• Wanderer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I guess that’s why unemployed is a more often cited number than this one. But surely it is interesting non the less to know how much of the workforce isn’t looking for work?

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The issue is it doesn’t differentiate between people who are not working because they’re 95 years old and people who are not working because they are sick.

      If you’re trying to make policy decisions based on this data it’s literally useless. Maybe you have a very old population maybe you will have a very unwell population. Who knows.

      This group are included or not included depending on whatever point a particular person is trying to make. If the government is trying to claim that unemployment is down this entire group will not be considered. Because it is ambiguous some legitimate justification has been provided to not include the group.

      • Wanderer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I don’t understand. The amount of people not in work, I guess is used to look about how taxes relate overall population to workers. That’s important, there is useful information in there.

        But like what you are saying that why unemployment figures are used and not number of people in work. Number of people not in work is more of a newspaper headline than anything governments look at.