Proving ~5% unemployment is bullshit

Years too late. Paste shadowstats and then don't argue numbers, use rhetoric. No one gives a shit about the truth but us.

Find the number of people in america age 18-65. Then find out how many of them are unemployed.

Then you take the number unemployed and divide it by the population to get a percentage.

Protip: you can do the same thing using the number of people currently employed and subtracting that from 100.

Unemployed means unemployed.

Changing the definition of words to suit their interests like typical kikes do is fallacious reasoning. If your nephew is unemployed and living on your couch and says he doesn't "want" a job he is still unemployed.

Maybe they'll make being a NEET a profession

That would be an exercise in futility. They've already massaged the data itself, that or anything you might prove from their data will be impossible to prove as a more reliable measurement except among the statistically autistic. (I suppose "the factually autistic" would be more accurate, but you know what I mean.)

Better would be indirect proxy measures, such as energy consumption. Energy consumption is a pretty reliable measure. Impossible to not ultimately pay for that energy consumption somehow, and energy represents industrial power, commercial power, home power, all very objective measurements of consumption for those specific domains. Falling home and industrial energy usage are likely to indicate falling employment levels. You could make a persuasive statistical case by comparing intercounty data on energy usage rates compared to employment rates (trying using data pre-1980 and see if you can correct for certain variables such as increasing energy usage per capita, etc) and then carrying that through to current rates of energy use in an attempt to draw the correlation.

You could also look at the rate of commercial, student, and personal debt accumulation. When the rate of accumulation falls or even goes negative (i.e. people are paying off their debts more than taking on new debt) is also a very accurate measurement of employment, underemployment, and/or stagnation in raises/new hires. You only need to find a way to correct for, potentially, the business cycle (but you should run the data without that correction as well).

I realize this probably represents a lot of work tracking down data, but I think trying to figure it out through these proxy measures will be the best approach. If you can use a number of different proxies that confirm a more specific employment rate you can make a very good case.

OP here again, this is turning into a pretty enjoyable nighttime hobby. I pushed my stats back all the way to 1995 and found some things worth noting. See pics related. First, we see that while employment has risen consistently since the 1995, this is not necessarily an indicator of a strong economy, since we should expect that as the US population increases, there will be a natural increase in employment. Additionally, from the first two pics related, we see that part-time employment spiked during the crash of 2008 and full-time employment cratered during that time. Recall that this was a time when many employers had to lay off many workers because they were worried that their revenues wouldn't support the costs of employment. This means that we can conjecture that during periods of economic weakening, part-time jobs will rise as full-time jobs become scarce and much more competitive, causing workers to frantically seek any means of supporting themselves and their families. Supporting this conjecture is the years 1997 and 1998, in which the October 27th 1997 mini-crash occurred. During these years, we note that part-time jobs spiked while full-time jobs took a slight dive. So why are part-time jobs rising so sharply now compared to 1999 - 2007?

Also fascinating are the third and fourth pics related. Either people just all of a suddenly decided to stop working overtime, or the balance of our economy is tilting toward part-time or temp jobs. This is not a sign of a very healthy economy: in a healthy economy, employers should be able to easily afford full-time workers and workers should be able to fairly easily get full-time jobs to help themselves financially and, in turn, tend to spend more in the economy. I would like to note at this time that the jobs Trump has been bringing back to America tend to be factory jobs, which tend to be full-time jobs. I think Trump will do us a huge service in boosting our ability to find good jobs.

The final pic related also tells a very interesting story, and I think a more positive one than the other four does: note that during the latter years of Bill Clinton, self-employment dried up, but under Bush, we saw a sudden and large spike in self-employment that ended in a very hard bust under Obama, one that we haven't quite recovered from yet (and it's not even at the level it was under Clinton). Liberals love to claim that Bush caused the crash of 2008 and that Obama merely inherited it, but then, why does the pattern play out under Clinton too, and why was it that under Bush, self-employment started out very weak but then peaked hard, but it's really struggling under Obama?

I'm really curious about that 2002 - 2003 self-employment surge. What was it about these years that caused self-employment to surge so much? inb4 broken windows 9/11

Hmm… that's a good idea. I'll see what I can find there.

Obama changed the definition of full time employment an outright employment multiple times this year. The media reported on it but quietly with little fanfare.Look it up and you'll see.

...

Dept of Labor, CBO, Fed Reserve and others should have stats that show different types of "unemployment" levels, called like Cb1 Cb5 etc or some shit like that. They show you all the methodology they use and you can probably find the raw data there. If not there, then I'm sure some user here is still in college and can pull the stats out of the library website from a Labor Economics Journal.

tl'dr: don't do the work yourself. Someone out there has already done it. Find that info and use it.

College goy here, I have access to all the journals. Tell me exactly what you want and I'll post it ITT.

These are the business and economics related databases I have access to.

An introductory macroecon textbook.

That does not fit the definition of unemployed. Just because the definition you know was taught by your elementary school social studies teacher, or the one flagrantly used in the media by people who have no fucking clue what the word means, doesn't mean it's right. Unemployed means, in an economic sense, being able to work, but not having a job. Participation in the labor force is key to a person being "unemployed". Would it be a fair baring on the economy if your NEET nephew was counted along side the people who are can't find work because there aren't any jobs? Of course not, that's why there's a distinction. Several people after 2008 were capable of working, but couldn't find jobs, and so they were unemployed. Your NEET nephew not wanting to work is a condition of capability; if a person doesn't want to work, they aren't capable of partaking in the exchange. There's also something called the discouraged worker effect, which means so many workers get discouraged by bad economic times that they stop looking for work. This is also measured alongside unemployment, and both have to be taken into account to adequately grasp the current state of the economy. Look up labor force participation rates.

Read a book, nigger.

t. Econfag

OP, you face an insurmountable problem with your 'data' sources.

How, and who, defines what people fit criteria for the classifications within the data is all over the place depending on the political wind. So unless you get a full on research team, to do a deep dive and analysis on the rawest of the raw data, you'll just more or less get the politically wanted conclusions from the 'cleaned' data provided by governments and most academics.

its often easiest to use Google Scholar first, and then find the article through your library, unless you mastered their shitty systems, but….

I'm not OP but I would say first I would search for "different unemployment measures" and find out what they're called, then search the Journals for different calculations. Alternatively, you could just search the Journals for "real unemployment" or "labor participation rates" or something like that. Any Journal that has "Labor," "Marx," or "Sociology" in its title will probably give you the most pessimistic calculations. Another search term might be "precariat" – the commies seem to like that one these days.

If he would get a job if there were worthwhile work for decent pay, then he is completely capable of partaking in exchange but has been discouraged by poor market conditions. He is therefore still unemployed
t. Much Smarter & Better Educated Econfag

UPDATE
so right off the bat I search "unemployment indexes" and I get this
bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

15 different Labor Underutilization Indexes – this is a good start. If these don't give you numbers you want then find the most pessimistic one and look at critiques of its methodology ie. find a more pessimistic measure

speaking of which, this link
bls.gov/ilc/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm
seems to indicate that the Eurozone uses different concepts of unemployment. So, there's somewhere you might want to go. That is, try to use the US numbers, but adjust them for Eurozone concepts of what it is to be unemployed… probably someone out there has already done this

the OECD also has their own stats
data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm

If you look at the OECD explanation you see that usually the "Labor Force" consists only of those who have basically turn in job applications in the last month – it excludes discouraged workers like your lazy nephew or housewives who would like to have a job but its "not worth it" to, say, shovel shit for $5 an hour… but they'd work at JC Penny's for $10. Note: those trying to compete with, for instance, illegal low-wage labor would then not be considered truly unemployed even though they'd have jobs if we sent Pedro and his 12 cousins packing.

The first article here
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=unemployment rate index discouraged workers&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
looks like it makes that same argument

Just add it up with suicide rates to get the real number.

Unemployed = un + employed. Not employed. Not working. It usually implies that the person is of the age where they would be expected to work, but nothing else.

It doesn't matter if some kike with a PhD says that NEETs don't count. In every meaningful way, they do count. They use resources but produce nothing. In a correctly functioning society, 98% of people (the other 2% are kikes) will *want* to work, in order to have wealth and satisfaction. Discouraged workers are effectively unemployed, but does the media talk about them? No. Because your incredibly narrow academic definition of "unemployed" allows the (((establishment))) to act like nothing is wrong.

A different word than "unemployment" should be used to refer to the concept which you are describing. To everyone except 100% turbo-autists and heeb (((economists))), unemployed just means not having a job.

so much this

the only correction I might add is the "natural rate" of unemployment due to "frictional" factors. That is, most people will quit a job and not start the new job right away. "Structural" unemployment probably shouldn't exist as well, if society were structured properly, but that's another argument altogether

It's only based on their definition of 'unemployment'.

...

OP, it's not a conspiracy. They don't count 95m as being in the workforce and that's how we get the magic number.

You'll be interested in reading shadowstats dot com

The kike you're replying to can't even comprehend that someone would actually want to perform physical work in a factory for $15 an hour and have a modest apartment/home and a car.

Does being a stay-at-home mother count as employment in these assessments?

Except that it doesn't make sense to include every single individual who happens to not work as unemployed in the same sense. Some people are out of work but want to work, that is, they demand jobs. Unemployment is meant to represent the gap between that demand for work and the supply of work. We don't want to include children, the elderly, the sick, or those who simply don't want to work whatsoever because that will not give an accurate picture of the SUPPLY and DEMAND of employment. That disconnect between the DEMAND (infants nor the sick contribute to this) for employment and the actual SUPPLY is what economists are trying to measure.

There is manipulation of terms and statistics, but that is different from choosing to use a specific, domain-specific definition that suits the purposes of that domain. For instance, a 'wafer' will mean something completely different to a cook, a carpenter, or an electronics engineer. But you don't see carpenters sperging out about cooks using 'wafer' in a way specific to their domain.

Christ, Holla Forums is pretty good about most things but they suddenly turn into socialists when it gets to economics.

It could, but I think typical measures of unemployment would simply consider housewives to be "not seeking employment." I don't think you could make a good case to count housewives as employed outside of propaganda efforts (e.g. if some politician wanted to say "I created a million jobs!" or some bullshit like that).

It's simple OP. The jews did this.

Damn, that's an excellent recommendation. Many people who kill themselves have "lost my job, can't get a new job" as the keystone in their reasons to commit suicide. When your job is barely letting you keep shit together (but not improve anything, naturally), and you lose that, what do you lose? Your rented home (because you can't get a home loan with a shit job), your car (hope u got car insurance), internet access, and a fucking address. Without all of this shit, good fucking luck getting another job.

Let me tell you a story user.

Near me there is a warehouse owned by Radial. Radial stopped hiring people direct many years ago instead choosing to outsource that through a bunch of different temp. agencies. At first people refused to use those agencies unless they were niggers but soon with the economy going in the toilet people started taking any job that became available.

My friend went through the temp. agency three or four years ago and made full time with the company after 425 days (of which you can only miss three). There was a good year in there where he got vacation/sick leave and all that but no insurance through the company. They weren't giving this to new hires because only old employees were grandfathered into the old deal that just so happened to change a week before they hired a bunch of temps.

Time went on and things seemed normal up until peak season (Black Friday - Christmas) this year. The temp agency started sending in the worst of the worst and busing in a bunch of niggers from the city. After peak the fat is cut and only the best temps are supposed to make it. This year instead of stopping the bus from coming in they started bringing in even more folks and firing temps that were driving themselves in. My friend said he's noticed a sharp decline in the type of people he's training, in his words "they're all thugs and drug addicts".

Over the last few days there has been a slow but steady lay-off going on. They aren't laying off any temps now, it's all people on full time save for supervisors and a select few in the club. Everyone else is getting told they got let go as they walk out the door on the other side of security. Word is if you don't see your leadman or supervisor in the last 30 minutes of your shift you should expect it, because they're making sure to go hide out in their own break room so as not to be seen.

Most of these people are not only getting fucked over but are training their replacement to do their job the night they get the boot. It always comes on Friday and it's always the same line of bullshit; "You didn't do anything wrong, times are hard".

I work for AT&T through an unnamed outsourcing company that pays its workers about 60% of what new hires at official AT&T centers earn. AT&T employees are all union, so they don't get kicked around quite as hard as the slaves do, but they're also almost all borderline retarded. They fuck everything up, get good surveys from customers, who find out a week after the survey, that their shit is fucked, and they take out their anger on the next poor slob who has to deal with them.

More on-topic, my center has eliminated the proficiency testing, drug testing, and even HSD/GED requirements for new hires. Management features convicted sex offenders and SJWs who you don't dare even carry on casual conversation with. The company also eliminated unpaid time off (basically sick days), and purged paid time off if employees had accrued more than two weeks of time, without notice or compensation. The really bullshit part about that is, paid time off was granted in one shot. You would get 140 or so hours each year, and had to use it all by the next anniversary date. Most of the people who lost a shitload of paid time off, gained their allotment right before it was cut, so they had no opportunity to use it.

When I'm in a piss-poor mood, I look up company reviews on GlassDoor (with cookies blocked, so I can read ALL of the reviews). It's sad how many of the HOLY SHIT complaints are things that have happened where I work, but the complaints themselves are years old, and for other locations, meaning this shitty behavior is company policy. I really should see what other fuckery is coming down the pipe.

shadowstats.com/

tl;dr they're not counting long-term discouraged and short-term discouraged workers and are pretending part time is full time, actual unemployment is worse than the great depression

18% sounds high but then again niggers make up 10% of the population and illegal spics that somehow managed to get benefits work under the table. (not sure how far they're included)

The US is great if you're business savvy and got cash or a stable family that has some savings, but I'm rather in europoor right now where wages in lower end jobs are the same, housing is cheap, I don't need a car and health insurance is either nationalized and / or cheap.

White suicides and early deaths due to untreated illnesses due to the jewish healthcare system will surely continue to rise as the competition for low end jobs among the underclass become more and more fierce (basically anyone born to a single mother).

It's one of those times where you have both great opportunities and incredible despair among those too poor / uneducated to make use of them.

Freecodecamp.com / udemy nano degrees / bootcamps.

Make use of that and get a tech job. Operations slave jobs and tech jobs are worlds apart in terms of how you're treated and paid.

It was looking anemic by 2000. Then I saw things really turn to complete shit in Jan/Feb of 2002. Right after 9/11 the economy stalled but there was some hope it might right itself however it went into free fall after the New Year and has never recovered. Just my personal observation.

unemployed is a misleading term. It is define differently at different time and places and often for political purposes. The only figure that is more often lied about is national oil reserves.

One of the most common measures is of people who want to work between 18 and 65 (years old) not studying or attending to dependents. this measure is meant to represent the immediately available workforce. however this workforce is only available for low skilled work the kind of stuff you can teach someone how to do on the job or in a few days. this percentage of people is meant to act a brake on wage growth, but it only really works as a brake on low skill wage growth. So the types of skills that are in demand can change markedly and rapidly. petroleum engineer was very hot for a while, no so much now perhaps. but most of the economic analysis is done on unemployment measured in this way.
At 10% shit can get really dicey in a society, violence/crime etc.

So this measure of unemployment is meant as a threat against employed people, but in reality against the skilled workers it meant very little. H1B and immigration was a bigger threat.

unemployment if measured in it strictest sense (people who do not work) typically runs at about 50% of the population.

tl;dnr

Very hard to get an honest figure, definitions change at political whim.
real figure is ~50%

You could even say that it came tumbling down?

Nothing pisses off the leftist fucks I work with when I point out the unemployment rate average between Bernie Sanders's stated estimation, and Donald Trump's figures, and not the bullshit Obongo was pushing for years. Then I make them even madder by asking them if work was so abundant, why they work in a fucking call center that only retires employees by stressing them in a low-activity, high-distress job until they literally fucking drop dead from heart failure or related issues.

I wonder if anyone who works at the Black Luster Soldier ever posts or lurks here. I wonder how objective their statistics are.

Just got into YGO via a friend; nice to see that it's pol-approved!

Do expats count as unemployed? Because I think we should. I had to LARP Vox Day's argument about unrestricted free trade means people have to leave their countries to find work.