616
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
616 points (98.0% liked)
Work Reform
9401 readers
67 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Unemployment needs to jump 40-50%??? Is this guy seriously that utterly disconnected with reality? In Aus it’s never hit more than 12% in the last 4 decades, the economy would just collapse if unemployment got that high. It only got to 32% during the Great Depression in the US.
That's the difference between percentage and percentage points. If the unemployment rate were 5% then a 50% increase would make it 7.5%
An increase of 50 percentage points would make it 55%
is there another way to accumulate that amount of wealth?
having said that, if unemployment is 10% and he thinks it needs to jump (and not to be 50%) then unemployment would be at 15%
If unemployment is 10%, then the actual amount of people who aren't employed anywhere is 50%. Because the laborforce participation rate is only 60% of the population.
I think he means 40 to 50% higher than now. It’s historically quite low at the moment.
It is low now, but also (in the US) the last few administrations played games with how they defined it, mainly by excluding people who had basically given up on finding employment.
That’s nothing new. That’s how it’s always been defined. I’m not unemployed if I’m not looking for work. Otherwise housewives would be unemployed, disabled people, pensioners, etc.
The one weird part is people transitioning just are counted towards the unemployed numbers even though they have a job coming.
They expanded the definition 5-10 years ago at various times, which resulted in a lower reported rate.
You have a cite for that?
According to this it hasn’t changed since 1945 when it was defined.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/03/07/employment-vs-unemployment-different-stories-from-the-jobs-numbers/#:~:text=Since%201945%2C%20the%20official%20definition,in%20the%20past%20four%20weeks.
I was baffled by that comment. Did he mean 40-50% higher or 40-50%. Huge difference.
If I understand his business correctly, that amount of unemployment would cause him to fail
His wording means it should increase 40-50%. Not that it should be 40-50%.
Do you know what percentages are?