find a job in several years isn't considered unemployed?
For all the people who are legitimately excluded from the unemployment statistics, there are still a huge number that want work aren't working, but are still not listed as unemployed.
Beyond that, your 16 year old kid may not count as unemployed, but a 16 year old is allowed to live on their own around here (emancipated minor) and despite being in school, may desperately need a job to put food on the table, should they not be counted as unemployed because they also are getting an education? Your Father who took early retirement at 60 may not count as unemployed, but many retirees still can't afford to live on their pensions, even if a company forced them out the door at 60 to "early retirement" in a lay-off. Should they not count as unemployed? Or the house wife who's taking care of her three year old son because she tried for 2 of those years to find a job and couldn't so gave up her dreams of a career?
The problem is, it's not so simple as taking the number of people collecting unemployment benefits and claiming that they're the only people who qualify as being unemployed. You really need to know the intent of the people you're categorizing to see how many of them want a job.
None of these statistics seem to do what I would think would be the obvious thing and actually do a representative poll of the population:
Which of the following describes your situation: 1) would like to have a job but currently do not (unemployed) 2) do not have a job by my own choice (not part of the workforce) 3) unable to work due to disability (unemployable) 4) employed at a level that meets my potential (employed) 5) employed but not to my potential (underemployed)
But instead we get things like jurisdictions that simply look at those people collecting unemployment benefits and call them unemployed, while counting everyone else as not unemployed regardless of their actual condition.
Are they staying at home because they can't find a job and therefore can't afford child care? or are they staying at home because they want to be a stay at home parent?
Only one of those 2 would not be considered unemployed in my books.
In my circle of friends I have 2 contrasting families.
Family 1: Mom works, Dad stays at home with the 3 kids voluntarily. Nobody considers him unemployed. Family 2: Mom is just finishing her maternity leave and going back to a job that's likely about to be gone. Dad hasn't been able to find a job in over a year of looking, and has fallen off the unemployment list, they can't afford child care with Mom's job uncertain, and Dad unemployed, so right now Dad stays home and takes after their 1 kid. Everyone who knows him considers him unemployed.
Unemployment is hard to measure because a quick survey could easily show those 2 families the same, but if you ask them you'll find that the situation is very different. of the 4 adults depicted here, 3 want to work, but only 2 are employed. Do you count this as 100% employment? or 50% employment? I count it as 75%.
It's not just about whether someone is working or not, it's also about whether they want to be working. And many unemployment numbers ignore large numbers of people who want to work, but can't find a job.
You don't even need to look as far as underemployment to spot the "lie". The unemployment numbers don't include people who desperately want a job, but have "given up looking". Those people, by any sane definition, are unemployed. Often they've dropped off the list of "unemployed" people, and fallen on to the list of "homeless" or "welfare recipient" but they're still not employed, and they still probably want to be. (and this assumes that those who have "given up looking" have actually stopped looking, in some jurisdictions you are deemed to have "given up looking" as soon as your unemployment benefits run out, even if you're sending out hundreds of resumes a week looking for work)
The only accurate way to measure it would be if you knew why those people weren't looking for work. If someone isn't looking for work because they have plenty of money and have decided to relax and enjoy their life. Absolutely take them out of the unemployment figures. If someone isn't looking for work because they've completely run out of leads, they want badly to work but just can't find any, why would you suddenly decide not to call that person unemployed? (this also ignores the source of the data, often taken from sources such as government unemployment benefits where once someone's used up all their benefits and can't claim any more they are marked as no longer looking for employment even if they spend all day every day sending out resumes.)
And that also completely ignores the under employed. Trained as an engineer? want to work as an engineer? have been trying to find work as an engineer but can't? working for minimum wage a couple of nights a week flipping burgers just to put food on the table? congratulations! you're employed!
In summary, by all means, remove the people who don't actually want a job. But if you are hiding people who really do want to work but can't find a job, then yes, it *IS* a lie.
Britain is currently in the situation where uncertainty is preventing immigration, and convincing current residents to leave, but rules aren't yet blocking exports, raising import prices, or otherwise killing jobs. This can't yet be extrapolated to show what life will be like once brexit is finalized. The balance will be restored in two years once brexit is actually implemented, and only then can we see what the end result is.
To claim that brexit is causing low unemployment, and will save the country when it hasn't even been implemented yet is extremely premature.
I'll admit there are several of these types of apps out there that do this, and I definitely blame the developers for being stupid. But I also happily disable their notifications when they do.
I'm pretty forgiving, I'll let most apps have notification permission, until they abuse it, then it's gone. If I find their notifications to improve my life, they stay. In this case, I'd recommend disabling the notifications, and considering whether a competing supermarket is willing to respect you more than ASDA does. If so, vote with your wallet and go to the supermarket that's willing to treat you better.
Android defaults to allow for notifications, but you can deny either by holding the notification down or by going to the phone settings, both are easy methods.
Then tell their site that you're using a computer instead of a phone.
Having my phone's browser claim to be on a computer instead of a phone has actually made the web usable again. It's gotten rid of all the horrible "mobile optimized" websites (Slashdot being among them), it's gotten rid of all the pop-up prompts to download the app for each website (I don't need your app to view your webpage, I have a browser for that! 90% of all apps seem to just be browsers pointing to specific webpages) And it allows me to see all the content on sites instead of just a small fraction of it.
No one manufacturer dares ship a product with the wireless at anything other than the legal maximum strength. Doing so would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage as clueless users return their product and exchange it for the competitor's one that has longer range.
So while a great idea, it simply won't happen.
What we really need is a combination of a few things. 1) more available wireless channels 2) device manufacturers who actually support all the existing channels. 3) router manufacturers making it harder to use channels that overlap with other channels
Right now there are many brand new devices which don't support the 5GHz band, making people resort to only using the 2.4 GHz band. 2.4 GHz only has 3 channels which don't overlap each other (1, 6, 11) (talking north america here) but people frequently place their routers on other channels. When someone puts a router on channel 3, it interferes with both channel 1, and channel 6, and worse than if they had chosen either of those channels specifically (as routers are designed to work with co-channel interference) Then you get in to the 5GHz band and find out that many manufacturers don't support the DFS channels (anything below 144) which further limits the options.
Then you put your router in an apartment complex with 500 other routers and wonder why you can't get 1 Gbps through it...
I have my own domain name. It's not even a.com/.net/.org, it's under my county's tld. My personal email address at that domain is green1, which, while not unique, is rare enough I'd think, and there are a grand total of 4 people with accounts in that domain, none similar to mine.
I recently signed up for an Uber account and found my email address already in use, by someone in a different country. Someone signed up as a driver. I thought about taking over the account, but there are many fields in the settings that they don't let you change. I ended up contacting Uber and having them delete the account so I could sign up properly.
I was shocked that a company like Uber wouldn't check your email address when you sign up, but I confirmed when I created my be account that no confirmation is sent.
And this is why so many governments are passing laws requiring logs to be created and retained for long periods of time.
Unfortunately the solution to corrupt and overreaching government isn't to find loopholes in their rules, those will be closed once enough of the common people find them, the only real solution is to change that government. Ideally that would be done by voting in rational people, but it seems that Americans are reluctant to vote for anyone who isn't already part of the establishment which they seem to despise. It really is baffling to an outsider to watch.
That's the fun part here, they aren't even alleging that these people did anything wrong, they're alleging that they witnessed wrongdoing and that should be enough to unmask them.
But then most of the world already realizes that the USA is a totalitarian regime. Screaming "land of the free, home of the brave" at the top of their lungs doesn't really convince anyone that they are either.
If you aren't anonymous to a TLA, then you aren't truly anonymous.
I would say that it's probably still possible to be truly anonymous online, but it would take a LOT of work, both in the initial setup, and in the maintenance of it.
I too have a second "private" identity I use in a very small handful of places. It's hard to maintain, and I have no illusion that it would protect me from a government entity, only from random person who wants to link it to me.
A true private identity that could not be linked to me by a government agency? I think it would be possible, but it would be very difficult to both set up, and maintain long term. I do have an idea how to do it, but it's just too much effort to be practical.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that the u1-u6 numbers are American, and this article is about the UK right?
Maybe he wants a less artificial definition?
You can say that "unemployment is at 4.5%" but that's not much consolation for all the people who can't put food on the table because they don't have a job (or worse from a statistical perspective are those who have a part time minimum wage job but want, and need, much more). They don't want some gamed number telling them how rosy the world is. They want a job.
And you can claim that it's fine because that's the number that's always been used, but it isn't fine because politicians go and pat themselves on the back about how great the number is, and nobody tries to find solutions to the people who can't afford the basic necessities of life because with such a low "unemployment" number, it must be their fault if they can't find a job.
Work 4 hours a week flipping burgers in a desperate attempt to put food on the table? Congratulations! you're employed!
What? The person who desperately wants to work but hasn't been able to find a job in several years isn't considered unemployed?
For all the people who are legitimately excluded from the unemployment statistics, there are still a huge number that want work aren't working, but are still not listed as unemployed.
Beyond that, your 16 year old kid may not count as unemployed, but a 16 year old is allowed to live on their own around here (emancipated minor) and despite being in school, may desperately need a job to put food on the table, should they not be counted as unemployed because they also are getting an education? Your Father who took early retirement at 60 may not count as unemployed, but many retirees still can't afford to live on their pensions, even if a company forced them out the door at 60 to "early retirement" in a lay-off. Should they not count as unemployed? Or the house wife who's taking care of her three year old son because she tried for 2 of those years to find a job and couldn't so gave up her dreams of a career?
The problem is, it's not so simple as taking the number of people collecting unemployment benefits and claiming that they're the only people who qualify as being unemployed. You really need to know the intent of the people you're categorizing to see how many of them want a job.
The number you're looking for is called the poverty rate and is counted separately, though is in some ways related.
And that's where intent needs to come in.
None of these statistics seem to do what I would think would be the obvious thing and actually do a representative poll of the population:
Which of the following describes your situation:
1) would like to have a job but currently do not (unemployed)
2) do not have a job by my own choice (not part of the workforce)
3) unable to work due to disability (unemployable)
4) employed at a level that meets my potential (employed)
5) employed but not to my potential (underemployed)
But instead we get things like jurisdictions that simply look at those people collecting unemployment benefits and call them unemployed, while counting everyone else as not unemployed regardless of their actual condition.
Are they staying at home because they can't find a job and therefore can't afford child care? or are they staying at home because they want to be a stay at home parent?
Only one of those 2 would not be considered unemployed in my books.
Now if only those uneducated/uninformed/"stupid" people weren't the ones in charge of policy decisions....
That depends.
In my circle of friends I have 2 contrasting families.
Family 1: Mom works, Dad stays at home with the 3 kids voluntarily. Nobody considers him unemployed.
Family 2: Mom is just finishing her maternity leave and going back to a job that's likely about to be gone. Dad hasn't been able to find a job in over a year of looking, and has fallen off the unemployment list, they can't afford child care with Mom's job uncertain, and Dad unemployed, so right now Dad stays home and takes after their 1 kid. Everyone who knows him considers him unemployed.
Unemployment is hard to measure because a quick survey could easily show those 2 families the same, but if you ask them you'll find that the situation is very different. of the 4 adults depicted here, 3 want to work, but only 2 are employed. Do you count this as 100% employment? or 50% employment? I count it as 75%.
It's not just about whether someone is working or not, it's also about whether they want to be working. And many unemployment numbers ignore large numbers of people who want to work, but can't find a job.
You don't even need to look as far as underemployment to spot the "lie". The unemployment numbers don't include people who desperately want a job, but have "given up looking". Those people, by any sane definition, are unemployed. Often they've dropped off the list of "unemployed" people, and fallen on to the list of "homeless" or "welfare recipient" but they're still not employed, and they still probably want to be.
(and this assumes that those who have "given up looking" have actually stopped looking, in some jurisdictions you are deemed to have "given up looking" as soon as your unemployment benefits run out, even if you're sending out hundreds of resumes a week looking for work)
The only accurate way to measure it would be if you knew why those people weren't looking for work.
If someone isn't looking for work because they have plenty of money and have decided to relax and enjoy their life. Absolutely take them out of the unemployment figures.
If someone isn't looking for work because they've completely run out of leads, they want badly to work but just can't find any, why would you suddenly decide not to call that person unemployed?
(this also ignores the source of the data, often taken from sources such as government unemployment benefits where once someone's used up all their benefits and can't claim any more they are marked as no longer looking for employment even if they spend all day every day sending out resumes.)
And that also completely ignores the under employed. Trained as an engineer? want to work as an engineer? have been trying to find work as an engineer but can't? working for minimum wage a couple of nights a week flipping burgers just to put food on the table? congratulations! you're employed!
In summary, by all means, remove the people who don't actually want a job. But if you are hiding people who really do want to work but can't find a job, then yes, it *IS* a lie.
Britain is currently in the situation where uncertainty is preventing immigration, and convincing current residents to leave, but rules aren't yet blocking exports, raising import prices, or otherwise killing jobs. This can't yet be extrapolated to show what life will be like once brexit is finalized.
The balance will be restored in two years once brexit is actually implemented, and only then can we see what the end result is.
To claim that brexit is causing low unemployment, and will save the country when it hasn't even been implemented yet is extremely premature.
I'll admit there are several of these types of apps out there that do this, and I definitely blame the developers for being stupid. But I also happily disable their notifications when they do.
I'm pretty forgiving, I'll let most apps have notification permission, until they abuse it, then it's gone. If I find their notifications to improve my life, they stay. In this case, I'd recommend disabling the notifications, and considering whether a competing supermarket is willing to respect you more than ASDA does. If so, vote with your wallet and go to the supermarket that's willing to treat you better.
Android defaults to allow for notifications, but you can deny either by holding the notification down or by going to the phone settings, both are easy methods.
There's a "deny" button for a reason.
Though I've never figured out why they bothered to include an "allow" button...
Then tell their site that you're using a computer instead of a phone.
Having my phone's browser claim to be on a computer instead of a phone has actually made the web usable again. It's gotten rid of all the horrible "mobile optimized" websites (Slashdot being among them), it's gotten rid of all the pop-up prompts to download the app for each website (I don't need your app to view your webpage, I have a browser for that! 90% of all apps seem to just be browsers pointing to specific webpages) And it allows me to see all the content on sites instead of just a small fraction of it.
No one manufacturer dares ship a product with the wireless at anything other than the legal maximum strength. Doing so would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage as clueless users return their product and exchange it for the competitor's one that has longer range.
So while a great idea, it simply won't happen.
What we really need is a combination of a few things.
1) more available wireless channels
2) device manufacturers who actually support all the existing channels.
3) router manufacturers making it harder to use channels that overlap with other channels
Right now there are many brand new devices which don't support the 5GHz band, making people resort to only using the 2.4 GHz band. 2.4 GHz only has 3 channels which don't overlap each other (1, 6, 11) (talking north america here) but people frequently place their routers on other channels. When someone puts a router on channel 3, it interferes with both channel 1, and channel 6, and worse than if they had chosen either of those channels specifically (as routers are designed to work with co-channel interference)
Then you get in to the 5GHz band and find out that many manufacturers don't support the DFS channels (anything below 144) which further limits the options.
Then you put your router in an apartment complex with 500 other routers and wonder why you can't get 1 Gbps through it...
Yeah, but the first wall blocks the signal.
Completely impractical in an actual house.
I have my own domain name. It's not even a .com/.net/.org, it's under my county's tld.
My personal email address at that domain is green1, which, while not unique, is rare enough I'd think, and there are a grand total of 4 people with accounts in that domain, none similar to mine.
I recently signed up for an Uber account and found my email address already in use, by someone in a different country. Someone signed up as a driver. I thought about taking over the account, but there are many fields in the settings that they don't let you change. I ended up contacting Uber and having them delete the account so I could sign up properly.
I was shocked that a company like Uber wouldn't check your email address when you sign up, but I confirmed when I created my be account that no confirmation is sent.
Ever heard the expression "2 wrongs don't make a right?"
Americans love to think they're superior, but they're no better than anyone else.
And this is why so many governments are passing laws requiring logs to be created and retained for long periods of time.
Unfortunately the solution to corrupt and overreaching government isn't to find loopholes in their rules, those will be closed once enough of the common people find them, the only real solution is to change that government. Ideally that would be done by voting in rational people, but it seems that Americans are reluctant to vote for anyone who isn't already part of the establishment which they seem to despise. It really is baffling to an outsider to watch.
That's the fun part here, they aren't even alleging that these people did anything wrong, they're alleging that they witnessed wrongdoing and that should be enough to unmask them.
But then most of the world already realizes that the USA is a totalitarian regime. Screaming "land of the free, home of the brave" at the top of their lungs doesn't really convince anyone that they are either.
pretty much anyone other than a TLA.
If you aren't anonymous to a TLA, then you aren't truly anonymous.
I would say that it's probably still possible to be truly anonymous online, but it would take a LOT of work, both in the initial setup, and in the maintenance of it.
Escalate high enough and you WILL find a judge that agrees with you.
Have you seen the makeup of the Supreme Court recently? I'm not so sure they will.
The constitution hasn't guaranteed any rights to anyone in many decades.
I too have a second "private" identity I use in a very small handful of places. It's hard to maintain, and I have no illusion that it would protect me from a government entity, only from random person who wants to link it to me.
A true private identity that could not be linked to me by a government agency? I think it would be possible, but it would be very difficult to both set up, and maintain long term. I do have an idea how to do it, but it's just too much effort to be practical.