1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah and this would not even cover the underemployed who make over 26k a year but can't meet costs.

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] -5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What about age? I didn't see a graph for it. From the article:

    Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $26,000 (in 2025 dollars) annually before taxes.

    The $26k bit would mean that number include most young adults (18+) in high school and college which we typically have different expectations for.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    There is a reason it isn't seen/used more, and that's cause it's really more a labor force participation number. Like the reason the percentage of women is higher in this metric is most likely tied to things like stay at home moms.

    Things like underemployment or disenfranchised workers are good to keep track of, but there are people who do move out of the typical workforce (retirees, stay at home parents, etc.) that I wouldn't count as unemployed.

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/FuckTheUSA@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The U.S. lies about the real unemployment rate just as blatantly as they lie about the inflation rate. And people just let them keep doing it.

  • source