Talk:Unemployment/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Bias from the first sentence

To write "In economics, one who is willing to work at a prevailing wage rate yet is unable to find a paying job is considered to be unemployed", in the first sentence, is already carrying a bias, which Keynes in his times built his theory on. Unemployment is a voluntary thing only for neo-classics economy — for most other people, it only means lack of money. And I don't think many people volunteer for that. So, that's for the "willing to work". Unemployment, in ordinary people's language, is when people need money, and can't find a job to get money to eat. It is not a question of "prevailing wage rate", as "wage rates" can change a lot. The first sentence of this article is an endorsement of neo-classic economics. Lapaz

Note that employment is not a synonym with work. One can easily work for free, but one always becomes employed to get money. Lapaz

PS. You don't believe me? What the heck are you doin' loosin' your time on Wikipedia? Lapaz

Race section

not sure why that race table has to be included in this article... what's the relevance? appears to me as a concealed attempt to infect the narrow-minded individual's opinion of minorities. Panda

Don't merge more articles (e.g., graduate unemployment) here

Graduate employment should not be merged here. The article is too long. A reference here to the graduate unemployment article is sufficient

Inclusion of CES "Payroll survey" on this page (in Bureau of Labor Statsitics section)

This page is about "Unemployment". The CES "payroll survey" measures employment. Nothing produced by the CES can be used to calculate unemployment statistics. If the CES data is mentioned at all, it should only be parenthetically, as in (" The unemployment rate is published each month in the BLS Employment Situation news release, which also contains employment data from the Current Employment StatisticsC(CES) "payroll survey" program. ")

Frankly, it's kind of ridiculous to say something like "These two sources have different classification criteria, and usually produce differing results." without mentioned the fact that the CPS "household survey" has measures of both unemployment and employment.

First, in the spirit of working together and following the wiki guidelines, please try to be polite. This section does not read as "ridiculous" to me. This section seems to delineate the differences between CES and BLS data. That seems to be your goal. If the section is confusing to you I suggest you help and contribute by rewriting it. You offer a suggestion and I'm not sure why you don't edit the text of the article. Again, your help is appreciated, but please do not insult other authors by saying their work is "ridiculous".

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unemployment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I think this is a highly important topic and the article did receive a lot of work already. However, I think it is still quite a mile to achieve Good Article quality. I should say I'm not an economist or sociologist, nor did I read the article from beginning to end. However, a few issues come to mind very quickly:

The prose needs an overhaul. E.g. the very first sentence "Unemployment occurs when peolpe are without a job and has actively looked for work within the past two weeks." already has one typo and a grammar issue.

Someone corrected the first sentence and I have also revised grammar throughtout. This is an ongoing task. Peace01234 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead section does not summarize adequately the article content, which however it has to (WP:LEAD). The lead talks a lot about the unemployment rate and the way to measure it, but nothing is said about the effects of ue. nor the ways of controlling it.

I revised the lead section to summarize the article. I moved subtleties regarding measurement to the measurement section. Peace01234 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The history section, like the other parts of the article, has a focus on Anglo-American (mostly just American) aspects of the topic. Another example: the external links section is blatantly US-centered. This creates an undue balance.

I added more global discussion, reduced anglo-american focus where possible. Also, see my comment and call for help below regarding global focus Peace01234 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Linked to the previous issue: at times, the article is overly specific, such as talking about the unemployment rate in particular cities. Having a top-to-bottom approach may work in some cases, but for a topic as broad as this, mostly one has to stay "top", I think.
The article uses jargon all over the place. It should not (WP:JARGON). Terms like "market-clearing level", "equilibrium level", "aggregate demand", "inflation barrier" are not explained, but are being used many times. (We do have the blue links, but much more of an effort should be made to explain this terminology to the reader). I think the article would profit a lot by explaining (probably in a separate section) the mechanics of ue., so to speak. I.e. what are the factors leading to unemployment (wages, inflation etc).
There are a bunch of ^{[citation needed]} tags which have to be resolved. Also, there are entire sections (e.g. Cyclical or Keynesian unemployment) which are unreferenced.

I resolved missing citations and completely revised the Keynsian section for readability and added citations there too. Peace01234 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If no major improvements occur, I think I will fail the GAN in one week time (or two, if anyone wishes?). In case there is disagreement, I'm happy to provide a more detailed and comprehensive review. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Jakob.scholbach. I will work on readability and jargon as soon as I have time. However, regarding the Anglo/U.S. focus: I created some of the charts for this article and I have searched broadly for international data. However, historical data is rarely available for countries other than the U.S. and U.K. Many countries only began surveying unemployment recently. I was very happy to find the the Japanese data even though it only goes back to 1953 and the E.U. data which only goes back to 1993. I also was happy to find the image of an unemployment protest in India. I appreciate constructive criticism; can you — or anyone! :) — suggest international sources to improve the global perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace01234 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your point that no historical data is available for other countries than the US/UK is unfounded. The most immediate google.books search reveals, for example, this (German) book on German unemployment in history. I'm sure that the same will work for virtually every other country: Italy, India...

About missing citations: the "Limitations of the unemployment definition" has still the same problem.

Jargon: from what I can tell, there has not been much of an improvement.

About the US-focus: you (still) have a whole long section "United States Bureau of Labor Statistics", together with another one, about half as long, about the EU, but nothing on the rest of the world. This is just unbalanced. This is not to say that the US-material is badly done, on the contrary this seems to be the part which has received most of the attention, this is just to say that an equally good coverage should be given to other countries. Consequently, much less space can be devoted to any single country.

I hope to have your agreement that none of these issues is a something to be solved in one afternoon's or one week's work. Therefore, I'm going to fail this GA nomination, chiefly because of its failure to be "broad in its coverage" (criterion 3). This is also touching the criterion 4, neutrality.

Despite this, I'd very much like to encourage editors working on this to keep up the work on this topic. The article does have potential, but for such a world-spanning topic, more of a global account seems necessary to me. May be a WP:peer review might be helpful to recruit more people? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

demonstrably false sentence

This statement "... neoclassical ... School of economics ... rely on the invisible hand of the market to resolve unemployment" is utterly false, as anyone who has ever read any modern neoclassical textbook can attest to. Since neoclassical economics is a synthesis of Keynesian and classical ideas, much theory on labour market frictions and sticky wages is incorporated into it, justifying governmental intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.103.52 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Limitation of the unemployment measure

I added back the OECD data men 25-54 from 2004 together with Raymond Torres (OECD Head of Employment analysis) quote (from "Le Monde") about trend in research in this area. Please do not remove again without reason. Guerby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

New section on the theory of involuntary unemployment, whether it exists

It's the last new section, with references. Comments, please.

From Section 1, "Types"

The following sentence is illiterate and unintelligible:

"According to economist Edmond Malinvaud, the type of unemployment that occurs depends on the situation at the goods market, rather than that they belong to opposing economic theories."

"The type of unemployment that occurs" is verbose; better: "types of unemployment depend." "On the situation at the goods market"? "Of" is natural--I'm inclined to think the author's first language is not English.

More mysteriously still, "rather than that" is not English at all. And to what does "they" refer?? And since types of unemployment depend upon types of economic situations, what have economic theories to do with the matter? Unless of course one argues that different economic theories describe different types of unemployment and ascribe them to different causes.

I am not competent to make the changes, but surely someone whose native language is English can improve upon the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordwright (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dropped material

I dropped the material about cyclical unemployment being due to a temporary insufficiency of aggregate demand. The problem is that the phrase "cyclical unemployment" is an inadequate term compared to "deficient-demand unemployment." So-called cyclical unemployment can be high for a long time, as in the 1930s (at least in the U.S.) However, the term "cyclical unemployment" is very common and less awkward than "deficient-demand unemployment." Jdevine 19:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dropped ", if we assume that true demand of work would not be matched by new vacancies" from the end of the debate on unemployment because its meaning was a bit unclear. Jdevine 19:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion

Apparently this page is pretty good. Some thought it would be better than what they would have done, and quicker too: http://www.colombialink.com/01_INDEX/index_finanzas_eng/unemployment.html Emmanuel, just a visitor 27/04/05

Let's have a graph here, showing the average US unemployment rate from as far back as is known through the current day.

done Peace01234 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The graph needs a caption to say it is the USA. Maurreen 08:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

done!! Jim 20:38, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It should be mentionned that some unemployement rates are contested. For instance Joseph E. Stiglitz, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, claims it's rather around 9% in the US. Helldjinn 15:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

you're talking about the measurement of the unemployment rate, right? I'm pretty sure that discussion is already in the existing entry, but I'll check. Jim 19:05, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

A critical note about this page, it is heavily biased towards the US. There are a few sidecomments about the situation in europe, though Europe has about 1.5 times as much inhabitants(260 versus 400 million). Not a word is mentioned about asia, though China is the biggest economic force in the world. And of course not a word about africa, though the unemployment problems there are quite complex and very important.

I wil also remove the snide remark towards France in the introduction."Obviously, different countries have different unemployment rates:for example, the current unemployment rate in France is 9.7%, significantly higher than in the U.S" First you state that comparison of the stats isn't possible without carefull scrutiny, and then you compare rates anyway. The sentence isn't productive in any way for understanding of unemployment, in fact the sentence itself states it is a useless sentence. I don't feel comfortable enough in the subject to change the article drastically, but I think it is really nessecary. 81.205.127.8 12:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)}

We can discuss other parts of the country, but I am unable to find long term statistics on unemployment in other countries. I found the data for U.S. unemployment only through reading original source materials and eventually having to get books from libraries. Few countries began surveying unemployment until the later part of the 20th century. Peace01234 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What? No mention of international unemployment? Differences between ILO and BLS?

This has been added. Peace01234 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The following line, "Preliterate ("primitive") communities treat their members as parts of an extended family and thus do not allow them to be unemployed — in the effort to preserve the group" seems to constitute something of a non-sequitur. If we want to describe a particular kind of literacy, say that of asset accounting, then perhaps it is necessary to specify. If we want to see something defined within the perspective of a closed system or culture, however vague and aspirant to universalism, such as a brand of economic study, shouldn't it be prefaced as such? Otherwise, we need to define things from outside of these closed systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.56.36 (talk • contribs)

Internationalization

In the interest of geographical balance and also of sheer completeness, I'd like to mention two recent phenomenons revolving around the Argentine economic crisis: piqueteros forming "unemployed workers movements" and the recovered factory movement (worker-run co-operatives formed after businesses were abandoned by their owners, and workers effectively left jobless without severance compensation, upon bankruptcy). Argentina can also be seen as case study for high accute unemployment. I'm not sure how or where this can be integrated with this article, so that's why I'm asking here first. --Pablo D. Flores 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Unemployment Map

What is represented by the "grey" countries and regions on the "World unemployment in 2004" map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unemploy2004.png)? From the way it looks at this point, it could mean that they have _less_ than 5% unemployment, which is absolutely not the case. If the map is not updated to add a better legend, I'm going to remove it from this article around 24 hours from now, as it misrepresents the data available, in its present form. --NightMonkey 22:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

OK, removing it. Note that I'm not objecting to the presence of a world map per se, but in its current form, it only covers certain world regions, and is not on par with its purported coverage. --NightMonkey 07:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The thumbnail of the unemployment map is not in sync with the detail view of the map. For example, Papua New Guinea is grey in the thumbnail, but it is blue in the detail map, USA is light blue in the thumbnail and dark blue in the detail map, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.69.129 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

these issues were resolved a while ago with updated maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace01234 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Other possible definitions

Unemployment is a relative term so it depends on how you define it before you can explain it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.252.160 (talk • contribs)

There is a definition of unemployment that some economists have adopted (notably the late Australian economist Xiaokai Yang and members of his school) that is insightful, but which has not been widely used as yet by labor economists. The definition is: "Involuntary unemploymnent is the inability to participate in the division of labour." The concept of the division of labor is that used by Adam Smith. This definition suggests that the widespread unemployment in some developing economies may be due to shortages of capital, poor infrastrucure, and sometimes by corruption and red tape - anything that makes it hard to develop a firm. In the developing world unemployment is more likely be due to technological change, loss of market to foreign competition, or anything that causes a local breakdown of the division of labor.

Since it does not represent a consensus view this idea about the nature of unemployment cannot take center stage in a Wikipedia article. Yet it might be important enough to someone looking for an understanding of unemployment so that it might be mentioned. Any thoughts? Temple Bayliss 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a spirited defense of the definition, "Unemployment is the inability to participate in the division of labor." in a current post in The Kinky Economist. Temple Bayliss 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Others and I have added to the limitations section addressing the issue concerning the difficulty (impossibility?) of generating one unassailable/perfect definition of unemployment. If there are more concerns we can link internally from any definition of unemployment to the limitations section. --Peace01234 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OECD, regulation and unemployment

This article, by one of Australia's most respected economics writers, refers to the OECD Employment Outlook 2006. According to the journalist, the OECD is moving back from its advocacy of labor market deregulation, saying that there's no impact on regulations such as minimum wage, and unemployment. I was hoping to learn more about it in the unemployment article... but twas not to be, and the OECD report is a fairly heavy reading for a non-economic type like me. Hopefully there's someone out there who can do something with this info... Thanks --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition and Regulation between Nations

Globalisation is challenging the previously accepted measures set by national governments as the need for comparison between the UK ,developed nations,and European Countries becomes an important economic measure.The wide gaps in agreed common national standard measures,political resistance to changing definitions, and means of collection of data are all issues which effect the figures published across the world on whose are in or not in employment.The imerging preferred measure across the Euro zone is a simple statistic of whose who do not have a job as defined by collection of employment related taxes sometimes referred to as 'numbers who are recorded as Jobless'.

The "agreed common national standard measures" of unemployment are described in the Measuring Unemployment section; although, this section still needs an explaination of OECD's "standardised" unemployment rate to glue the ILO definition to the countries listed (and to be listed). Do you have a cite or other evidence that these measures are challenged by Globalisation? --EGeek 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you also have a cite for the Euro unemployment rate calculated from a "collection of employment related taxes"? Eurostat says it uses the survey method quarterly with a monthly "harmonized" rate calculated from national employment statistics. --EGeek 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Need for references, & POV-check

My edit of 6 July ({{unreferenced}} & {POV-check}} - citations/links needed for many of the claims made; & article should represent the various views, not support particular views.) was immediately reverted (fully referenced: please read the books in the reference list--if there is a sentence in question please indicate it).

There's more to referencing than a reading list - this article needs more references within in the text. Currently there are hardly any. We obviously can't expect the average reader to "read the books in the reference list" - they've come here for an encylopedia article, not a reading list. Even an inline reference that cites a book and a page number or chapter would be a vast improvement. --Singkong2005 ^talk 03:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

there are plenty of excellent references to the article. All the books have indexes and tales of contents, so a user can quickly find further information without our giving out page numbers after every sentence. They can start with the good textbooks that are listed (George J Borjas; Ronald G. Ehrenberg; McConnell), or the good history titles (Keyssar, Jensen). Is there some POV statement that causes a problem?? then itentify it specifically and we can fix it. Rjensen 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No one demanded page numbers after every sentence. However, at least one or more citation of some form per paragraph would certainly not be excessive. Note, from Wikipedia:Citing sources#Page numbers: When citing books and articles, provide page numbers when possible.

Besides that, additional links to websites are perhaps not essential, but would improve the usability of the article by the average reader who doesn't have the books at their fingertips. I would regard this as only sensible in my own areas of expertise (in engineering) and see no reason that economics articles should be any different, demanding that the reader must go to a university library in order to check the source of a statement.

That's not to say that web sources are superior. The ideal reference might be a reference to a book, including page number, followed by a link to a reliable online source.

I'll leave the POV thing for now - I don't have the time to go through it now, and I'd rather see the referencing improved before I have another look at whether it's POV/NPOV. --Singkong2005 ^talk 06:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I weakend the statements on the effects of high welfare high unemployment scenarios because they were highly biased indicating a necessary disbenefit with high unemployment even if this is coupled with good social security. It is arguably better to redistribute wealth to a relatively large mass of unemployment thus reducing *maximum* levels of wealth but increasing median wealth than to have a small number of extremely impovirished unemployed. 152.83.176.156 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unemployement in the United States

This article is at 39K and somewhat US-centric. I would recommend spawning Unemployment in the United States so more global material can be added here. -- Beland 22:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Graphic is very dated (2004). Can we update it? And use more distinctive colors? talk 9:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed and are discussed elsewhere in this talk page. --Peace01234 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Other factors causing unemployment

Whilst I cannot comment on the stats in the US, in New Zealand our unemployment is affected by gender, age, race and location - rural unemployment, particularly around small towns that used to be occupied by one major employer that no longer operates - is very high. City unemployment is very low as there are both people and jobs. Likewise, those with Maori and Pacific Island ethnicity suffer higher unemployment than those of Eurpoean descent. 210.86.93.251 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Xav

So you're saying that unemployment is caused by certain minorities? :S

I don't quite follow.

Causes of unemployment

The last paragraph of "Causes of unemployment" ("The results of both actions (...)") is not only inaccurate, but it also seems to have a strong bias against European measures against unemployment.

As we see on the map above, there are several European states having the same or lower unemployment rate than the USA. This seems to be totally ignored. Personally, my knowledge is limited to the Norwegian social democracy, but it might serve as an example.

Traditionally, the Norwegian policies regard employment not only as a duty, but also a fundamental social right. (When two people meet, they often ask eachother about their occupation, i.e. the job is a social factor.) Therefore, the government is obliged to help unemployed people to get an acceptable job. Economic aid is a part of that duty. It's reasonable to believe that this is one of the reasons why Norwegian unemployment rate is among the world's lowest. During the depression in the 80's, the government activly supported the industry to prevent mass unemployment.

I'm no economist, and I don't feel that I could alter the article in a clear and precise way, but someone with the insight should incorporate this moment in the section.

Marstr2 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Norway is a small country (4.5 million) and at 4.5% has much higher unemployment than some comparable US states like Idaho 3.0%, Montana 2.7%, Utah 2.6% and Wyoming 2.6% (as of Jan 2007). Rjensen 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That could be partly true, but Norway still serves as a counterexample to the claim that a welfare state maintains unemployment -- and according to CIA, the rate is only 3.5%. Furthermore, I don't believe the states neccessary are good comparisons, as not only population counts, but also demographics. I had a look on the CIA list, and among those 45 whose rate is below 4.0%, 17 are European, while the US is ranked 56. (Cuba (#11), anyone?) The strong European representation is obviously also because of the generally good economy in European countries, and I hope someone with knowledge about British and continental economy can add their thoughs. Anyway, I believe the paragraph in question is biased, and it should be edited to reflect this discussion. Marstr2 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm always wary of the use of unemployment statistics. I don't know what the situation is in Norway or other countries throughout the world, but in the U.S., unemployment stats are nearly universally skewed downwards. Part of this may be for political reasons, part of it due to simple inefficient bureaucracy, but the fact remains that the permanent underclass of the chronically unemployed--those who have simply stopped looking--are routinely left out of U.S. unemployment stats. Many of these individuals are also spending years on Welfare. So I don't think the arguments based on such stats hold water. Qworty 10:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to locate outsourcing (or as Wikipedia calls it in my scenario, 'offshoring', which I dispute) as a reason for unemployment. That is how I lost my job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.137.148 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

   During the 1929 Depression, the Technocrats recognized that we do not need everyone working because machines have increased the prodductivity of workers so greatly.  Tragically, Technocracy did not present a reasonable solution to the problem.  Technicrats did recognize that a reduction in the work-week, (in order to spread the work) would not give workers a wage sufficient to live on.

George Richter, writing from eng2gbr@aol.com

AND THE WHOLE PASSAGE NEEDS A SECTI""ON DEDICATED T"O PROPOSED S"OLUTIONS OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM.

..... The book T.E.A.F.S. points out that Adam Smith's economics deals nicely with an economy of shortage. But today America has an economy of sufeit. Adam Smith's concept should be modified. To —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.71.190 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolving the confusing mish-mash of competing theories

An incoherent debate seems to have broken out as to the causes of unemployment. The controversy should be resolved by replacing the current jumble of semi-coherent assertions with a relatively brief NPOV section briefly laying the why there is controversy (what are the perceived stakes) and succinctly and clearly naming and outlining the various warring theories (perhaps in chronological order of development) and creating a new article for each separate school or theory where its discussion can be maintained and honed by the respective partisans and loyal critics of each respective theory.

Please sign you contributions to discussion pages.

Presently the theoretical parts of this article do indeed seem flawed and incoherent. There is no controversy between various causes of unemployment, that's just an illusion caused by the use of models that are too simple. Suggested reading: Malinvaud's 'The Theory of Unemployment Reconsidered'. Guido den Broeder 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Employment rate

I agree with the following comments left by another...

"Employment rate directs to this page, but can't find any information on this. Employment rate is as far as I know not the same as unemployment rate, or am I wrong?"

Indeed they are right, they are not the same thing. I specifically queried about the term "employment rate" and not the term "unemployment rate" any yet I was re-directed to the "unemployment rate" listing.

Obviously the two terms are related but they are not the same thing at all indeed one refers to the number of people that were removed from the labor force in a given month and the other tells the percentage of the total population that is employed.

The term unemployment ignores those people that may still want a job but have given up searching for it in frustration. I believe it intentionally leaves out such people to make it seem as if things are better than they actually are. I do not feel that the term "unemployment rate" is a helpful metric and it should not be reported by the media.

The fairest way to measure the health of the employment market is to calculate a simple percentage of the total population that has a job at any given time "the employment rate."

Any metric that intentionally leaves out a large percentage of the potential workforce merely because they have not held a job in some time is quite artificial.

Regardless, it seems that both "employment rate" and "unemployment rate" both deserve to have their own separate Wikipedia entries.

Also I was confused why this related link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate

did not come up as an option when I searched on employment rate.

Thanks for the heads up. I used the OECD source found on that page and added its definition of Employment rate; thus, deleting the redirect. I also found an article called Employment-to-Population ratio that contains a little more information, but lacks any citations.

The unemployment rate is a basic measure to determine who are actively searching for a job. If you want the percentage of people who want to work, you want statistics for marginally attached workers, or those who want to work, but have not looked for work. Both of these statistics are available in some countries (such as the United States), but the unemployment rate is easier to determine in most countries; therefore, this rate is the world standard for the unemployment rate. There is also a measure for employed persons who want to work full time, but can only find part time work. --EGeek (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Unemployment" definition

The first sentence of the article gives a definition of "unemployment", which in its current form appears to violate WP:NPOV. Unemployed people are not always people that want to work. Many people don't want to work but are still defined as "unemployed". I made this change and it was reverted. I reverted back and got reverted again. So here's a request for comments and consensus.

The current version reads: Unemployment is the state in which a worker wants, but is unable, to work.

My edit reads as follows: Unemployment is the state in which a worker is without a job, or financially-rewarded work.

-- ALLSTARecho 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the description of the disagreement, I disagree with your position. Jose João (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What this definition requires is a citation. I offer the International Labour Organization's definition of unemployment. See page 4. It defines unemployed as those "actively seeking work". If this lone citation still violates NPOV, I suggest providing an alternative citation to complement this one. -- EGeek (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, unemployment statistics only include persons actively seeking employment. When someone leaves the workforce and does not seek readmittance, they are no longer considered unemployed. Otherwise, children and retirees would be considered unemployed. It is perfectly fine to definite unemployed persons as those who are actively seeking employment but are not employed. The compromise offerred above doesn't quite make sense. Is a worker who does not work truly a worker? Andyparkerson (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unemployed means exactly that, no job, regardless of status. However, it does say Unemployment is the state in which a worker is without a job. It doesn't say it is the state in which children who normally don't work anyway are without a job. In it's basic purest form, it should read Unemployment is when someone is without work, because that's what being unemployed is. At any rate, it's been changed and sourced. -- ALLSTARecho 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between a definition and a useful definition. By the purest definition listed above, someone would be unemployed when they are at lunch, or sleeping, or otherwise not occupied in the act of working. So even though it is a definition, it is not useful. When we speak of unemployed people, we speak of people who are actively seekeing employment but are otherwise not employed. Any other definition makes the word much less useful. Andyparkerson (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This (actively seeking employment) is the standard definition used in economics classes throughout the English-speaking world. Live with it!--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

History

This is a good question that I haven't found answered anywhere in Wikipedia: when did (in the US and generally) governments start paying people unemployment protection? I'm guessing from one of the charts in the article it began in the 1930s when the Depression hit. Could someone add a section, or a page, or a request for it? (I can't figure out the 'request a page' system.) Thanks! CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.146.185 (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

I am convinced that this section is POV: "Some argue one of the main causes of unemployment in a free market economy is that the law of supply and demand is not really applied to the price to be paid for employing people. In situations of falling demand for products and services the wages of all employees, from president to errand boy, are not automatically reduced by the required percentage to make the business viable. Others say that it is the market that determines the wages based on the desirability of the job. The more people qualified and interested in the job, the lower the wages for that job become. Based on this view, the profitability of the company is not a factor in determining whether or not the work is profitable to the employee. People are laid off, because pay reductions would reduce the number of people willing to work a job. With fewer people interested in a particular job, the employees bargaining power would actually rise to stabilize the situation, but their employer would be unable to fulfill their wage expectations. In the classical framework, such unemployment is due to the existing legal framework, along with interferences with the market by non-market institutions such as labor unions and government."

This quite nicely fits the definition or reganomics, which I personally disagree with. However, such a clearly political statement should be dealt with as soon as possible before it does more damage. Fusion7 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dropped section on solutions

EGeek unilaterally decided on 1/31 to eliminate this entire section. Well, let's make Economics not only the dismal science (reputedly) but assuredly a useless one. If solutions to the problem have no place in an article about unemployment, then what pray tell is the raison d’être for a scholar of the "e-geek" variety or any other sort? Elburts (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As per the foregoing paragraph, EGeek has not given any explanation for eliminating an entire section of the article. I have therefore restored it. Elburts (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for patiently waiting for my response. I did not delete this section outright. I looked at the sources used and attempted to verify each source. I found that half of the sources were self-published. After deleting the unreliable sources, I reviewed the context. I found that the entire section was an essay on this single author's opinion from his (self-published) online book on how to cure unemployment. So I treated this context as another blog/essay/rant.

I have no problems with a solutions section, but I do have problems with essays and blogs in the middle of an article. If you can fine verifiable information on this subject, then please add it to this section.--EGeek (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you have responded, EGeek. Actually the source which you label as unreliable is in fact a recent online elaboration of a work done in 1993 for a recognized academic journal. The earlier one was peer reviewed and published in the UK by MCB University Press. Check again the online citation to the abstract of that work, which will lead you to the printed full article as available in good libraries around the English speaking world. The work is Robert Struble, Jr., "Toward a Structural Solution to Unemployment," International Journal of Social Economics 20, no. 11 (1993): 15-26. Unfortunately IJSE has not archived this work online, although the abstract for the article is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&contentId=847176 . The substance of the full article is available online, however, as updated in 2007-08 at http://www.tell-usa.org/totl/08-Bolstering%20Workers.htm Cordially, Elburts (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not consider the "Toward a Structural Solution to Unemployment" an unreliable source(see my edit). I even added a citation template for it. I considered his self-published book, "Treatise on Twelve Lights", an unreliable source, which consisted of half the original material.

I have no problems with a solutions page. I do have a problem with an essay/blog devoted to an unreliable source. --EGeek (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Understood. However, since the book, Treatise on Twelve Lights, chapter 8, is available online whereas the peer review article "Toward a Structural Solution to Unemployment" covers the same theme but is not so readily accessible; and since, furthermore, much of chapter 8 incorporates the same research (thoroughly footnoted, peer reviewed, etc.); one might reasonably conclude that neither source deserves the appellation "unreliable."

By analogy, suppose that in the 1990's Gary Kasparov wrote an article on pawn power for Chess Life magazine, and then in 2008 after his foray into politics, Kasparov posted on his own web site an updated but unpublished article on the same theme. Suppose the latter article was embellished with digressions on how the Kremlin treats dissident citizens as pawns to be discarded, would you then argue that only the article from the 1980's is reliable on the issue of pawn power in chess? Elburts (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you use the online book, you should only link to the appropriate section. The peer reviewed article is only covered in one section of Chapter 8, not the entire chapter. In the cite you only show where you found the material; however, I understand that this particular link is for convenience of the reader. This is fine, but the citations to the rest of the book, and the entire section written as an essay only about this author's theories is not.

The rest of the online book is unreliable as I said before - self-published and not peer-reviewed. --EGeek (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to the Solutions section, it appears that the conversation above was only relevant for the "Tax related" sub-section? In any case, the whole solutions section is a problem. I'm not sure whether it's a WP:OR problem, or a WP:NPOV problem, or both. "Solutions" should be given which are attributable to someone, and if they're going to be criticized, critized with reference to someone. Now I'm going to bashfully back out since macro isn't my thing... Cretog8 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Long-term unemployment

I'm surprised reading this otherwise comprehensive article that, as far as I can see, there is no mention at all of "long-term unemployment". I believe that (in the UK at least) LTU is defined as continuous unemployment for six months or more.

Long-term unemployment also carries with it two other important issues: the health implications (mental and physical) of long-term unemployment, and the common perception of the long-term unemployed as "malingers", "lazy" or "workshy" etc.

A quick web search brings up plenty of authoritative, citable information on all three of these issues. I may have a go a making a start on this, but despite being an avid Wikipedia reader, I'm pretty much a novice at editing. Maybe if I make a start, then a cleverer and more skilled Wikipedian could take it up (...?) Annatto (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Eurostat version of long-term unemployment is included under Measurement as "part of the unemployed who have been unemployed for an excess of 1 year." But if you have a UK definition, please add it into a new section under Measurement labeled "United Kingdom". If you want to add information about "long-term unemployment", then please do. --EGeek (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Long-term unemployment - broader measure available in the U.S.

The U.S. Dept. of labor recognizes that its standard "uneployment rate" fails to capture all unemployment and under-employed, and provides a number of alternative measures, which tend to be higher than the usually quoted rate which excludes many unemployed and underemployed. Unemployed "discouraged workers" whose benefits have expired, for instance, are included only in the broader measures.

The DOL lists number of alternate measures of unemployment as part of its Emp. Sit., e.g.,

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

The broadest of these is U-6:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached

      workers, plus total employed part time for                                                                                         
      economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian                                                                                     
      labor force plus all marginally attached                                                                                           
      workers...........................................    8.7      9.9      9.5      8.1      8.4      8.4      8.8      9.0      8.9

NOTE Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For more information, see "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Also highly readable background story on the undercounting that lowers the main measure is

This information is already in the article. Also, February unemployment was down on all of the broader measurements (seasonally adjusted, not seasonally adjusted was down farther). In my opinion it seems this reporter went for the low hanging fruit instead of investigating why the cps was different to the ces. --EGeek (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to the BLS's 6 measures of unemployment copied here: 5 alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6,^[1] which have been charted over time^[2]^[3]

--Peace01234 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

Am I the only person to notice the "citation needed" tags littered all over this article? And where ARE the citations? I have provided one, and I will be happy to provide others. But am I the only author of this article to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines? Good lord!

David Schweickart and Robert A. Dahl provide plenty of reference to unemployment as it relates to capitalism. Jack Rasmus and Emily Spence provide tons of statistical data regarding unemployment and income in the United States and elsewhere. Wikipedia provides a freakin' TEMPLATE regarding worker cooperatives, and supporting information is scattered all over the Internet.

This article is obviously under attack from someone (a "capitalist"?) who is very displeased with your representation of "Unemployment". In some sense, this is a very good sign. I couldn't be happier -- but at the same time, I couldn't be more angry.

Please CITE YOUR WORK, according to Wikipedia guidelines. I'll be back to help as soon as I can. Thank you. Sincerely David Kendall (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, check this: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics by Lawrence H. Summers

I'll be back with other stuff. But for now, I gotta move on. David Kendall (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Social Costs cleanup

This section was written in a tone that is not encyclopedic, alternatingly polemical and sloppy. I've cleaned up some of the points (including one minor deletion of a subordinate clause) and added citation tags, but haven't removed any of the substantive content. The first paragraph still needs to be cleaned up.Youngea (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Finished it myself (and removed the tag) -- the section should be substantially more readable than it was. however, it still needs citations to back up the statements contained therein.Youngea (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good start. Other sections are in need of cleanup as well, mainly for the same reason. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Adjusted" unemployment rate during the Great Depression?

What would the unemployment rate during the Great Depression have been if it had been calculated according to todays standards of excluding "discouraged workers" and other "marginally attached workers"? Ewlyahoocom (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The chart in the article includes the standard U-3 ILO version of unemployment that excludes discouraged workers.Peace01234 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

2005 Budget Report

I re-inserted the statement, and added a citation needed tag- if I can find the paper, I'll copy the reference off the back. I'm sure it was there, and soemthing along those lines needed saying anyway. Larklight (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Shadowstats statistics in external links

Instead of just deleting this link and leaving a short explanation of why I deleted it, I decided to take time to explain my logic. I realize how popular this site is among those who have doubts about U.S. government statistics for reasons that range from academic-level flaws in the methodology to outright mistrust in any report that the government releases.

First, all external links must meet the basic policies of Wikipedia: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. I will make the arguement that at least two of these are not met.

Verifiability

Shadowstats does not include a methodology, or information, on how it calculates its "alternate" unemployment rate. The only explanation delivered by the site is:

“

The SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated "discouraged workers" defined away during the Clinton Administration added to the existing BLS estimates of level U-6 unemployment.

”

However, these "discouraged workers" are already included in the BLS statistics. With no other definition of "discouraged workers" included, the only definition available is from BLS. Shadowstats addition beyond U-6 is not verifiable.

This is an inaccurate statement. The BLS.gov link states that it is reporting "alternative measures of labor underutilization." This data is not included in the official unemployment statistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.190.134 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

While this site does share the same views on U.S. statistics as much of the rest of the world, such as OCED and ILO. This does not mean they should be excluded. A neutral point-of-view represents a fair view from all sides where no point-of-view is given undue weight over the others. However, this is not limited to the articles on wikipedia. Since content must be verifiable, NPOV also extends to the sources of the article. The following is the statement on the homepage of the site:

“

Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP and employment numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences? The problem lies in biased and often-manipulated government reporting.

We offer an exposé of the problems within the reporting system, and an assessment of underlying economic reality, through two basic services...

”

This shows the author's own bias toward "often-manipulated government reporting" without any evidence beyond experiences by others, both personal and business-like, who feel that these statistics do not represent those experiences. In addition, these statistics are offered as a subscription service, where unlike other statistical service providers such as ADP, the subscribers of shadowstats except to see statistics that skew away from the official government statistics.

This is my reasoning for deleting the link from the article. -- EGeek (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical unemployment

This section needs to be removed. There are no citations to any part of it, and the info sounds like it was just taken out of a research paper and pasted onto Wikipedia, or worse, original research. This could be a relevent section if there are citations, but as it is, the info does not fit the article. Angryapathy (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It gives some ideas as to what could be in the article, so I don't mind if the section stays, but it sure needs a lot of work. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have revised this section a great deal and added historical charts for U.S. data separately from international information.Peace01234 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Effective unemployment rate

This new page was marked for deletion. I'm surprised that the issue was not covered here. I see many attempts above to "sort of" start to describe other rates than the "official ILO" one, wondering why it has not been included here? The concept is highly important in less-developed countries. Perhaps the above article should be merged into this article? Power.corrupts (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was actually clear what the term meant it could be merged into Types of unemployment. That article is virtually unreferenced too so it would fit right in. RenegadeMonster (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the sarcasm ;-) Many articles start unreferenced. Apart from the questionable qualification of being unreferenced, it doesn't fit right in. Types of unemployment concerns abstact macroeconomic concepts, useful for understanding the different mechanisms and components, that make up overall unemployment. The new page is modest, about how to take stock of it. The "unemployment rate" is a real fluid concept, the ILO definition is mrely standardised operational measure based on consensus, valuable, but narrow. I may start a stub on this, referenced of course. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I added an internal link from the Types of unemployment section to the 6 measures of unemployment U1-U6 in the U.S. section.Peace01234 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krugman Reference

I removed the qualifier "Left-wing" from Paul Krugman's name for a few reasons. One is that while Krugman is a liberal (in the U.S. sense of the term) he is certainly not left wing. Nor is the quote that follows. Finally, Andre Gorz, whose name appears directly above Krugman's, most decidedly was left wing, and no such qualifier appears before his name (nor should it).

If any qualifier is needed, it should refer to the school of thought the economist is most identified with. So terms like Keynesian, Marxian, Classical, etc. are more helpful than "right wing", "left wing", etc.

--Horse Badorties (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Keynesian/Marxist = left-wing, Classical = right-wing/classical liberal. Your stated solution does not seem to have relevance to this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.190.134 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Read enough economics to be able to differentiate Keynesian from Marxist, and classical liberal from right-wing. Once you do, the relevance of the original comment may become clearer to you.

Clinton Administration redefinition of US unemployment metric

During the Clinton Administration, the group "discouraged workers" were eliminated from the official US unemployment statistics. The date this reformulation went into effect should be discovered, and official unemployment statistics pre-dating this change should not be directly compared to official unemployment statistics post-dating this change. To do so would be misleading and in bad faith.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf, "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," Monthly Labor Review, October 1995, Vol. 118, No. 10, at 23 states "considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduce the number of persons so classified by about half." Based on current knowledge, this was probably a conservative prediction, and it seems that all discouraged workers were eliminated from the unemployment metric. It is not clear when the redefined measures of unemployment went into effect, but clearly, unemployment statistics prior to 1995 or 1996 cannot and should not be directly compared to unemployment statistics post-1995/1996, as they are measuring different things, and as such, are not directly comparable. Similar to inflation, unemployment statistics from each epoch will require translation from one period to the other for purposes of direct comparison. It is possible that http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm may be of assistance, but it is unlikely to be satisfactory in and of itself, as the pre-Clinton Administration change utilized alternative measures U-1 through U-6, while the Clinton Administration changes redefined and recreated the alternative measures as U-1 through U-6. While it appears that the BLS utilizes U-1 through U-6 to calculate an unemployment statistic, it does not appear that the BLS utilizes any one metric in its calculations. Without a more precise understanding of how the BLS calculated unemployment pre-Clinton Administration redefinitions, and post, it will only be possible to make fuzzy guesses as to how the current reported unemployment rate compares to the reported unemployment rates pre-Clinton Administration redefinitions. However, the problem cannot be ignored without raising questions of integrity and credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.190.134 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Free encyclopedic public domain source (CRS report)

I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant talk pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-cite the content ... here's yours:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_Causes_of_Unemployment:_A_Cross-Country_Analysis%2C_December_12%2C_2000

PS : if you can think of a better talk page for this, please copy it there Agradman ^talk/_contribs 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible new section

It seems to me that education levels and high school dropout rates should be included somewhere in this article, as people with lower education levels are much more likely to be chronically unemployed than the rest of the population.

Alternatively, maybe this issue would be better addressed in a section covering risk factors in general, that is to say, who is more at risk to be unemployed.

I hesitate to add the section as unemployment as a social and/or economic issue is not in my area of expertise.

Thoughts?

Rosmoran (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be of interest, but it would require a heavy disclaimer stating that these are aggregate statistics, if they are or are not based on amount of time unemployed, whether unemployment is nonconsecutive, perhaps a break-down by region and general field of work. There would also need to be a disclaimer that correlation is not causation, lest someone decide that the best way to avoid unemployment is to immediately shove everyone into PhD programs. People with lower education levels tend to be both less intelligent and possess a higher time preference than those with degrees, so the degree is more likely an indicator of high individual labor productivity and worth on the part of the degree holder; the degree itself is simply a result of their character, character that makes them more employable. - 63.226.190.134 (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman has a nice thumbnail on Okun's Law, includes need for economic growth just to keep employment rate even

"growth has to be fairly fast — more than 2 percent — just to keep the unemployment rate from rising. Why? Well, productivity is rising, so that you can produce any given level of output with fewer workers; so output has to rise to keep employment from falling. And the working-age population is growing, so you need positive employment growth just to keep unemployment from rising."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/growth-and-unemployment/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.0.186 (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More workers discouraged than shown in BLS statistics. (NYT)

The "Bureau of Labor Statistics ... has a narrow definition of a group it classifies as “discouraged workers.”

Out of Work, and Too Down to Search On

Steve Hebert for The New York Times

Published: September 7, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/us/07worker.html?_r=1&ref=global-home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0cdcnctx& (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

U= ^u-h[100(y/yn)-100]

Well, what does that mean? We can't all speak jibberish :D (it's under 'okun's law' btw.

Can someone at least put a key in the article? I assume 'U' == unemployment, but what's h, y, and either 'n' or 'yn'?

What does the overall formula show? Base natural unemployment rate? --Arkelweis (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much focus on the US

almost all the graphs and tables are representing unemployment in the US. This article is about "Unemployment" not "Unemployment in the US". How about putting up some statistics that represent Unemployment in other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi alm (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been remedied by removing U.S. charts from main sections and limiting them to the U.S. section.Peace01234 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting info in "United States Bureau of Labor Statistics"

At the start of the section "United States Bureau of Labor Statistics", the age is quoted as "15 yr old", but the graph at the end of the section is for "16 yr old". Why the discrepancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I reread the text and realized there's no discrepancy: "of those over 15 years of age" is the same as "persons age 16 years and older" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Types of unemployment rearrangement

Types of unemployment was tagged for split, but the remaining summaries would have overlapped completely with that section of this article, so I merged the two. I think it would be a good idea to smooth and shorten this section not by re-creating the "types of unemployment" article, but by moving details into more specific subarticles, such as frictional unemployment. I have created or linked some as needed, but alas, I don't have time to rewrite anything further at the moment. -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Map is useless

The map at the top of this page is 100% unreadable to anyone with even the slightest amount of red/green colorblindness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.32.169 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is unemployment predictable five years in advance, but only when it's bad?

I keep seeing news stories like [1] that keep claiming that the U.S. unemployment rate will stay the same for longer and longer - now one is claiming that rates will normalize in 2015. What's odd is that I don't recall anyone predicting the higher rate more than one year in advance, generally less. Is there genuine economics behind these predictions, or some propagandistic agenda? Wnt (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

job-search programs for the unemployed

I would include information about the job-search programs for the unemployed (career counseling for the unemployed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.84.132.44 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

lay critique

A good, strong attempt at objectivity, but still somewhat biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.31.249 (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Effects of Unemployment

The escalating rate of unemployment among youths in the community is one of the many factors that are encouraging the emergence of street gangs in many cities across the world. The youth, who lack legitimate means of livelihood, typically are exposed to a culture that encourages criminal behaviors. The unemployed youths survive by engaging in various activities such as petty trading, casual work, borrowing, stealing, pick pocketing, prostitution, touting and other illegal activities. Others have become drunkards and have turned their entire life to drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. Communities are becoming increasingly criminalized, especially with the proliferation of youth gangs.

In most cases juvenile offenders who entirely dependent on the mother, are low down in the economic scale. Mostly they are indifferently clad, and in many cases they have the pinched appearances of children who have been indifferently fed. The want of proper clothing is an economic disadvantage of some importance for this class of children. It often prevents them from getting eItalic textmployment. Clothes, it is true are the merest external of respectability, but in great many circumstances these externals are the only tests employers go by, and a youth in rags will always be looked upon with suspicion in the labor market hence finding it difficult to get employment. Author: Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.111.250 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

graphic

Graphic is really hard to intuit out because darker or lighter means higher or lower levels of unemployment depending on which segments one is comparing, and some very high and very low rates of unemployment converge to the same color. It would also be completely indicipherable to someone who is red/green colorblind. The talk page for the graphic shows what I feel to be a better image, would it be possible to use that instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.186.162 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to the lead image, File:World_map_of_countries_by_rate_of_unemployment.svg, and suggesting File:World_Unemployment.gif as an alternative. Your point about red-green colorblindness is well taken. The problem I see with the gif is that its increments are coarser, which might have the effect of providing less information about the various countries. The best solution, I think, would be to redo the current map with a different color scheme. I'm not sure that editing svg images are within my capability, otherwise I'd take a shot at it. In the meantime, which takes precedence: accessibility or detail? I don't know the answer. If no one else comments here within a few days, you might consider swapping the images and see if anyone complains. Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Short "Effective unemployment rate" stub should be folded into this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_unemployment_rate

Whole article, with its sole cite, Sept. 4, 2011:

The unemployment rate announced by United States Department of Labor does not include those too discouraged to look for work any longer or those part-time workers that are working fewer hours than they would like. By adding these two groups to the unemployment rate, the rate becomes effective unemployment rate.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the United States keeps an alternative unemployment rate indicator similar to the effective unemployment rate called U6.[1]

[edit] See also

   Underemployment

[edit] References

   ^ John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen (1995). "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures" Monthly Labor Review, October: p. 24. [1]
    
   , U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retrieved March 6, 2009.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.181 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned section? Definitely out of place

The following section in the article seems grossly out of place, considering that it shows up in the middle of discussion about the Great Depression of the 30's:

About 25 million people in the world's 30 richest countries will have lost their jobs between the end of 2007 and the end of 2010 as the economic downturn pushes most countries into recession.[24] In April 2010, the U.S. unemployment rate was 9.9%, but the government’s broader U-6 unemployment rate was 17.1%.[25] There are six unemployed people, on average, for each available job.[26] Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.[27] The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948.[28] 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009.[29] Officially, Detroit’s unemployment rate is 27%, but the Detroit News suggests that nearly half of this city’s working-age population may be unemployed.[30] 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009.[26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.35.254 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

long intro

don't mean to single out this one article as this strikes me as a common problem in wikipedia articles, but the intro is not an intro it's an article unto itself. IMHO an intro should provide readers with a brief overview of the subject matter and help them determine if they've actually found the subject matter they're looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.196.235 (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Georgist theory of Cause of Unemployment

the removal of the Cause section with the Henry George's theory is vandalism. Its one thing if stylistically it might be better under Definitions,types, theories, then move it to that section just don't delete it.

From my perspective. Theories, aka "theories about proposed causes" should be its own section, separate from definitions (which is really about measurement -- you have to define before you can measure.) And "types" is a whole different section.

The Georgist theory about how land speculaion leads to unemployment and recissions/depressions (henry george, 1979, progress and poverty, ...) has got to be presented or the aricle is NPOV. 69.250.187.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

Unemployment by Ethnicity - compensated for by other factors

There was a topic tonight (11/8/2011) on the CBS news, where one commentator said that Hispanics are discriminated against and so they have a higher unemployment rate. Is there a compilation of statistical census records that show the unemployment rate for hispanics versus other ethnicities when the variables of education, experience, job type, and state are compensated for. [ For example, Puerto Rico, as a state/district, has a 17% unemployment rate and is >90% hispanic. So, including Puerto Rico in the national average unemployment will skew the results to look like hispanic discrimination. Another example is that hispanics gravitated toward construction jobs (10%), while only 5% of whites work in construction - so a housing market crash affects hispanics twice that of whites. ] I would like to see if there is actual discrimination against hispanics, or if there are other driving factors that are unrelated to discrimination. D c weber (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Needs discussion of Labor Department's “U-6″

Needs discussion of Labor Department's “U-6″ -- which adds the nominal rate plus: the underemployed, comprised of “marginally attached workers” who neither have jobs nor are seeking jobs, but say they would like a job and have been looking for work until recently and plus workers who are part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but could only find a part-time position. The U-6 rate is considerably larger than the official rate, often around double the official rate. It is a key measure of actual work availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs discussion of BLS Employment-population ratio

Needs discussion of BLS Employment-population ratio. What it is, why it matters, where to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional US government statistics provide more accurate and current picture

Available US government reports include

monthly household survey

weekly jobless claims report

daily tax receipts report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede too long

The introduction is way too long.Phmoreno (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

#Causes?

What happened to this Causes section? Vilonermo (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

technology

The word technology appears only once in this entire article. I think it goes without saying the relationship between technology and unemployment deserves its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

hidden unemployment?

"Official statistics often underestimate unemployment rates because of hidden unemployment" remove, or clarify and source.

Add the following:

"these statistics almost surely undercount the number of unemployed, particularly as some governments like theUnited States consciously under- estimate unemployment (Goolsbee 2003)

Goolsbee, Austan. 2003. The index of missing economic indicators: The unemployment myth. The New York Times, November 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Matching

In modern macroeconomics, unemployment (i.e., the labor market in general) is explained with a search-and-matching model as developed by Diamond, Mortensen, and Pissarides (see, for instance, the New Keynesian DSGE model by Blanchard and Galí). The three were awarded the 2010 Nobel Price in Economics, which underlines that this approach is now mainstream in economics. Why is it, that this article does not mention this approach? --bender235 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image

I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Vilonermo (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an additional discussion of the deleted graph at [2] and the subsequent section. EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: the text you removed isn't in the pages you said it was in the edit summaries of [3] or [4]. What gives? EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The one from China Daily in this diff is too-close paraphrasing of the second-last sentence of the first page of the source. The other one has a wrong url in the edit summary, it was from here. Sorry for the mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Unemployment rate

Should not the unemployment *rate* be the change in unemployment over a given time? Not absolute unemployment which is what I believe is given as the definition? If I am not mistaken, the "rate" does not include the long term unemployed (which the listed definition would include). Also the BLS web page says people who have not looked for work in x weeks are also not included which also puts a time into the equation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.168.219.171 (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Unemployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How to end unemployment

I don't expect this to be incorporated into the article as it could be seen as 'original research' and people are not likely to agree to include it, but this is how, taken from here:

If we pay people a higher hourly rate when they work less we can fix most problems in the world. This includes
 - war
 - unemployment
 - child abuse
 - crime
 
An example of how this could work is paying someone 1.2 times their normal wage rate for the first 24 hours per week of work, then 0.7 times their normal rate for hours after that. The reason this works is that some people want to work more than 24 hours per week, so people would not be able to agree on how much a normal person should work.
 
Along with creating over a billion jobs worldwide, this would also lower costs like college tuition, housing, and health care in the United States and increase the share of national income that goes to worker compensation. Corporations in the US are making almost $1.8 trillion in profits per year, after taxes and all business costs such as CEO salaries.
 
Corporate executives, doctors, and even Presidents could all use this system. There is no reason for a President who takes 1000 days of vacation (while still doing some work) to make as much money as one with 50 vacation days.

There are other explanations, such as here, though most of them are longer. The goal of full employment is included in the UN Charter, and it has also been mentioned resolutions such as Resolution 308 on 25 November 1949. Regarding that resolution, which mentions things like "a high and stable level of international investment", "expansion of social services", "low-cost housing", and "private capital investment", 41 member states voted yes, 5 voted no, 2 abstained and 11 didn't participate in voting.2601:600:8500:B2D9:8D9F:2DE3:8AB4:356C (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography on Costs of Unemployment

I am compiling a list of sources to add to the section on the costs of unemployment. Amato, Paul R. and Brett Beattie. 2011. “Does the Unemployment Rate Affect the Divorce Rate? An Analysis of State Data 1960-2005.” Social Science Research 40(3):705-715. Blau, Gary, Tony Petrucci and John McClendon. 2013. “Correlates of Life Satisfaction and Unemployment Stigma and the Impact of Length of Unemployment on a Unique Unemployed Sample.” Career Development International 18(3):257-280. Blustein, David L., Saliha Kozan and Alice Connors-Kellgren. 2013. “Unemployment and Underemployment: A Narrative Analysis about Loss.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 82(3): 256-265. Brand, Jennie E. and Juli S. Thomas. 2014. “Job Displacement among Single Mothers: Effects on Children's Outcomes in Young Adulthood.” American Journal of Sociology 119(4):955-1001. Daly, Mary C. and Elliot M. Marks. 2014. “The Labor Market in the Aftermath of the Great Recession.” Business Economics 49(3):149-155. Garrett-Peters, Raymond. 2009. “‘If I Don't have to Work Anymore, Who Am I?: Job Loss and Collaborative Self-Concept Repair.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 38(5):547-583. Goul Andersen, Jorgen. 2002. “Coping with Long-Term Unemployment: Economic Security, Labour Market Integration and Well-being. Results from a Danish Panel Study, 1994-1999.” International Journal of Social Welfare 11(3):178-190. Johnson, Anya M. and Paul R. Jackson. 2012. “Golden Parachutes: Changing the Experience of Unemployment for Managers.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(2):474-485. McVittie, Chris, Andy McKinlay and Sue Widdicombe. 2008. “Passive and Active Non-Employment: Age, Employment and the Identities of Older Non-Working People.” Journal of Aging Studies 22(3):248-255. Michniewicz, Kenneth S., Joseph A. Vandello and Jennifer K. Bosson. 2014. “Men's (Mis)Perceptions of the Gender Threatening Consequences of Unemployment.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 70(3-4):88-97. Mossakowski, Krysia N. 2008. “Is the Duration of Poverty and Unemployment a Risk Factor for Heavy Drinking?” Social Science & Medicine 67(6):947-955. Sharone, Ofer. 2007. “Constructing Unemployed Job Seekers as Professional Workers: The Depoliticizing Work-Game of Job Searching.” Qualitative Sociology 30(4):403-416. Hcollins23 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Hannah Collins

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unemployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111026075949/http://eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've got a job for someone

There's quite a bit to be said about job creation, especially in the US. Many laws and programs are already covered on Wikipedia. A standalone article would make sense, but that's way too dense for me. Just putting it out there, if anyone's feeling idle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Unemployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214064933/https://future-finance.org/chapter/the-role-of-money-in-the-economy/why-money-matters/ to http://future-finance.org/chapter/the-role-of-money-in-the-economy/why-money-matters/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2002%2F11%2F17%2FBU239666.DTL
Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20130905171428/http%3A//wwwdev.nber.org/dec2008.html to http://wwwdev.nber.org/dec2008.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025150953/http://ashleymac.econ.vt.edu/ashley/3204/brenner.pdf to http://ashleymac.econ.vt.edu/ashley/3204/brenner.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QZWT5l8U?url=http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm to http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090127051620/https://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1929_39depression.html to http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/English/economy/1929_39depression.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet/detail/ODLodl~6~6~51795~105151%3A1983-08
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223210842/http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_uicalc_index to http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_uicalc_index
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601214002/http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/ to http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Unemployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Global Definition of Unemployment

The International Labour Organization (ILO) describes unemployed people as those who are: without work; currently available for work; and deliberately seeking work. The concept of ‘without work’ is used to distinguish unemployed people from the employed. A person must not have undertaken any work at all (not even for one hour) during the reference period. Is this a realistic way to define unemployment? This is becoming very misleading as large numbers are now forced into casual employment of very short duration and are still classified as employed and hence ignored in reporting by the media. (110.21.49.142 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

That is what the sources say, so that is what we use. Working part time but wanting to work full time is generally called "underemployed" in the US, although that is still a bit informal. Going to remove tag, as the current definition seems to meet international standards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Political poster as source

I notice that the source for this sentence "By the spring of 1983, unemployment in the United Kingdom had risen by 6% in the previous 12 months; compared to 10% in Japan, 23% in the United States of America and 34% in West Germany" is a billboard produced by the Conservative Party during an election campaign. This seems like a not-exactly-neutral source. Are we 100% sure the figures on the poster were not selective/misleading? It would be better to have official figures from a non-partisan source. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Chronic unemployment

I've redirected this here. Maybe someone would like to add a section about this concept? Ping User:Volunteer Marek. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

″== Hidden Unemployment. ==

Stop doing vandalism in Hidden unemployment section. I deleted the section about hidden unemployment in socialist countries and Polish Peoples republic last year because of complete lack of sources. Now @147.161.167.97: have returned and flooded the section with sources. I have read them all. None of them support what is written in the section. They were added purely to create visibility of that section being well sourced. Lets go over the sources one by one. [5] The article mentions that after market changes in 1990 several million people in PPR were unemployed. This has nothing to do with hidden unemployment, since theese people were employed, until they were fired from the market enterprises. [6] The article states "When state-owned enterprises began to collapse, the registered unemployment rate rose to 6.5%." That means once again, that there was no unemployment, since unemployed people appeared only after market transition, when they were fired. It is not "hidden" unemployment, not in the way it is described in the article. [7] "There were no unemployed people, but we did have an army of people doing unproductive, pointless and economically unjustified work." Once again, what does this have to do with hidden unemployment? People were employed, they were only fired afterwards, which Created unemployment. [8] "Empty" jobs - employees who did not generate any added value (which was common in the People's Republic of Poland, when companies employed many more employees than the actual demand was)." An oxymoronic sentence. Unemployment by definition means absence of job/work. [9] dead link from a year ago. The rest of the section updated by @147.161.167.97: is completely unsourced gossip, with phrases such as "There are no official statistics", "but it is common knowledge" and "in public consciousness". The sources provided do not correspond with what is written in the section, and do not prove the existance of hidden unemployment in PPR, unless you want to change the definition of hidden unemployment, which should be reflected in the section. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

responde to the above: Please stop lying, and accusing of vandalism - please don't delete information just because you do not like it or you are having to grasp the concept at hand, there is no conflict with the definition in the least. Creating a fake vacancy is not legitimate employment, but literally a form of hidden unemployment. It's literally no different from leaving people unemployed and letting them live off them welfare state benefits, but for the sake of propaganda and statistics they are given fake employment on paper only, not in reality though. The sources literally support the presented information. To over the sources in Polish: https://www.gowork.pl/poradnik/4/kariera/bezrobocie-utajone-co-to-jest-definicja-i-przyklady/ The entire article is about hidden unemployment and in explains in examples how in socialist states fake vacancies are being created to fake statistics and a lot of employed do not do any of the work and how in the 90s it suddenly became apparent there is a huge unemployment issue that had been concealed in PRL. Also refers to agrarian unemployment and early retirement. http://www.poloniusz.org/ukryci-bezrobotni-w-prl-u/ Describes how in PRL officially there was officiall no unemployment and everyone had been paid a salary even if they did not make any labour of any value, which is a method of concealing the real scale of unemployment. https://www.bankier.pl/wiadomosc/W-PRL-u-nie-bylo-bezrobotnych-Wiec-skad-sie-wzieli-3138012.html Again, please see how the fact that people given fake unproductiuve vacancies is referred to as hidden unemployment, that after the liberation of Poland became officially apparent as opposed to concealed with fake vacancies, as well as it describes early pensions, etc. https://ideologia.pl/bezrobocie-w-polsce/ Refers to how hidden unemployment it's often called agrarian unemployment, how it's manipulating statistics by creating fake agricultural vacancies to make it seem like there is no unemployment. There is no oxyorons here, those people were not doing any jobs at all. It was a bureaucratic fiction that they were, to hide the fact they are unemployed. https://forsal.pl/hasla/912046,bezrobocie-ukryte.html Explains how hidden unemployemnt is the kind of unemployment that is not reflected in statistics and is often associated with countryside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.221.47 (talk • contribs)

IP editor, hidden unemployment refers to the statistics not capturing certain kinds of unemployed people because of how terms are defined, which in turn changes how the data is collected. What you're describing is a Make-work job, which is a different thing altogether. Perhaps this is simply a problem of translation from Polish to English? - MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

response to the above: this is the first time I hear the term "Make work job". Hoever, in Polish you call it Bezrobocie Ukryte, Bezrobocie Tajne, etc. - literally "Hidden Unemployment". Which would lead to the conclusion that "make work job" is not a different thing, but a form of Hidden Unemployment that hasn't been addressed on the page, but needs to be from the international perspective. This is the main, most basic meaning of Hidden Unemployment in former 2nd World countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.221.47 (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to add to the above: maybe the information described in my previous edits should be added to the article about make-work jobs, and with hidden unemployment, there should be a link to the said aricle added stating how in other languages it is also considered to be a form of hidden unemployment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.221.47 (talk • contribs)

I think it would belong on make-work jobs. We shouldn't link there from the hidden unemployment section - they are different concepts. That would be a bit like linking from Almond to Daydream because Polish people say 'Myśleć o niebieskich migdałach'. - MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hiding unemployment, concealing unemployment. As you can see the descriptions of hidden unemplyment in linked sources do not only describe the make-work jobs, but also the other kinds of hidden unemplyment. Using the proverb with metaphorical blue almonds is a completely false comparison. Adding a sentence with a link to make-work jobs saying that depenjding on cultural context this is also considered a form of hidden unemployemnt - as its goal is literally to conceal the unemployment statistics, is by all means appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.221.47 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The point is that the 'Hidden employment' term used in English refers to statistical anomalies, not deliberate attempts to hide or conceal anything. We cannot confuse the two things. It is not true that make-work jobs are considered to be hidden unemployment, - they're considered to be make-work jobs everywhere, just under a different name because of the linguistic difference. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

As you can see in the linked up Polish sources this is literally untrue. Make-work jobs are clearly considered a form of Hidden Unemployment in Polish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.221.47 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Not every phrase can be mechanically translated. MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

In that case there should added the kind of the link that says "do not confuse with" redirecting to the orther article, but I don't know how to make it.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hcollins23. Peer reviewers: Hcollins23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unemployment

Unemployment, according to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), is people above a specified age (usually 15)[2] not being in paid employment or self-employment but currently available for work during the reference period.[3] 2402:8100:2569:126A:17F7:D477:9061:1717 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"Безработный Пенсионер".

Официальный. А потому Конституционным Правом получаю пособие по безработице инженера. За 43 года рабочего стажа. Закон есть закон ! 85.140.12.172 (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"Transitional job" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Transitional job has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 26 § Transitional job until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Work relief program" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Work relief program has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 26 § Work relief program until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Employment creation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Employment creation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 26 § Employment creation until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Out of work" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Out of work has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 26 § Out of work until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Disoccupation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Disoccupation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 26 § Disoccupation until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

^ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization Retrieved August 5, 2010.
^ Steven E. Haugen, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Measures of Labor Underutilization from the Current Population Survey", Working Paper 424, March 2009, page 11.
^ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, [10]. Retrieved August 22, 2007.

[1] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization Retrieved August 5, 2010.

[2] Steven E. Haugen, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Measures of Labor Underutilization from the Current Population Survey", Working Paper 424, March 2009, page 11.

[3] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, [10]. Retrieved August 22, 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]