OWNx.com
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unemployment 47% in USA
#1
https://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/...right-now/


Almost Half Of All Working Age Adults In The U.S. Do Not Have A Job Right Now

June 30, 2020 [/url]
  

It is very difficult for anyone to deny how bad things have become.  So many firms are suddenly going bankrupt that it is impossible to keep up…
by[url=https://www.silverdoctors.com/tag/michael-snyder/] Michael Snyder
of The Economic Collapse Blog


"There is a lot of talk about the “unemployment rate” these days, but the way that it is calculated has become so convoluted that it is not really that meaningful anymore.  Even during the so-called “good times”, more than 100 million U.S. adults were not working, but we were told that the unemployment rate was the lowest that it had been in decades.  Of course now everything has changed.  Since this pandemic began, more than 47 million Americans have filed new claims for unemployment benefits, and the mainstream media is going to make sure that fear of COVID-19 continues to paralyze our society for the foreseeable future.

In this article, I would like to discuss the employment-population ratio.  According to Wikipedia, the employment-population ratio is “a statistical ratio that measures the proportion of the country’s working age population that is employed”.  I believe that it is a far more accurate measurement than the “unemployment rate” is, and we have seen this ratio move quite dramatically over the past couple of months.  According to CNBC, the employment-population ratio hit 52.8 percent in May, and that means that 47.2 percent of all working age Americans did not have a job…

Quote:Nearly half of the population is still out of a job showing just how far the U.S. labor market has to heal in the wake of the coronavirus.

The employment-population ratio — the number of employed people as a percentage of the U.S. adult population — plunged to 52.8% in May, meaning 47.2% of Americans are jobless, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. As the coronavirus-induced shutdowns tore through the labor market, the share of population employed dropped sharply from a recent high of 61.2% in January, farther away from a post-war record of 64.7% in 2000.


......."
Reply
#2
Classic case of selective statistics.

Almost rule number one in rational thinking when confronted with a shocking sounding statistic is "compared to what?"

Yes, things are bad, but checking out the St. Louis Fed (link), you can see that the number was just over 60% pre-covid. Leaving this number out of the original article implies a clear bias (OMG - there are only half as many people working now as before!!!), and lowers my impression of the impartiality of the journalist in question (in this case, from a pro-metals site that could benefit from scaring a few people).

Context always matters. Journalists know this, but seem hell-bent to publish statistics that without this precious context make matters look worse than they really are.
Reply
#3
(06-30-2020, 05:22 PM)brunt Wrote: Classic case of selective statistics.

Almost rule number one in rational thinking when confronted with a shocking sounding statistic is "compared to what?"

I am sure you are right about the selectivity of the statistics.

Silver Doctors have a product they want to sell.

Michael Snyder wants people to visit his blog.

But getting back to the "context" again (or is it the content ?).  Why is only half of the working age population actually employed ? ?
Reply
#4
(06-30-2020, 07:20 PM)aqua Wrote:
(06-30-2020, 05:22 PM)brunt Wrote: Classic case of selective statistics.

Almost rule number one in rational thinking when confronted with a shocking sounding statistic is "compared to what?"

I am sure you are right about the selectivity of the statistics.

Silver Doctors have a product they want to sell.

Michael Snyder wants people to visit his blog.

But getting back to the "context" again (or is it the content ?).  Why is only half of the working age population actually  employed ? ?

I would rephrase your question slightly, by asking why only 60% (or thereabouts) of the working age people were working pre-covid? The drop from 60% to 50% is likely covid-related, and is certainly in line with my gut feeling of true job losses (~17% of previously employed people).

Only so much can be read into this number. As a society progresses, in some ways, this number will fall. Some examples:
  • University students who are of working age, are attending school, not working, therefore becoming part of this number.
  • People like my wife who don't have to go out to a paid job because my salary carries us both.
  • People like me who are able to retire before reaching the standard retirement age. I will probably still work self-employed in the future after covid passes, but for now, I am one of those statistics.
  • Welfare can create a situation where people can survive, but not have to work.
As such, there is an argument that the lower that this number is, the richer a society is.
Reply
#5
(06-30-2020, 10:34 PM)brunt Wrote: As such, there is an argument that the lower that this number is, the richer a society is.

Rolleyes  I wonder how you would square that statement about the USA being a "rich society"  when so many people reportedly would have a hard time paying off an emergency $400 bill?


40% of Americans don’t have $400 in the bank for emergency expenses: Federal Reserve
The numbers are pretty similar to 2017.
By
[/url]Soo Youn
[url=https://abcnews.go.com/author/soo_youn]

May 24, 2019, 12:25 PM
3 min read


Almost 40% of American adults wouldn’t be able to cover a $400 emergency with cash, savings or a credit-card charge that they could quickly pay off, a Federal Reserve survey finds.


About 27% of those surveyed would need to borrow the money or sell something to come up with the $400 and an additional 12% would not be able to cover it at all, according to the Federal Reserve's 2018 report on the economic well-being of U.S. households released on Thursday.

(MORE: Consumers could be collateral damage if US expands tariffs)
In addition, 12% of adults said they wouldn't be able to pay their current monthly bills if faced with the unexpected $400 expense, the survey found.
The 2018 resultss are very similar to those from the Federal Reserve's 2017 survey.
Overall, the number of people who said they are able to handle unexpected expenses is on the rise since the Federal Reserve began the survey in 2013.
Reply
#6
(07-05-2020, 03:43 PM)aqua Wrote:
(06-30-2020, 10:34 PM)brunt Wrote: As such, there is an argument that the lower that this number is, the richer a society is.

Rolleyes  I wonder how you would square that statement about the USA being a "rich society"  when so many people reportedly would have a hard time paying off an emergency $400 bill?

As usual, you missed the entire point.

You do realize that me saying "a strong economy can lower the metric of employment-population ratio" and you saying "with a low employment-population ratio there exist people who would have trouble paying for an emergency bill" can indeed simultaneously be true, don't you?

My point was that the raw statistic can be of little use predicatively, given that the number can be high in both good and bad times. That's my one and only point. Other than the point that your assertion that the number was "unemployment", when indeed it also includes people - like both my wife and myself - who choose to not be employed at this particular point in time.
Reply
#7
(07-05-2020, 08:44 PM)brunt Wrote:
(07-05-2020, 03:43 PM)aqua Wrote:
(06-30-2020, 10:34 PM)brunt Wrote: As such, there is an argument that the lower that this number is, the richer a society is.

Rolleyes  I wonder how you would square that statement about the USA being a "rich society"  when so many people reportedly would have a hard time paying off an emergency $400 bill?

As usual, you missed the entire point.

You do realize that me saying "a strong economy can lower the metric of employment-population ratio" and you saying "with a low employment-population ratio there exist people who would have trouble paying for an emergency bill" can indeed simultaneously be true, don't you?

My point was that the raw statistic can be of little use predicatively, given that the number can be high in both good and bad times. That's my one and only point. Other than the point that your assertion that the number was "unemployment", when indeed it also includes people - like both my wife and myself - who choose to not be employed at this particular point in time.

Yeahhhhh......I thought you were talking about how rich the society was.

But now you have gone off on the unemployment tangent.
Reply
#8
(07-05-2020, 10:21 PM)aqua Wrote:
(07-05-2020, 08:44 PM)brunt Wrote:
(07-05-2020, 03:43 PM)aqua Wrote:
(06-30-2020, 10:34 PM)brunt Wrote: As such, there is an argument that the lower that this number is, the richer a society is.

Rolleyes  I wonder how you would square that statement about the USA being a "rich society"  when so many people reportedly would have a hard time paying off an emergency $400 bill?

As usual, you missed the entire point.

You do realize that me saying "a strong economy can lower the metric of employment-population ratio" and you saying "with a low employment-population ratio there exist people who would have trouble paying for an emergency bill" can indeed simultaneously be true, don't you?

My point was that the raw statistic can be of little use predicatively, given that the number can be high in both good and bad times. That's my one and only point. Other than the point that your assertion that the number was "unemployment", when indeed it also includes people - like both my wife and myself - who choose to not be employed at this particular point in time.

Yeahhhhh......I thought you were talking about how rich the society was.

But now you have gone off on the unemployment tangent.

Tangent. Tangent? Check your own freaking thread title!
Reply
#9
(07-05-2020, 10:34 PM)brunt Wrote:
(07-05-2020, 10:21 PM)aqua Wrote: [quote pid='27418' dateline='1593981868']

My point was that the raw statistic can be of little use predicatively, given that the number can be high in both good and bad times. That's my one and only point. Other than the point that your assertion that the number was "unemployment", when indeed it also includes people - like both my wife and myself - who choose to not be employed at this particular point in time.

Yeahhhhh......I thought you were talking about how rich the society was.

But now you have gone off on the unemployment tangent.

Tangent. Tangent? Check your own freaking thread title!
[/quote]

Thread Title: Unemployment 47% in USA

However you did bring up the bit on how "rich" the society is.

What shall we talk about next ?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
OWNx.com