Comment

Comment on

Meh, please don’t quote unusual statistics without giving any context for how to interpet them.

For this value, it is calculated by:

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 $25,000 annually before taxes.

24.3% is not that out of the ordinary - you can see historical data back to like, 1995 here.

Not saying this stat is useless, but the way you’ve chosen to use it is intentionally and inaccurately inflammatory.

source

Sort:hotnew top

surewhynotlem@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The fact that it’s pegged to 25k means that the number is much much higher. It’s not 24.3%. its 24.3% plus everyone who can’t afford to live at today’s prices.

That’s terrifying.

source
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I dunno, H.

I may be wrong in saying it’s indicative of a crash, and I’m okay with being corrected.

As to inaccurate or inflammatory, maybe it feels that way if you’re on the winning side of the equation.

I think we should be inflamed about this. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that thirty years of high functional unemployment being ordinary is an objectively bad thing, but when you couple it with the increasingly supercharged price gouging and inflation the US has experienced over the last several decades, things that seemed improbable before suddenly become feasible. (Like making fascists electable.)

source
selokichtli@lemmy.ml ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Maybe in 1995 you could actually afford things while functionally unemployed? I mean, while the relative number is stable, the absolute numbers keep growing, and their situation keeps worsening. Here lies the inflammatory part.

source