Like all developed economies, the US has arrived at its method of counting the unemployed over many years and via some controversial choices.
As a consequence, the headline unemployment rate, the one that's still stubbornly close to 10%, is in fact a rather narrow measure.
To be counted in that oft-reported tenth of the labour force you have to be out of work, and have actively looked for a job in the past four weeks.
It's the four weeks requirement that cuts out a lot of people who would undoubtedly like a job, if there were any jobs to be applied for, much less secured.
Don't worry, the Bureau does count those people - it just doesn't count them in the official unemployment rate, the one that gets reported first and most frequently by journalists battling for space and air time.
Instead, they get defined as things like "marginally attached" or "discouraged" workers. This allows the Bureau to offer "alternative measures of labour underutilisation", which, to the untrained ear, sounds like awful gobbledygook and unemployment by another name.
And if you take the widest of these measures, which in plain English counts everyone who doesn't have a full time job, and blames that on economic reasons (as opposed to blaming it on being sick, old, or in training) then America's "labour underutilisation" rate went past 17% at about the time its "unemployment" rate hit 10%.
A rate of 17% presents everyone with a picture of an American economy where more than one in six people who want a job, can't get one.
Read the rest of the article by the BBC's business reporter, John Mervin, by clicking on the title...
No comments:
Post a Comment