Skip to main content

Is the unemployment rate an accurate depiction of the number of people who are NOT working in our society? Explain.

The unemployment rate does not count all jobless individuals. To be classified as unemployed, a person must be jobless, looking for a job, and available for work. People without jobs who do not fit one of these criteria are classified as not in the labor force. Thus, these people are not working but not included in unemployment figures.


United States unemployment figures are announced early each month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This information is calculated using the Current Population Survey (CPS). About 60,000 eligible households are interviewed—approximately 110,000 individuals each month—and several measures are taken to ensure a representative sampling. The survey excludes people living in institutions (such as correctional facilities, residential nursing care, or mental health facilities), so individuals in these situations who are not working are not represented in unemployment numbers, either.


There are other situations in which someone may not be working but is still considered employed, such as vacation, illness, family/ medical leave, childcare problems, labor disputes, and weather. A small group of people are classified as employed unpaid family workers, people working without pay for 15 hours or more per week in a business operated by a family member with whom they live.


People considered not in the labor force have various circumstances, including students and retirees. Often, family responsibilities keep people out of the labor force. Individuals are considered unemployed if they did not have a job at all during the survey reference week, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill). Also, people not working and waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off are considered unemployed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more